Questions from a Non-Catholic about a Celibate Clergy

[lanman87]

Since we will be disbanded soon I thought I would ask some questions from a Non-Catholic Christian that I’ve been meaning to ask but never got around to. I wish there was a Questions from non-Catholics forum on this site because I never knew were to put questions. Should I put them in the Non-Catholic section, the Apologetic Section, or somewhere else???

Anyway

Do Catholics consider priestly celibacy a part of the “Rule of Faith” that was handed on by the Apostles or is it something the Catholic church ruled on because of other reasons?

The reason I ask, I recently re-read a Church History book at in says that, while there were calls for priestly celibacy all the way back in the 4th Century, it appears that a celibate clergy didn’t really become the norm until the 12 century as a result of the Concordat of Worms in 1122 that ended the Investiture Controversy

Popes who wanted to reform the church pushed for a celibate clergy as a way to discourage simony. Men were purchasing a bishopric and then passing it on to their children, like a Feudal Lord. A synod in 1070 condemned simony and orders that the clergy be celibate. However, it took all the way until 1122 for a celibate clergy to be the rule for all clergy.

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

Especially, taken with the Bible instructions to appoint elders/presbyters who are Good Husbands and Good fathers (my very short paraphrase).

 

[1ke]

Do Catholics consider priestly celibacy a part of the “Rule of Faith” that was handed on by the Apostles or is it something the Catholic church ruled on because of other reasons?

It is not a doctrine. It is a discipline in the Latin Church.

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

No. In the Latin Church it is part of the tradition of the Church and unlikely to change.

Also note that in East and West, bishops come from celibates.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

First of all, not all Catholic clergy is “celibate”. Many Eastern Catholic priests are married, often with kids. There are also a percentage of Latin Catholic priests who are married, often with kids.

Second, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. You are correct about the main reasons why it was implemented. The Church could conceivably do away with the celibacy requirement, at least to the extent that priests could marry before they were ordained (and not after, including if their wife passes away).

Eastern Catholics are already fine with married priests. They’re used to it. It’s not a big deal to them.

Western Catholics are less used to the idea, and it’s likely some of them think a married priesthood would be great (benefits: the priest could relate better to married couples and parents, and some think a married priest would be a more stable and happy priest) and others are not sure about it (possible problems: the diocese now has to support a spouse and kids as well as the priest, the priest might not have as much time to devote to his parishioners, what should the role of the priest’s wife be, is she allowed to have a career outside the home, if she’s making money then should the diocese be supporting their family, where do the priest and his family live since they can’t be in the rectory with single priests, what happens when the priest has marital problems, etc.) .

 

[BartholomewB]

The ordination of married men was one of the proposals on the agenda at the Amazon Synod last year. Apparently it was discussed at great length but eventually the pope said No. Local bishops said it would help to overcome the desperate shortage of priests in the region, but apart from that, I don’t know exactly what the arguments were on both sides.

 

[TheLittleLady]

My boss is a married Latin Rite priest

 

[hope]

Especially, taken with the Bible instructions to appoint elders/presbyters who are Good Husbands and Good fathers (my very short paraphrase)

Your paraphrase is not quite accurate

Titus

For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,

on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
1 Tim
Therefore, a Bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, self-controlled decent, hospitable able to teach,

not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.

Some interpret this as they must be married which is not what the scripture say. It does not say they must be married but they can only marry once. To interpret it to mean that they had to be married would go against Jesus own words.

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Jesus was praising unmarried people for the sake of the kingdom. It would make no sense than for Paul, who was unmarried and had said that was a better choice to than require marriage.

Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do

 

[lanman87]

Some interpret this as they must be married which is not what the scripture say.

I didn’t say that they had to be married. What I meant was the instructions to Titus and Timothy were to use marriage and family as a gauge of their ethics, morality, and ability to influence and instruct.

 

[kapp19]

A few quick points…

1 - Celibacy is distinct from perpetual continence… the latter was much more universal, from the beginning, and is still actually binding on all Latin clergy (despite what many will say - for those interested, take a look at the fine work of Dr. Peters on this point - ALL the writings… and of course such a thing cannot be imposed “after the fact”/retroactively.)

2 - The 3 primary reasons for celibacy are economic (time, money, mobility), the witness-value (of living “halfway in Heaven” as a sign of contradiction, in imitation of Christ and His Mother), and the ascetic/mystical value for the sake of more easily elevating the mind in prayer and subjecting the body to the powers of the higher soul (which are strengthened by well-lived celibacy).

The major study on the ancient history of celibacy comes from Cochini - a great text.

 

[DivineMercy01]

There are also a percentage of Latin Catholic priests who are married, often with kids.

These priests are Anglican or Lutheran ministers who converted to Catholicism after having children. This is the only exception in the Latin rite> Blockquote

Eastern Catholics are already fine with married priests. They’re used to it. It’s not a big deal to them.

I don’t know if I would say it’s “not a big deal to them.” Married Eastern priests exist but they have a different role. They cannot become bishops and have different responsibilities due to having a wife and family.

In addition, the wife has to essentially give permission to their husband to become a priest. Married Eastern priests are not free to marry again if their wife dies.

 

[lanman87]

Do disagree with the conclusion of the history book that I was reading that, during the middle ages, Bishops could be married and were passing their office to their children (or at least attempting to)?

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I don’t know if I would say it’s “not a big deal to them.” Married Eastern priests exist but they have a different role. They cannot become bishops and have different responsibilities due to having a wife and family.

In addition, the wife has to essentially give permission to their husband to become a priest. married Eastern priests are not free to marry again if their wife dies.

I think @Tis_Bearself meant “not a big deal” in the sense of people are used to it and it’s not a novelty like it is in the Latin church. I don’t think she meant “not a big deal” in the sense that marriage or ordination are treated casually or as inconsequential.

 

[DivineMercy01]

Do Catholics consider priestly celibacy a part of the “Rule of Faith” that was handed on by the Apostles or is it something the Catholic church ruled on because of other reasons?

Not necessarily. However, priests are called to be in Persona Christi. Christ was celibate, therefore it makes sense that our clergy be celibate men.

The reason I ask, I recently re-read a Church History book at in says that, while there were calls for priestly celibacy all the way back in the 4th Century, it appears that a celibate clergy didn’t really become the norm until the 12 century as a result of the Concordat of Worms in 1122 that ended the Investiture Controversy

Clerical celibacy was also implemented for correction of ecclesiastical abuses. THE FIRST LATERAN COUNCIL (1123) | EWTN. I.e. children of priests thinking they “owned” the Church. My Protestant friends say this is a huge problem in their Churches.

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

The only Catholics I have heard making the argument to eliminate clerical celibacy are the ones who are crying and complaining about either not having enough priests or not having enough Catholic husbands. These people need to use their eyes to look around: the Church is hurting for numbers in general, not just for priests or Catholic husbands. Elimination of clerical celibacy would not solve the numbers issue because we don’t have enough people who care about the Church in the first place.

Since you are a non-Catholic Christian, I must also inform you that Catholic priests are asked to work ALL the time. They say Mass twice a day, not just on Sundays. They have to be available for Confession, last rites, etc. I am aware that Eastern rites allow married men to be ordained, but only with permission of the wife and only if the priest agrees not to marry again if his wife dies. To ask a man with a young family to also assume priestly duties would be, in my opinion, too much for one person.

It would also cause more division in the Church. I could foresee another great schism happening if priestly celibacy was eliminated.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Yes, what I meant is that the Eastern Catholics do not get bothered or confused when they see a married priest with children. It’s a normal occurrence for them. For Latin Catholics, it’s an unusual situation. In the 1800s and early 1900s, it would have been considered scandalous to have a married Latin Catholic priest, which led to some very sad situations in the cases of Ven. Cornelia Connolly and the Orthodox St. Alexis Toth.

 

[po18guy]

Ask a celibate priest. He will tell you that celibacy is a gift. The world desires to take that gift from the priests.

 

[kapp19]

You would have to give some specifics. But again, to reiterate, continence and celibacy are distinct. The former was pretty much always universal… The latter less so. And it seems this is even drawn out in the Gospels - do you really think Mrs. Peter, if she was alive (possible, but doubtful) was going around Judah and then all around the Mediterranean? Probably not.

As for nepotism, yes, it was and is rampant, sometimes in a benign way, sometimes not.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Ask a celibate priest. He will tell you that celibacy is a gift. The world desires to take that gift from the priests.

To be fair, even in the eastern churches, it’s not like priests have to be married. No one is forcing anyone to give up the gift of celibacy if that’s what the priest is called to do.

 

[kapp19]

Also, as for the Eastern Churches - one must inevitably notice, that they did not and do not have the same missionary activity among their clergy, and they never could, thus the global spread and dominance of the Latin/Western Church… because of celibacy. For what it’s worth (as I hear this objection from time to time).

 

[Tis_Bearself]

To be fair, even in the eastern churches, it’s not like priests have to be married. No one is forcing anyone to give up the gift of celibacy if that’s what the priest is called to do.

Correct, and as others have pointed out, being married will affect or limit a priest’s career path, so a priest needs to take that into account as well.

 

[DivineMercy01]

Amen. If I hear one more claim that elimination of celibacy would eliminate the sex abuse scandals I’m going to lose my mind.

My response to this is always “then explain all the married pedophiles.” Plenty of non-celibate people abuse kids. It has nothing to do with celibacy and everything to do with being sick.

 

[RobertAdams]

If this is indeed the case, do any Catholics believe a celibate clergy is an outdated rule, as simony is no longer an issue?

Many Catholics do believe that requiring ALL priests in the Latin rite to be celibate is an outdated rule. However these still recognize continued importance of celibacy for priests who are given to accept it. It would continue to be a requirement for priests called to monastic and religious orders, and for Bishops. Celibacy would certainly not disappear if it were not required for all.

You will not see much support for, or thoughtful consideration of this change here, in part because there is response associating any change with liberalness and opposing because it must be the sort of thing the “wrong” kind of Catholics like.

CAF is not representative of all Catholics