Religion Homework Help- Married Apostles?

[mmm1]

Hi. I would love it if anyone can help me figure out my daughter’s religion homework. She is in junior high in a Catholic school, & a question on her homework is “Which apostles were married?”

The textbook’s answer seems to be, “John is sometimes called the teenage apostle. Unlike the other apostles, he was not married.”

I’m really weak on scriptural things, but I thought the apostles weren’t married. I worried this might be a not-so-subtle attempt by the publishers of the text to promote the idea of a married priesthood. Can anyone please help me with this? Thanks!!

 

[Fidelis]

As far as we can tell from Scripture, only Peter was named as being married (in a reference to a cure by Jesus of Peter’s mother in law; Matthew 8:14).

You also have 1Corinthians 9:5:

Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

…but here no names are named, or even if these apostles mentioned are of any of the original twelve (Paul and Matthias were also apostles). Anyway, Peter is the only one we know for sure.

As far as a celibate priesthood, it doesn’t matter if none, one or all of the apostles were married as this is not the basis for the practice. The celibate priesthood is a discipline required by the Church for what she has been led by the Spirit to believe are good historical, pastoral and biblical reasons (both Jesus and St. Paul were unmarried, remember).

 

[Isa_Almisry]

As far as we can tell from Scripture, only Peter was named as being married (in a reference to a cure by Jesus of Peter’s mother in law; Matthew 8:14).

You also have 1Corinthians 9:5:
…but here no names are named, or even if these apostles mentioned are of any of the original twelve (Paul and Matthias were also apostles).

Anyway, Peter is the only one we know for sure.

Yes, and the only one which tradition (though it might be apocryphal) claims a child. Btw, St. Clement has an account of St. Peter encouraging his wife at her martyrdom.

The other apostles we don’t know about, but the Lord’s brother’s, however you want to define that, had children as their are glimpses in Tradition of them, and passing references to the descendents. Centuries later, there were a couple (I think it three) bishops in Mesopotamia/Syria who claimed descent from St. Joseph through the Lord’s Brother (as St. Ephraim describes, and before him the protoevangelion.

I can’t remember, but their was a book on St. Jude and the relatives of Jesus, that went over some aspects of this.

Btw, at least officially, you have a married priesthood, and unofficially you have one. The uniates have married priests in the old country (and are trying to get them recognized here, where they already are). Many Protestants have converted and, married, been ordained by the Latin bishops.

Of course, since I belong to the Orthodox Church, we’ve had a married priesthood from the Apostles onward.

Still, it strikes me as an odd homework assignment. What’s the context?

 

[Petergee]

As far as we can tell from Scripture, only Peter was named as being married (in a reference to a cure by Jesus of Peter’s mother in law; Matthew 8:14).

Actually this only proves that he at least **had been **married. His wife is not mentioned in the story or anywhere else in the Bible. I find convincing the argument that the reason Peter’s mother-in-law was living with him was that her daughter had died.

You also have 1Corinthians 9:5:

It’s plain that the word Paul used, translated as “wife” in some versions, does not refer to a marital spouse, rather a female companion/assistant/sister in the Lord, as St Paul makes clear in several passages that he is a virgin bachelor.

So my answer to the question is, we do not know of any Apostle who was married at the time he became an Apostle or afterwards; and it seems likely that none of them were.

The Church gives not only

historical, pastoral and biblical reasons

for prestly celibacy, but also reasons from Tradition (even in the minority of cases where married men were ordained priests in the early centuries, the general rule seems to be that they had to abstain from conjugal relations after ordination; priests were never allowed to marry after ordination even if their wife died; and it seems from very early on the rule was that married men cannot become bishops) and the nature of the priesthood (a sharing in the High Priesthood of Christ who is married to the Church).

 

[mmm1]

Yes, and the only one which tradition (though it might be apocryphal) claims a child. Btw, St. Clement has an account of St. Peter encouraging his wife at her martyrdom.

Still, it strikes me as an odd homework assignment. What’s the context?

Thanks so much for your reply. It was very interesting. Many things I was completely unaware of, especially the idea that Peter may have had a child or that his wife may have been martyred.

As for the context of the question, it seemed to be a basic “get to know the apostles” kind of assignment. There were questions like: which apostles were fishermen, which were martyrs, which were brothers, who was a zealot,etc… Thanks!

 

[mmm1]

Actually this only proves that he at least **had been **married. His wife is not mentioned in the story or anywhere else in the Bible. I find convincing the argument that the reason Peter’s mother-in-law was living with him was that her daughter had died.

It’s plain that the word Paul used, translated as “wife” in some versions, does not refer to a marital spouse, rather a female companion/assistant/sister in the Lord, as St Paul makes clear in several passages that he is a virgin bachelor.

These are such good points, too. Before I had any replies I did a quick search of the CA site, & came across an essay by Karl Keating in This Rock called Did Peter Have A Wife? (May-June2007). It raised some of the same points & agreed with your reasoning. I appreciate the help so much!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Thanks so much for your reply. It was very interesting. Many things I was completely unaware of, especially the idea that Peter may have had a child or that his wife may have been martyred.

As for the context of the question, it seemed to be a basic “get to know the apostles” kind of assignment. There were questions like: which apostles were fishermen, which were martyrs, which were brothers, who was a zealot,etc… Thanks!

Thanks for answering my curiosity.

Although I fully support the married priesthood,obviously, I don’t think now is the time for the Latins, as there are too many agendas around it (although their should be some movement towards it. Lifting the ban on ordaining married uniates here in the US might be a start. Btw we Orthodox have zero chance of getting woman priests, although we have married priests).

Btw just my two cents: about the martyrs, all of them were except for St. John the theologian, and I always thought that is because he was the only one to risk his life to stand at the foot of the Cross.

 

[mmm1]

As far as a celibate priesthood, it doesn’t matter if none, one or all of the apostles were married as this is not the basis for the practice.
Good point! I was jumping to the conclusion that it would be a problem if the apostles were married, but that’s not really true.

The celibate priesthood is a discipline required by the Church for what she has been led by the Spirit to believe are good historical, pastoral and biblical reasons (both Jesus and St. Paul were unmarried, remember).

Also great points… I know it works for many Churches like the Orthodox Church, but the Roman Catholic Church has decided in her wisdom that most priests will be celibate, & that’s good enough for me.
Thanks for the really thoughtful & prompt replies. I’m sure my daughter will be able to add to any discussion tomorrow.

 

[mmm1]

Thanks for answering my curiosity.

Although I fully support the married priesthood,obviously, I don’t think now is the time for the Latins, as there are too many agendas around it (although their should be some movement towards it. Lifting the ban on ordaining married uniates here in the US might be a start. Btw we Orthodox have zero chance of getting woman priests, although we have married priests).

Btw just my two cents: about the martyrs, all of them were except for St. John the theologian, and I always thought that is because he was the only one to risk his life to stand at the foot of the Cross.

Gosh, thanks again for your very open replies. In my last post I mentioned supporting a celibate priesthood. I wasn’t trying to be confrontational, I hadn’t read your last post yet. I think it’s great that it works in the Orthodox Church. Since I returned to being a Catholic, there’s so much I don’t understand yet. I’m embarrassed to say I don’t know much about the different Churches or what the uniates are. I have learned enough to agree with you that lots of people have different agendas for the Church. I really appreciate your responses!

Oh, my daughter did read that St. John was the only apostle not martyred, but I liked your idea that maybe it was because he was the only one who risked his life to stand by Jesus at the Cross. I will mention that to her…

 

[ronyodish]

I’m embarrassed to say I don’t know much about the different Churches or what the uniates are.

mmm1,

The “uniates” are properly called the Eastern/Oriental Catholic Churches. These are various Eastern/Oriental Christian Churches in full communion with the Pope of Rome. You can read about them here

God bless,

Rony

 

[Petergee]

The textbook’s answer seems to be, “John is sometimes called the teenage apostle. Unlike the other apostles, he was not married.”

I’m really weak on scriptural things, but I thought the apostles weren’t married. I worried this might be a not-so-subtle attempt by the publishers of the text to promote the idea of a married priesthood.

IMO you’re right to be suspicious. Without being too paranoid about it, have a flick through the textbook and see if this is an isolated occurrence, or are there other indications that the 1st century Christians did not have the basic beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church.

e.g. a typical one by revisioniost historians is the false allegation that 1st century Christians met weekly for “just a simple community meal” and only much later “developed” the idea that they were consuming Christ’s own Body and Blood.

Whilst you’re at it, check that the book has a Nihil Obstat from a Diocesan Censor and an Imprimatur from a Bishop. (printed at the beginning or end of the book). If it doesn’t, then Canon Law prohibits it from being used to teach religion in a Catholic school, and you should complain to the principal, the parish priest and if necessary the bishop.

The book’s assertion that all the Apostles but one were married just doesn’t make sense. From the first century, the Church has regarded celibacy as at least preferable and desirable for priests and compulsory for bishops. It is vanishingly unlikely that these rules had been introduced knowing that a significant number of the Apostles were married during their Apostolic missions.

 

[TIME]

Hi. I would love it if anyone can help me figure out my daughter’s religion homework. She is in junior high in a Catholic school, & a question on her homework is “Which apostles were married?”

The textbook’s answer seems to be, “John is sometimes called the teenage apostle. Unlike the other apostles, he was not married.”

I’m really weak on scriptural things, but I thought the apostles weren’t married. I worried this might be a not-so-subtle attempt by the publishers of the text to promote the idea of a married priesthood. Can anyone please help me with this? Thanks!!

Since the Married Apostles, Married Priest thing is swirling around, this info from the Holy See may add to your daughters research. Out of the the 2000 years of the Catholic Church we have only been without Married Priest for about 400-500 yrs. We have had Married Roman Priest in our city with children and all, for a number of years. They were Episcopal Priest before. Seems to be working out very well. Check this out from the Holy See:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html

“It is clear from the New Testament (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39; 1 Tim 3:2, 12; Tit 1:6) that at least the Apostle Peter had been married, and that bishops, presbyters and deacons of the Primitive Church were often family men. It is also clear from epigraphy, the testimony of the Fathers, synodal legislation, papal decretals and other sources that in the following centuries, a married clergy, in greater or lesser numbers was a normal feature of the life of the Church. Even married popes are known to us.1 And yet, paradoxically, one has to desist, when faced with this incontrovertible fact, from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.”

“In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected. In Session XXIV on 11 November 1563, the Fathers upheld the prohibition of clerical marriage (c. 9), adding (concerning the difficulties): «For God would not deny the gift to those who duly ask for it (the gift of chastity), nor allow us to be tempted beyond our strength.» They also rejected the thesis that the marital state should be considered better than that of celibacy (c. l0).65 The Council, in Session XXIII, also voted in favour of founding seminaries to prepare candidates from their youth for the celibate life. The discipline of continence by this time had meant in practice that only an unmarried man would be ordained. This is also shown in the discussions of the Council, for example when one theologian, Desiderius de S. Martino, concerned by the shortage of priests, suggested the possibility of ordaining married men provided the wives gave consent and that they and their husbands lived in continence. But the measure was not deemed expedient.66”

“The decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy.”

 

[1ke]

I’d suggest you read the articles at www.newadvent.org on each of the Apostles.

 

[mmm1]

IMO you’re right to be suspicious. Without being too paranoid about it, have a flick through the textbook and see if this is an isolated occurrence, or are there other indications that the 1st century Christians did not have the basic beliefs and practices of the Catholic Church.

e.g. a typical one by revisioniost historians is the false allegation that 1st century Christians met weekly for “just a simple community meal” and only much later “developed” the idea that they were consuming Christ’s own Body and Blood.

Whilst you’re at it, check that the book has a Nihil Obstat from a Diocesan Censor and an Imprimatur from a Bishop. (printed at the beginning or end of the book). If it doesn’t, then Canon Law prohibits it from being used to teach religion in a Catholic school, and you should complain to the principal, the parish priest and if necessary the bishop.

The book’s assertion that all the Apostles but one were married just doesn’t make sense. From the first century, the Church has regarded celibacy as at least preferable and desirable for priests and compulsory for bishops. It is vanishingly unlikely that these rules had been introduced knowing that a significant number of the Apostles were married during their Apostolic missions.

Thanks for the ideas, Petergee, I’ll definitely be checking out their textbooks more…

Thanks for the great responses & links, everyone. I appreciate it!

 

[Petergee]

Since the Married Apostles, Married Priest thing is swirling around, this info from the Holy See may add to your daughters research. Out of the the 2000 years of the Catholic Church we have only been without Married Priest for about 400-500 yrs.

The document you quoted doesn’t say that at all. At most you can claim that "we only had an absolute rule that **all **priests of the Latin Rite without a single exception must be celibate, for about 800-900 years." Celibacy has been at least the preferred and majority state among Latin-rite priests continuously since the first century. As the Congregation notes in the passage you quoted "one has to desist … from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline."

 

[TIME]

The document you quoted doesn’t say that at all. At most you can claim that “we only had an absolute rule that **all **priests of the Latin Rite without a single exception must be celibate, for about 800-900 years." Celibacy has been at least the preferred and majority state among Latin-rite priests continuously since the first century. As the Congregation notes in the passage you quoted "one has to desist … from assuming that this necessarily excluded the co-existence of an obligatory celibacy discipline.”

Maybe you did not have time to read the document to the end. It states:

“**In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), **and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected.”
:
:
:
“The **decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, **thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy.”

 

[Petergee]

Maybe you did not have time to read the document to the end. It states:

“**In the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), **and despite considerable pressures, all suggestions that the Catholic Church should modify and mitigate its rules of celibacy were rejected.”

Exactly. Trent didn’t invent the rule of clerical celibacy as you seem to imply. It merely **rejected suggestions to modify and mitigate **the rule which had already stood for centuries before Trent.
:

:
:
“The **decrees of the Council were not immediately accepted in all nations but with time they did bring about a general observance of the law of celibacy, **thanks in no small measure to their provisions for the better training of the clergy.”

We are talking about the Church’s rules, not about whether some people obeyed them or not. Do you claim that the Church in the 21st century allows contraception because many Catholics reportedly disobey its clear teachings against it?

 

[TIME]

Exactly. Trent didn’t invent the rule of clerical celibacy as you seem to imply. It merely **rejected suggestions to modify and mitigate **the rule which had already stood for centuries before Trent.
:
We are talking about the Church’s rules, not about whether some people obeyed them or not. Do you claim that the Church in the 21st century allows contraception because many Catholics reportedly disobey its clear teachings against it?

I am not sure we are on the same wave length here. This is what I originally said, “Out of the the 2000 years of the Catholic Church we have only been without Married Priest for about 400-500 yrs.” I am not sure how you get the impression that this statement implied, the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), “invented the rule of clerical celibacy”? Just pointing out the Holy See documents that show their were evidently married Roman Priest as late as the mid 1500’s. Given communication of that time it would not be hard to envision having married Priest approaching the end of the 1500’s close to the 1600’s.

We have had great success with the Married Roman Priest in our area. They are great Orthodox Catholics, and do an excellent job of keeping the liberal clergy in line. I am fine with celibate only clergy if that is what the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church toward, but if things change and we go back to the 3/4 of Church history and have celibate and married Priest that is fine with me too. The Holy Spirit will guide us.

 

[Petergee]

I am not sure we are on the same wave length here. This is what I originally said, “Out of the the 2000 years of the Catholic Church we have only been without Married Priest for about 400-500 yrs.” I am not sure how you get the impression that this statement implied, the third and final period of the Council of Trent (1562-3), “invented the rule of clerical celibacy”? Just pointing out the Holy See documents that show their were evidently married Roman Priest as late as the mid 1500’s. Given communication of that time it would not be hard to envision having married Priest approaching the end of the 1500’s close to the 1600’s.

And these “married priests”, if they existed, would have been disobedient illicitly and probably secretly married priests, at a time when the Church did not permit any married man to be ordained. And probably most of them married **after **ordination, something which the Church has never permitted. You can’t simply equate these men with married men who are licitly ordained. The Church has always preferred celibate clergy. Increasingly more and more of the clergy were celibate until the 11th century when celibacy became a requirement, which has been dispensed with in relatively few cases. That’s 900 years at least that this has remained the situation.

So in fact celibacy has been the general rule for 3/4 of Church history, and for married priests to be ordained has been either absolutely forbidden or required special individual dispensation for at least half of Church history.

The holiness of the married clergy whom you know is not in dispute. The point is that the idea that celibacy is a relatively recent rule which has not applied though most of Church history, is historically false. Whether you are aware of it or not, there are some who have used this false idea to argue that clerical celibacy is merely a medieval or renaissance invention which can be discarded with no problem.

 

[TIME]

P, “Whether you are aware of it or not, there are some who have used this false idea to argue that clerical celibacy is merely a medieval or renaissance invention which can be discarded with no problem.”

I guess their could be people, this ignorant of Church history, thinking that celibacy was NOT there, from the beginning. I always just discounted them as uneducated about the history.