Priests were allowed to marry at first

[Curious_Hobbit]

I just have a quick simple question about the church demanding celibacy from priests. Since priests were allowed to marry centuries ago, and apostolic tradition and sacred scripture don’t require a priest to be celibate, what authority does the church have to demand priests to be celibate? If someone wanted to be a priest and wanted to be married too, wouldn’t that person have a legitimate complaint?

I’m not trying to bash the church, I just want to know the specifics of this issue. Would this be considered development of doctrine? Thanks!

 

[jonpd]

I just have a quick simple question about the church demanding celibacy from priests. Since priests were allowed to marry centuries ago, and apostolic tradition and sacred scripture don’t require a priest to be celibate, what authority does the church have to demand priests to be celibate? If someone wanted to be a priest and wanted to be married too, wouldn’t that person have a legitimate complaint?

I’m not trying to bash the church, I just want to know the specifics of this issue. Would this be considered development of doctrine? Thanks!

Priestly celibacy is not a dogma but a discipline. The Church has a right to impose a discipline on its members, just like the company I work for has the right to impose a dress code, for example. If some one wanted to both be a priest and be married they have to make a choice which matters more for them, or more properly, they need to pray about it and decide which vocation God is calling them to, family life or the priesthood.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Unless one is Eastern Catholic where married men can be ordained as priests.

My grandfather was a married EC priest and his wife, my grandmother, was the daughter of a married EC priest (her dad, Father Hrynevych was personally helping with the construction of his new parish church and came home drenched in sweat one evening. He soon developed a high fever and died that very night).

My own personal view is that it is high time for the Latin Church to allow married priests. Not force them on this score, just allow those who wish to be married to get ordained in the married state. There are already married priest-converts in the Latin Church.

Married priests in the parishes is a much better idea nowadays and I’m NOT referring to you know what.

Married priests can set a great example of how to be model, exemplary husbands and fathers.

Alex

 

[Pregustator]

I have no personal problem with allowing Latin Rite priests to marry, at this stage. Were Rome to eventually permit it, fine with me. Makes no difference to me, one way or the other.

I think, however, that some people would imagine that would magically solve the Church’s vocations crisis, as if there are alot of men out there just dying to balance a career, a family, and the Roman Catholic priesthood, all at once. Or, if a career and the priesthood are one and the same, attempting to raise a family on a priest’s income.

I don’t think young men, for the most part, decide against the priesthood because of the celibacy rule. I think they decide against it because there isn’t anything about it that impresses them anymore. Look at the church 75 years ago when vocations flourished. Celibacy obviously wasn’t an issue back then. The church had so many priests they didn’t know what to do with all of them.

In the past, a curate would wait a long time to become a pastor. Today, a young seminarian can be ordained a priest and immediately be named the pastor of one or more parishes.

There was something about yesterday’s priesthood that attracted men like flies. And there is something about today’s priesthood that simply does not. It seems to me that the priesthood–or at least the perception of the priesthood–was desacralized beginning in the 1960s. Once that desacralization took a firm hold in the culture, it began to seem like nothing special…just a career…a career with bad pay, no perks, and a singularly monotone wardrobe.

Now, in the wake of the successive abuse crises, not only is the priesthood no longer that greatly respected thing it once was, it is downright suspect and even despised by some.

So, allow priests to marry, if you will. But don’t imagine that’s the solution to the vocations crisis.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I have no personal problem with allowing Latin Rite priests to marry, at this stage. Were Rome to eventually permit it, fine with me. Makes no difference to me, one way or the other.

I know you know this but so some people don’t get confused I am going to comment.

Once a man is ordained he can never marry. The Church has never allowed ordained men to get married.

When we speak of married priests we are always speaking of the ordination of married men. That is a man must be married before he is ordained to the diaconate.

 

[Julian0404]

The church made it mandatory in the 2nd century AD that priests were to be celibate. The EC Church will not allow a man, once ordained to marry, but if already married can become a priest.

 

[gmcbroom]

He is correct. When you are ordained whether Deacon, Priest, or Bishop you are not to be married after the ordination. the only time there is an exception and its extremely rare is when a Deacon has a small child and his wife had died. Then on a case by case basis for the sake of the child the Deacon may get approval but like I said rare atleast according to what I’d read and that was on this site( So take it with a grain of salt). But, the one thing that can not be overlooked is that only celibate priests can be Bishops. So a priest if married would never be ordained a bishop while he’s married.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I just have a quick simple question about the church demanding celibacy from priests. Since priests were allowed to marry centuries ago, and apostolic tradition and sacred scripture don’t require a priest to be celibate, what authority does the church have to demand priests to be celibate? If someone wanted to be a priest and wanted to be married too, wouldn’t that person have a legitimate complaint?

I’m not trying to bash the church, I just want to know the specifics of this issue. Would this be considered development of doctrine? Thanks!

Priests cannot normally marry. What is common is for married men to be ordained priests.

Celibacy isn’t doctrine. Its a discipline. The Church can change her mind on it anytime without consequence.

 

[ProVobis]

I know you know this but so some people don’t get confused I am going to comment.

Once a man is ordained he can never marry. The Church has never allowed ordained men to get married.

When we speak of married priests we are always speaking of the ordination of married men. That is a man must be married before he is ordained to the diaconate.

That would lead more men into hurried marriages, wouldn’t it? I would think once a man decides it’s his calling to be a priest, he should think solely on that vocation only. There should be enough single and unattached men out there who would, under the right circumstances, be attracted to the priesthood.

 

[puzzleannie]

I just have a quick simple question about the church demanding celibacy from priests. Since priests were allowed to marry centuries ago, and apostolic tradition and sacred scripture don’t require a priest to be celibate, what authority does the church have to demand priests to be celibate? If someone wanted to be a priest and wanted to be married too, wouldn’t that person have a legitimate complaint?

I’m not trying to bash the church, I just want to know the specifics of this issue. Would this be considered development of doctrine? Thanks!

so many falsehoods, hard to know where to start
there is ample support in scripture and apostolic tradition for priestly celibacy, try St. Paul for starters
The Church has all authority on earth, granted by Christ himself, that is what the New Testament is about
The person who want to have his cake and eat it too has NO legitimate complaint, he knows the demands and charism of the sacrament of matrimony, and of Holy Orders, before he undertakes either. It makes as much sense to claim a man who wants to marry, and also play around with many women, has a legitimate complaint because the Church demands marital fidelity.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

so many falsehoods, hard to know where to start
there is ample support in scripture and apostolic tradition for priestly celibacy, try St. Paul for starters
The Church has all authority on earth, granted by Christ himself, that is what the New Testament is about
The person who want to have his cake and eat it too has NO legitimate complaint, he knows the demands and charism of the sacrament of matrimony, and of Holy Orders, before he undertakes either. It makes as much sense to claim a man who wants to marry, and also play around with many women, has a legitimate complaint because the Church demands marital fidelity.

Actually, when St Paul talked about celibacy, he was talking about everyone, not just clergy. Paul recommended that if someone was not married, they shouldn’t seek out a partner and that a man or woman who is celibate can devote their lives to God better. (And I agree - but only if that person really does dedicate their life to God).

That had nothing to do with priests, but with everyone. In fact, St Paul did mention that bishops themselves were to be men of one wife . . . Bishops were married and Latin Catholic priests were married too and had children. St Patrick of Ireland’s father was a married priest as well.

My grandmother was a Prebytera or wife of a priest. I was blessed to know her and to benefit from her example. The entire parish was, and they told me so, especially after her funeral. The women of the parish would often go to her, not to her priestly husband, for advice too.

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

Once a man is ordained he can never marry. The Church has never allowed ordained men to get married.

I know that permanent deacons can be, in very special circumstances, be allowed to re-marry. Wouldn’t this apply to married priests? For example, they have very small children that would benefit from the care of a mother?

 

[JHow]

Peter was married when Jesus called him, according to the Original Catholic Encyclopedia (located on CAF):

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Peter%2C_Apostle%2C_Saint

The Apostle Andrew was his brother, and the Apostle Philip came from the same town. Simon settled in Capharnaum, where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matt., viii, 14; Luke, iv, 38) at the beginning of Christ’s public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition that Peter’s wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi, ed. cit., III, 306).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Peter was married when Jesus called him, according to the Original Catholic Encyclopedia (located on CAF):

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Peter%2C_Apostle%2C_Saint

There is a long line or married Popes, even a father-and-son Pope

 

[At_Trent]

Many matters were discussed and ruled on at Trent (I love that phrase … At Trent :knight2: )

The Council of Trent considered the matter and at its twenty-fourth session decreed that marriage after ordination was invalid: “If any one saith, that clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity, are able to contract marriage, and that being contracted it is valid, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical law, or vow; and that the contrary is no thing else than to condemn marriage; and, that all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage; let him be anathema: seeing that God refuses not that gift to those who ask for it rightly, neither does He suffer us to be tempted above that which we are able” (canon 9).

It also decreed, concerning the relative dignity of marriage and celibacy: “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.”[46]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy

Being a priest is a full time job. It’s all about Chastity.

From an excellent article

The discipline of celibacy among priests is one of the distinctive marks of the Roman Catholic tradition. Anyone who chooses to become a priest accepts the discipline. The Eastern rite, Lutheranism, and Episcopalianism, on the other hand, have a long tradition of married priests and the infrastructure and experience to handle it. However, Eastern rite priests and married priests who have converted from Lutheranism or Episcopalianism are NOT allowed to marry after their ordination or remarry after the death of their wife. In addition, the Eastern Church only chooses bishops from among their celibate, unmarried priests, clearly demonstrating that they see an inherent value in the nature of celibacy.
catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html

 

[puzzleannie]

May I invite OP, since he is asking for an apologetics of the discipline (not doctrine) of priestly celibacy that he visit the apologetics forum and search the many fine and helpful discussions there.

 

[GoldenLight]

This is an interesting subject, something I have occasion wondered about is this…

When I was 16 ( I’m now 49) my brother ( 14 years older than me) got married, he was quite good friends with the priest being that they were both around 30… The priest insisted that my brother had a co-celebrant ( if that’s the correct term) even though my brother really just wanted this priest… A month after my brother wed the priest left the church to marry a nun…
I can understand why he felt the need to have a 2nd priest present at my brothers wedding, however I what is the position regarding other ceromonies that took place earlier ? Also, what would be their position within the Church?
It was obviously the hardest decision of this priests life… They sorta disappeared from everything and everyone they knew… My brother said it would have meant ex-communication for them. Would this have been the case ?

 

[ConstantineTG]

This is an interesting subject, something I have occasion wondered about is this…

When I was 16 ( I’m now 49) my brother ( 14 years older than me) got married, he was quite good friends with the priest being that they were both around 30… The priest insisted that my brother had a co-celebrant ( if that’s the correct term) even though my brother really just wanted this priest… A month after my brother wed the priest left the church to marry a nun…
I can understand why he felt the need to have a 2nd priest present at my brothers wedding, however I what is the position regarding other ceromonies that took place earlier ? Also, what would be their position within the Church?
It was obviously the hardest decision of this priests life… They sorta disappeared from everything and everyone they knew… My brother said it would have meant ex-communication for them. Would this have been the case ?

Perhaps with knowledge about his plans, the priest just wanted to make sure that the Wedding’s validity will not be put into question. But given that he was a priest in good standing at the time of the wedding, then yes it is. Regardless of his sins, Christ’s acts through the Sacraments cannot be tainted nor diminished.

I’m trying to recall if this warrants an ex-communication or some other form of disciplinary measure from the Church. Surely he’s been defrocked for his actions. If he’s a diocesan priest, he’ll have a lighter punishment than the nun. Nuns make vows, diocesan priests make promises of celibacy. But if he’s a religious priest, then he’s in the same boat. Basically breaking a promise is not as bad as breaking a vow.

 

[PJM]

=Curious Hobbit;7199285]I just have a quick simple question about the church demanding celibacy from priests. Since priests were allowed to marry centuries ago, and apostolic tradition and sacred scripture don’t require a priest to be celibate, what authority does the church have to demand priests to be celibate? If someone wanted to be a priest and wanted to be married too, wouldn’t that person have a legitimate complaint?

I’m not trying to bash the church, I just want to know the specifics of this issue. Would this be considered development of doctrine? Thanks!

***My dear friend in Christ,

The manner you posed your question is incomplete and VERY misleading.

A call to the priesthoood originats with God, not he man being called. FURTHER the call by necessity requires said applicant to utilitize there minds, intellects nd FREEWILLS. NO-ONE is forced o cohersed into the priesthood.

While celbiacy does continue as the NORM for Catholic Priesthood. All candidates are aware of this and FREELY agree to this requirement, that permits Priest to expend all there efforts on behalf of there God.***

1Cor.7: 6-7 “I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

Matt.19:8-11 “He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” But he [Jesus] said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. “

As to the authority issue: Lok at Mtt. 16:15-19, and Matt. 18:18. The terms “Loose and Bind” at the time they were spoken were common Rabbitical Terms of LAW, inforceable in Jewish courts.

The Terms relate directly and precisely to POWER OF GOVERNANCE. Walled cites were common for the sake of fortifications. Typically eack major city had it’s own ing who appointed a “keeper of the key’s” who had total and complete anonomyous control of day to day operations. They made and inforced laws, set laws asside ect. THIS IS THE KIND OF AUTHORITY CHRIST GAVE PETER AND HIS APOSTLES, knowing that soon He would no-longer be in there midst to run His Church. Early Church Fathers understood and taugt and OBEYED this precept.

 

[Layman]

A Roman Catholic priest cannot marry.
A Roman Catholic married man cannot become a priest.
Roman Catholic priests, who have wives, are converts from Protestantism. They are a small minority.
Celibacy is a higher estate in the Catholic church.

Any Roman Catholic man who believes he has a vocation to be both married and a priest is mistaken. God does not call you to estates which are impossible.

There are calls for the Roman Catholic Church to allow married Roman Catholic men to be priests. The great majority of these calls come from lay people. Priests don’t seem to be as agitated.

I do not see any benefit to the Church to allowing married Roman Catholic men to be priests. ‘Being better at counselling married people’ is not a given, nor is it a good swop for the sacrifice of celibacy.