Split from "A question for some Protestants who try to proselytize Catholics": Are Catholic priests "Forbidden to Marry?"

[Tantum_ergo]

Rather than continue off topic, I will bring another poster’s concern, and my response, to this thread.

His contention is that Catholic priests are ‘forbidden to marry’, an “Unbiblical” and wrong practice decried by Scripture.

To which I responded as I do here:

Catholic priests are not forbidden to marry. They chose to remain single.

Any person, priest or lay, man or woman, has two choices in life: To marry or to remain single.

If the person marries, is he ‘forbidden’ the choice to remain single? No. The person had the choice to remain single BUT the person instead has chosen to marry.

If the person remains single, is he ‘forbidden’ the choice to marry? No. The person had the choice to marry, but the person instead has chosen to remain single.

Is it ‘forbidden’ for any Christian to chose the single state over the married state? No.

Finally, Jesus in Matthew 19:12 spoke of “those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom. HE who is ABLE TO DO THIS, let him do so.”

Who do you think Jesus was speaking of when He spoke of people ‘making themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom?’ Do you think that Jesus approved of people who chose to do so?

 

[Dokimas]

Obviously yes.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So if Jesus approved of those who voluntarily chose to be 'eunuchs for the Kingdom" why do you cavil at celibate priests, Dokimas? They have made that voluntary choice.

Sheesh. You know, Orthodox priests wear beards. (It’s tradition). If a man wanted to be an Orthodox priest but had a complex about beards, would you complain that the Orthodox were FORCING him to be bearded in order to be a priest?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think that really it comes down to your not wanting to grant the Catholic Church authority to make any kind of decision about who ‘gets to be a priest’, Dokimas.

Now I don’t know from personal experience as I am not Protestant, but I daresay that a good Google of Protestant theology schools would tell me that Protestants have certain ‘requirements’ that an aspirant to their clergy would have to meet. I do not believe that a man can walk off the street and say to the head of say Bob Jones University, “God has called me, I am going to be a preacher, admit me” and they will say, “Of course, sign right here on the dotted line, as long as God has called you that’s good enough for me. . . you might be a closet sadist, have a foot fetish, look at kiddie porn, hear voices, and think that the Vatican has a supercomputer with your name on it. . . but all you need to do to be a preacher is be ‘called by God’ and we’ll accept you.”

So. . .if Bob Jones University, or the local Episcopal diocese, or the Salvation Army, etc. have standards and requirements for their preachers. . .why can’t the Catholic Church have standards and requirements for theirs?

I’m just wondering, you know, why you Doki are all fixated on ‘celibacy’ in the Catholic Church. And of course, if you don’t think any Churches should have standards, I do hope that you are as ‘vehement’ in your appearances on their web sites and tell them how ‘wrong’ THEY are. . .

 

[BrianH]

If I hired a teacher, and she can only stay a teacher if she remains unmarried, I think most people would say that our district for all practical purposes forbids people to marry.
It seems like an intense issue for the OP and I really could care less, I dont have a dog in this fight, but yeah…like the Protestant poster said…obviously yes.

 

[Texasgringo70]

As a protestant I have a hard time seeing why the Catholic Church does this. I see so much emphasis on tradition and Peter in the Catholic Church and all that, but Peter was married and it was Paul who was single. I think Paul was very clear about it. He saw it as a gift and had zero condemnation for those who married. The Church has every right to require celibacy, but the price they pay for it seems very high to me.

 

[VetA]

As a protestant I have a hard time seeing why the Catholic Church does this. I see so much emphasis on tradition and Peter in the Catholic Church and all that, but Peter was married and it was Paul who was single. I think Paul was very clear about it. He saw it as a gift and had zero condemnation for those who married. The Church has every right to require celibacy, but the price they pay for it seems very high to me.

what would that be sir?

 

[Texasgringo70]

what would that be sir?

The price? Missing out on the service of many good men with a desire to serve as ministers, but have already committed to a family. Second, the loss of many good men who decide they would rather not grow old alone and leave the ministry. Third, the few that thought they could keep it up, but burned.

But, you probably already knew all that. You probably just wanted me to spell it out so you could tear it apart. Have at it.

 

[JRKH]

As a protestant I have a hard time seeing why the Catholic Church does this. I see so much emphasis on tradition and Peter in the Catholic Church and all that, but Peter was married and it was Paul who was single. I think Paul was very clear about it. He saw it as a gift and had zero condemnation for those who married. The Church has every right to require celibacy, but the price they pay for it seems very high to me.

You are absolutely right in that the Church did in the early days have married priests and probably even married Bishops. The Eastern Orthodox Church still allows for married priests but I believe that they must be married before ordination and may not remarry if they are widowed. Also I believe a married Priest may not be a bishop. Not sure on that though. This sytem certainly has it’s advantages.
The Western, Roman Church has opted for celibate priests. This too has it’s advantages. Priests can be more easily moved around as needed. They are not “torn” between their family and pastoral duties. Most Parish Priests live in rectories at their churches that are not set up for “families”. Celibate Clergy are less expensive to maintain.

To a small degree the practice is changing though and there are a few married catholic priests serving the flock. Mostly these are former Anglican or Epischopal priests who were married before joining The Catholic Church and granted an exception so that they could be ordained a Catholic Priest.

Now The church will likely continue to maintain celibacy as a requirement for the Priesthood for the foreseeable future, but this does not mean that she cannot change the practice if she so chooses.

Peace
James

 

[Sir_Knight]

As a protestant I have a hard time seeing why the Catholic Church does this.

In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

I see so much emphasis on tradition and Peter in the Catholic Church and all that, but Peter was married and it was Paul who was single.

Peter was not married. He was widowed. When Jesus cured his mother-in-law, she immediately got up and waited on them. That is something that, according to Jewish custom, that Peter’s wife should have done. The only reason for the mother-in-law to take up the household chores would have been if there was no wife present.

Even today, widowed men CAN become priests just like Peter.

I think Paul was very clear about it. He saw it as a gift and had zero condemnation for those who married. The Church has every right to require celibacy, but the price they pay for it seems very high to me.

In Matt. 19:29 Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The price? Missing out on the service of many good men with a desire to serve as ministers, but have already committed to a family. Second, the loss of many good men who decide they would rather not grow old alone and leave the ministry. Third, the few that thought they could keep it up, but burned…

And having men torn between tending the flock given to them to shepherd and tending to the needs of their wife and children.

 

[Texasgringo70]

In Matt. 19:11-12 Jesus says celibacy is a gift from God and whoever can bear it should bear it. Jesus praises and recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church. Because celibacy is a gift from God, those who criticize the Church’s practice of celibacy are criticizing God and this wonderful gift He bestows on His chosen ones.

• Matt19:11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” *

Dude, That passage isn’t about celibacy, its about divorce. That is a huge stretch to say that one is about celibacy. Anyway, I thought the Church didn’t allow priests to become eunuchs. Did the policy on that change?

Very convenient to accuse anyone who disagrees with you to be criticizing God. I said it was a gift. I just don’t think that having that gift should be a prerequisite to being a minister. But it doesn’t really matter what I think. I’m not a Catholic and I’m not a minister. I better go hug my wife now.

Peter was not married. He was widowed. When Jesus cured his mother-in-law, she immediately got up and waited on them. That is something that, according to Jewish custom, that Peter’s wife should have done. The only reason for the mother-in-law to take up the household chores would have been if there was no wife present.

Even today, widowed men CAN become priests just like Peter.

Whatever. You haven’t lived in a culture where women serve men have you? I can tell you a mother-in-law would not be sitting down in that scenario with the wife alive either. I know. My mother-in-law is like that.

In Matt. 19:29 Jesus says that whoever gives up children for the sake of His name will receive a hundred times more and will inherit eternal life. Jesus praises celibacy when it is done for the sake of His kingdom.

So, are you saying now that celibacy is a requirement for salvation? Or are you agreeing with me that the passage you quoted has nothing to do with celibacy, but is about a general spiritual principle that God rewards those who sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom?

 

[Texasgringo70]

And having men torn between tending the flock given to them to shepherd and tending to the needs of their wife and children.

I do not deny what Paul said is valid. It is better for a man not marry. I’m just saying you can paint yourself into a corner if you don’t allow ministers to marry.

 

[VetA]

The price? Missing out on the service of many good men with a desire to serve as ministers, but have already committed to a family. Second, the loss of many good men who decide they would rather not grow old alone and leave the ministry. Third, the few that thought they could keep it up, but burned.

But, you probably already knew all that. You probably just wanted me to spell it out so you could tear it apart. Have at it.

im not going to tear you apart why be rude like that, cooincendentaly you might find this article enlightning(not rude i promise): newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

EDIT: this one too: catholic-clergy.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_are_catholic_priests_celibate

 

[Texasgringo70]

im not going to tear you apart why be rude like that, cooincendentaly you might find this article enlightning(not rude i promise): newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

EDIT: this one too: catholic-clergy.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_are_catholic_priests_celibate

Sorry, didn’t mean to impune your dignity. I can be a little leery of walking into a mouse trap. I know this can be a sensitive subject for Catholics. Thanks for the links.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

In the Catholic Church there are several rites and some allow for married clergy and some do not. Some also will give special dispensations (eg, Anglicans ministers coming into the faith). Clergy in the Catholic Church include Deacons (who may be married but may not remarry) Priests (who traditionally in the Roman Rite are Celibate) and Bishops etc.

The Priestly clergy is celibate because man can not serve two masters. “A married man is concerned with the things of a family” I can’t quote it directly now I’m sure its already been said.

 

[Texasgringo70]

In the Catholic Church there are several rites and some allow for married clergy and some do not. Some also will give special dispensations (eg, Anglicans ministers coming into the faith). Clergy in the Catholic Church include Deacons (who may be married but may not remarry) Priests (who traditionally in the Roman Rite are Celibate) and Bishops etc.

The Priestly clergy is celibate because man can not serve two masters. “A married man is concerned with the things of a family” I can’t quote it directly now I’m sure its already been said.

Here is the passage you were quoting:

1 Corinthians 7:32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

In context it seems to promote two things contrary to Catholic teaching. First, the priesthood of all believers because the passage is directed to common folks and second, that celibacy is a preference for Paul, not a command or “restraint” for anyone. Then again, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation that I am not aware of. It is best to read the whole chapter to understand the context well.

 

[JRKH]

Here is the passage you were quoting:

1 Corinthians 7:32 But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; 33 but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.

In context it seems to promote two things contrary to Catholic teaching. First, the priesthood of all believers because the passage is directed to common folks and second, that celibacy is a preference for Paul, not a command or “restraint” for anyone. Then again, I am sure there is a perfectly logical explanation that I am not aware of. It is best to read the whole chapter to understand the context well.

Perhaps it seems to promote things contrary because you seem to have bad information about what the Church teaches.
First to the "priesthood of all believers the CCC states this:
1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be “built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood.” By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light.” Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.
So you see The Church does recognize and promote the “priesthood of all believers”.
Of course we have men who are called to a more visible role, the ministerial priesthood. These are the men called to ordination for the purpose of ministering to the flock through the sacraments.

Second about Celibacy being a “command” vs a Preference.
Celibacy, as a general rule, is a practice of the Latin (Roman) Rite of The Church. Other Rites within the Church have different practices in regards to their ministerial priests.

In the Latin Rite, since all the baptized share in the priesthood, there is seen a chose to be made in how the priesthood is to be excersized. One path takes the man into the vocation of marriage and family through procreation, the other into the ministerial vocation of ordination and “marriage” to the Church, the Bride of Christ. (This is how I see the difference)
Also, as I have noted before, should the Latin Rite ever choose to do so, she could change the practice to allow for married priests.
I’m sorry I don’t have any “sources” for this part other than to say that my informatino comes from a talk I heard by Fr Corapi, who is a wonderful, powerful and very orthodox Catholic Priest.

Peace
James

 

[Sir_Knight]

I do not deny what Paul said is valid. It is better for a man not marry. I’m just saying you can paint yourself into a corner if you don’t allow ministers to marry.

• Matt19:11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12"For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” *Dude, That passage isn’t about celibacy, its about divorce. That is a huge stretch to say that one is about celibacy. Anyway, I thought the Church didn’t allow priests to become eunuchs. Did the policy on that change?

Very convenient to accuse anyone who disagrees with you to be criticizing God. I said it was a gift. I just don’t think that having that gift should be a prerequisite to being a minister. But it doesn’t really matter what I think. I’m not a Catholic and I’m not a minister. I better go hug my wife now.

How can that passage be talking about divorce?

Jesus often spoke figuratively just like when He said that if an eye causes one to sin, one should pluck it out. That is not something to be taken literally. The same here. Jesus is making the transition from the literal to the figurative – those who are able to give up relationships in marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, should. Jesus explains in Matt. 22:30 that in heaven there are no marriages. To bring about Jesus’ kingdom on earth, priests live the heavenly consecration to God by not taking a wife in marriage. This way, priests are able to focus exclusively on the spiritual family, and not have any additional pressures of the biological family (which is for the vocation of marriage). This also makes it easier for priests to be transferred to different parishes where they are most needed without having to worry about the impact of their transfer on wife and children.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Whatever. You haven’t lived in a culture where women serve men have you? I can tell you a mother-in-law would not be sitting down in that scenario with the wife alive either. I know. My mother-in-law is like that.

No, not “whatever” because whether Peter was married or not is an important point and by your comments, I can tell that you did not study ancient history at the time of Our Lord – specifically the Jewish culture. It would have been the duty of the wife, as the woman of the household to perform that task with any younger daughters assisting. Only if there was no wife, would the task fall back on the previous generation.

So, are you saying now that celibacy is a requirement for salvation? Or are you agreeing with me that the passage you quoted has nothing to do with celibacy, but is about a general spiritual principle that God rewards those who sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom?

Being a priest is not a requirement for salvation. How did you even come to that conclusion from what I said?

Two more important points: [1] celibacy in the priesthood is not a doctrine or dogma but a discipline – a discipline is a rule established by the church to help the faithful walk the straight and narrow. It can change, be modified or even abandoned in the future.

[2] Secondly, the Catholic Church is divided into six rites (Alexandrean Rite, Antiochene Rite, Armenian Rite, Byzantine Rite, Latin Rite & Maronite Rite). Some rites do allow married men to become priests but once they are priests, they can no longer marry and some rites even allow priests to marry. I don’t recall off the top of my head which rules exist in which rite but I do know that the Latin Rite (which is where the Roman Catholic Church falls under) do not allow men with a wife to enter the priesthood or to take a wife.