Question about Celibacy for Protestants and Converts

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Isn’t it a little unfair though, to mandate that those who are Catholics and become priests on their own may not marry before ordination, but the Church then turns around and allows former Anglican priests with a family to be a marred priest in the Latin Rite?

No, for three reasons:

(A) A Latin Catholic who joins the priesthood knows what he’s getting into. He freely chooses to commit to celibacy. An Anglican priest who in all likelihood has a genuine vocation to ordained ministry, by contrast, had no idea (presumably) that he will one day enter the Catholic Church. If the Church didn’t make this exception, there’d be only two options: refuse to allow this convert to become a priest (and if all his training and experience is toward this specific calling, that might be a financial and not just a spiritual hardship for him), or attempt to impose on him celibacy even though he is still married.

The most just option is, in his case, ordaining him to the priesthood and not imposing celibacy.

(B) A celibate Latin Catholic priest and a married Latin Catholic priest are actually both forbidden to marry - it’s just that the latter happens to already be married. If his wife dies, the Church will not permit him to marry again. He will be expected to serve as a celibate priest for the rest of his life, and just as a Latin seminarian understands that he is committing himself to celibacy, so too does the Anglican convert understand that, should he accept priesthood in the Latin Church, he is committing himself to celibacy if his wife should die.

(C) This sort of goes back to the first point, but I’ll post it anyway:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’ So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’ When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” - Jesus, Matt. 20:1-16

 

[Nicea325]

Isn’t it a little unfair though, to mandate that those who are Catholics and become priests on their own may not marry before ordination, but the Church then turns around and allows former Anglican priests with a family to be a marred priest in the Latin Rite?

It is not unfair at all. A Latin Rite Catholic who is male knows exactly what he is choosing as a vocation. On the other hand, the church cannot force a married Anglican to divorce his wife in order to be a priest. They are two different cases with different implications.

 

[Nicea325]

No, for three reasons:

(A) A Latin Catholic who joins the priesthood knows what he’s getting into. He freely chooses to commit to celibacy. An Anglican priest who in all likelihood has a genuine vocation to ordained ministry, by contrast, had no idea (presumably) that he will one day enter the Catholic Church. If the Church didn’t make this exception, there’d be only two options: refuse to allow this convert to become a priest (and if all his training and experience is toward this specific calling, that might be a financial and not just a spiritual hardship for him), or attempt to impose on him celibacy even though he is still married.

The most just option is, in his case, ordaining him to the priesthood and not imposing celibacy.

(B) A celibate Latin Catholic priest and a married Latin Catholic priest are actually both forbidden to marry - it’s just that the latter happens to already be married. If his wife dies, the Church will not permit him to marry again. He will be expected to serve as a celibate priest for the rest of his life, and just as a Latin seminarian understands that he is committing himself to celibacy, so too does the Anglican convert understand that, should he accept priesthood in the Latin Church, he is committing himself to celibacy if his wife should die.

(C) This sort of goes back to the first point, but I’ll post it anyway:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’ So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’ When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’ When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’ He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’ Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last.” - Jesus, Matt. 20:1-16

Nicely said!

 

[Godith]

In your native faith tradition, how was celibacy presented? (I am referring to purposeful, lifelong celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom.) Was it encouraged? Was it even mentioned?

When I was an evangelical Protestant, I don’t think I ever heard a single sermon or Sunday School lesson on this topic. We talked about celibacy until marriage, but marriage was an assumption. You were supposed to be praying for your future spouse, because everyone has a future spouse. If you don’t marry, well maybe that’s permissible, but you’re missing out big-time. Even “singles ministry” was a means of gathering all the unmarried people together so hopefully they’d pair off and stop being unmarried.

Matthew 19:11-12 was one of those passages I don’t remember ever “seeing” until I started to investigate Catholicism: “Jesus replied, ‘Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.’” I do remember arguing with my cousin (who is now a pastor) about Paul’s words about celibacy and marriage in 1 Corinthians; his position was that Paul believed the world was about to end, so marriage was just a distraction. Since Paul was wrong, that passage is essentially irrelevant for us now, or so my cousin argued.

At any rate, I was wondering if anyone else had similar or different experiences with this. For me it was one more example of how the Catholic Church deals with the totality of Scripture instead of fragments.

I’ve had a very different experience to you. I’ve been part of an evangelical church for years, and that passage from Matthew is very familiar. Often, when marriage is discussed in sermons at our church, this passage is mentioned, to point out that not everyone is called to marriage, and some people are instead called to lifelong celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. As a single person, I have been encouraged to pray and understand from God if I have that calling (I don’t believe I do, as it happens).

I have always been taught that good theology necessarily involves taking the whole counsel of Scripture into account, not just fragments, and I’m afraid I disagree with your cousin.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

No, for three reasons:

(A) A Latin Catholic who joins the priesthood knows what he’s getting into. He freely chooses to commit to celibacy. An Anglican priest who in all likelihood has a genuine vocation to ordained ministry, by contrast, had no idea (presumably) that he will one day enter the Catholic Church. If the Church didn’t make this exception, there’d be only two options: refuse to allow this convert to become a priest (and if all his training and experience is toward this specific calling, that might be a financial and not just a spiritual hardship for him), or attempt to impose on him celibacy even though he is still married.

The most just option is, in his case, ordaining him to the priesthood and not imposing celibacy.

(B) A celibate Latin Catholic priest and a married Latin Catholic priest are actually both forbidden to marry - it’s just that the latter happens to already be married. If his wife dies, the Church will not permit him to marry again. He will be expected to serve as a celibate priest for the rest of his life, and just as a Latin seminarian understands that he is committing himself to celibacy, so too does the Anglican convert understand that, should he accept priesthood in the Latin Church, he is committing himself to celibacy if his wife should die.

(C) This sort of goes back to the first point, but I’ll post it anyway:

OK, that’s fair enough.

so you plan to remain celibate until marriage?

Have I mentioned that I am a no good sinner? This might be the correct time to point that out.

Not that it’s an excuse.