J
jeannetherese
Guest
Isn’t it the rule that if a priest is unmarried at ordination he may not marry?
- Status
R
RyanBlack
Guest
That is correct.
P
Pitcairn17
Guest
One can also make the argument that the interpretation of Peter as a widower represents the seeming need to view Peter through the lens of retroactive celibacy - the thought that as “prince of the Apostles,” bishop, and first Pope, it would be terribly unseemly (as well as an unhelpful precedent) to think of Peter as having a normal marital relationship.JonNC:
He was, but one could make the argument that he was likely a widower by the time he was made a priest (given that his mother-in-law was in his house waiting on people and there is no mention of his wife in the Gospels), so if that was the case, he would have been celibate by the time he became a priest.
I was taught in Scripture courses that the Evangelists who assembled the Gospels decades after the events recorded chose those memories and stories which furthered Jesus’ teachings, life, and identity as the True Son of God and Savior. Peter’s mother-in-law was mentioned because she received a healing from Jesus. In a culture that so highly prized marriage and children, the presence of such would have been assumed as a given by the early communities encountering the Gospels. The Gospels are not biographies of the Apostles, and merely mentioning their wives and children would not be material to Jesus’ message. Otherwise, we are left to believe that in a tribal culture whose roots were based on family connections and continuity of the family line (recall the real reason Onan was punished) - that Jesus chose as his most important followers 12 men, all of whom were most atypically childless, unmarried, and celibate. I’ve always assumed that the Apostles were normal men of their time and culture - men who did extraordinary things - supported by their families, despite the fact that so many seem to think that’s a terribly inappropriate, scandalous, and “ikky” thought.
J
jeannetherese
Guest
Wouldn’t celibacy be the norm for unmarried men at the time?
K
kapp19
Guest
I know you didn’t specify “Maronite” - I am just using an example. I have not heard - ever - of a significant missionary effort in Asia undertaken by married Eastern clergy. It would be rather bizarre in fact. And one would expect there to be significant remnants of such things… well I don’t see any. Maybe I am wrong, but I think Asia is thoroughly Latin, excepting Asia Minor and the Syro Malabar and Syro Malankar realities in India.
S
SerraSemper
Guest
In my neighborhood I had a friend who is the daughter of an Eastern Catholic deacon and an unmarried priest of an Eastern Catholic Church. It was clear from the former that in her area in the East, there were plenty of clergy and thus no working around the clock for her clergy.
I have also visited many Eastern Catholic parishes of various rites in the USA. They are very small in comparison with many Latin Churches. If you don’t have Divine Liturgy that often and you don’t have a large parish, then sure, you can balance your family and “work” easily enough. Not so the Latin pastor working solo with 1,000-3,000 registered families in his parish, daily Mass, etc. This is probably not the fairest comparison, but it is my experience as to why it “works” for there to be married clergy in small parishes with little going on sacramentally or otherwise.
B
babochka
Guest
Most Eastern Catholics aren’t in the US. The situation in the homelands can be far different.
No, not fair at all. And the lack of daily Mass doesn’t indicate that there is little going on, sacramentally or otherwise. When my father was dying, my married pastor visited frequently, often spending hours with my parents. Sometimes he brought his children. When I was in the hospital, the priest came personally to bring me Communion, even though the lay chaplain at the hospital could have done so. He annually blesses the houses of every parishioner who asks. He’s heard my confessions in his kids’ bedroom. He personally prepares couples for marriage, adults for baptism, and children for Confession. His wife runs our youth group and he meets every other week with a group of pre-teens for a social time with a little bit of formation. He takes our teens on an annual retreat. He sure does stay busy for a parish with little going on.
X
Xarto
Guest
It is a tradition (small t) and can be changed but really it the best way. I look at my parish and there is no way we could support a priest and his family, imagine all three of them had families? It wouldn’t be financially viable the priest would need a second job which would defeat the purpose and would spend more time worrying about his family than the parish (as is only human).
Last edited:
D
DivineMercy01
Guest
Yes, however persona christi by definition is in the person of Christ. Living as Christ lived.
Additionally, as others have mentioned on this board, Peter was likely a widower by the time he was doing his ministry as we know very little about his wife.
Finally, do we know anything about Peter having children? Even if he had a wife at one point, having no children would have made a big difference in doing ministry. A married man today in full communion with the Church would have to be open to having children.
Additionally, as others have mentioned on this board, Peter was likely a widower by the time he was doing his ministry as we know very little about his wife.
Finally, do we know anything about Peter having children? Even if he had a wife at one point, having no children would have made a big difference in doing ministry. A married man today in full communion with the Church would have to be open to having children.
D
DivineMercy01
Guest
I know children of Protestant pastors who have seen the repercussions of their father trying to wear both hats.
A friend of mine (a pastor’s child), for example, was abused by two of her older brothers. When she told her father about it, he did nothing to stop it because he didn’t want his reputation hurt as a pastor.
This is just one example of many.
A friend of mine (a pastor’s child), for example, was abused by two of her older brothers. When she told her father about it, he did nothing to stop it because he didn’t want his reputation hurt as a pastor.
This is just one example of many.
B
babochka
Guest
Married clergy aren’t commonly missionaries, but plenty of monks are. There is evidence of missionary activity by the Church of the East in China in the 7th century. (No information as to whether those priests were married, but I assume not.) Peter the Great sent missionaries to China, but again, they were monks. There are plenty of celibate clergy in the East.
The autonomous Chinese Orthodox church currently has about 10,000 ethnic Chinese members, as well as a number of ethnic Russians. As they are not recognized by the Communist government and there are few priests, practice of the faith is a challenge.
No branch of Christianity has been particularly successful in Japan.
East/ Southeast Asia is primarily Latin because of French and Spanish colonialism. Missionaries came along because the opportunity was there, made possible through secular realities.
But don’t forget about the rest of Asia - Armenia, Georgia, the Asian part of Russia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Where Christian communities have continued in spite of Islam, they are Eastern, because the people were evangelized by the East. No, probably not married priests, but the vast majority of celibate priests in the west have not become missionaries.
B
babochka
Guest
Interesting example to give, considering how many Catholic parents have been encouraged to look the other way in the face of abuse by priests, so as not to damage the reputation of the Church.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
I would note the only question that was asked here is about Peter, not the other 11, most of whom are barely mentioned and likely had many aspects to their lives we know nothing about. Peter, on the other hand, is mentioned many times.
Last edited:
B
babochka
Guest
In its original meaning, as well as the meaning when used by the Church, celibacy means “the state of being unmarried”. Chastity is assumed in a celibate individual. That is the meaning that I assume is in use when we’re having a discussion about this topic.Pitcairn17:
Wouldn’t celibacy be the norm for unmarried men at the time?
Chastity would be the norm for unmarried men, but to say an unmarried man is celibate would be redundant.
The language is changing and the meaning has shifted to mean “without sex”.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
If they were sinful men they would likely see prostitutes, though this was frowned upon for Jewish men.
H
hope
Guest
You strongly imply it. You asked if Catholics still believed in a celibate clergy and you added Especially taken with the Bible instructions… I have discussed this passages with others who insist it means that they must be married but as I said it does not mean that so in answer to your question no a celibate clergy is not out dated. It has existed from the beginning and was promoted by Jesus. The scripture you quote does not have any bearing on it.
D
DivineMercy01
Guest
Who is encouraging this? Last time I checked priests accused of abuse were either sent to jail or reassigned
B
babochka
Guest
Historically, it has happened with disturbing frequency. It appears to be better now.
You referred to an incident from the past and so did I. My point was that the Catholic Church certainly doesn’t hold a spotless record when it comes to turning a blind eye to abuse for the sake of the reputation of the priest or the Church and I am not sure why your example of such a thing happening within a family makes the case against married priests.
B
babochka
Guest
St. Paul directs these words to every Christian, not just those who would serve as priests.
I think we need to be careful about these kinds of anecdotal evidences. They are often used against the Catholic clergy unfairly.
I know from firsthand experience how difficult it can be, watching my dad.
- Status