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

[Sir_Knight]

Oops. I apparently repeated what the post’er just before me said

gotta learn to type faster

 

[KathleenGee]

SirKnight,

I have a priest friend of many years and we lost track a number of years back…I was raising teenagers…4 of them…and anyway, he sent me a book he wrote and it was a time of renewal of our friendship.

I told him I was amazed at all the work he has done in his life, how he has an outreach to so many people and if he had married, he would not have been able to do this. He told me he always wanted to be a priest, was a prankster in the seminary and they wondered about him for awhile, but he turned out very well.

All the priests I know, all the priests everyone else i know, the priests ALL say they are happy as priests.

We live in such a sexually compromised culture, virginity and celibacy are now unbelievable.

People project their own needs on to the clergy. The big case we saw with the scandals made the public think the abuse happened because the priests were not married. What woman would want to marry a pervert? Perversion is latent and deforming. What the media wasn’t wanting the people to know was that the abuse rate was at about 2%. And our conversions coming in at Easter were the greatest in recent history.

Christ called those to be consecrated in the truth. The Latin rite will always be celibate. If a man is being called to Holy Orders but wants to marry, he can pursue his calling with the Orthodox. However, there are theological issues in Orthodoxy we do not share.

A number of priests are now living in their own rentals rather than rectories and using the space for parish offices. Most priests want to be alone and away after a heavy work day…as at night they may get calls to perform the Last Rites.

You can’t compare the celibate priesthood with married ministers. We now have deacons who can marry. They bring their own gifts into a parish. I wish Protestant ministers would return to the Church and become deacons and preach the Word at an every day level from their own experiences as married and with kids. But they would have to accept and follow the authority of the parish priest and I don’t have the impression they have that compliance at present along with the conversion to our Catholic tenants.

Trying to read the Bible and use quotes don’t always work because it is denying the beginnings of the foundation of the Church with real people, and in ancient times. Looking at the bible from a fundamentalist perspective is missing the 1,500 year history of the sacramental church, and not seeing how the Word of God was implemented into every day ecclesial life.

 

[scipio337]

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.

Exactly. It is a discipline of Latin Rite Catholicism. Other rites allow married clergy. Each rite, and the 23 autonomous churches have thier own disciplines (“sui iuris”).

 

[KathleenGee]

And tradition has it – meaning the understanding of the conditions of the times as well, of how the Apostles lived after Pentecost…it is assumed they lived a more celibate life considering the demands of their mission. And there were many celibate priests when priests could marry.

Just as we are have had scandals by ‘celibate’ priests, so were there scandals in ancient times by married priests who committed adultery, homosexual acts and sexual abuse. There was enough development in the Church that by that time, there was the means of grace to for the discipline of celibacy.

Again, the Church is a teaching and nurturing Church; but when it comes to holiness, there is no monopoly on its people. All of us must strive to be faithful to our own vocation in life. Seminarians are taught that after their ordination, they will find lay people who have greater faith than their own.

We are living in the times I think, St. Paul alluded to, where people will travel and many will read. People who are not Catholic tend to look at the Church in a bookish way and not an integrative way full of humanity, broken humanity at that.

 

[DCNBILL]

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.

The Catholic Church does indeed have non-celibate clergy in the office of the permanent diaconate.

 

[Texasgringo70]

How can that passage be talking about divorce?

You’re kidding right? The Pharisees asked Jesus about divorce and the passage is clearly in that context.

Matt 19:8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

The better question is how can you extract it from the context of 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.

I missed the part where He transitioned from talking about divorce to talking about ministry. I agree with you on the figurative part. He said that if you can’t remain faithful to your wife you are better off making yourself a eunuch. That is in line with your example of if your eye causes you to sin pluck it out. Ouch!

Again, I am not arguing the Church’s right to make the requirement. Yes, there are many practical reasons and advantages for it. I am just voicing my opinion. Just a friendly discussion here. I am not attacking the Church or its practices.

All the best

 

[Texasgringo70]

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

I knew there would probably be an explanation. I have heard of the priesthood of all believers part, but in practice it may not be as evident. Some of my disposition is from my readings of the protestant reformation. Back then there was a more of a separation of classes between the laymen and the priesthood. You are correct that my understanding is lacking, but I’m learning.

 

[KathleenGee]

Texasgringo, appreciate your openness to learning our faith…it takes time to understand Catholicism from its people who live out their faith, and how we have continued beyond the Reformation.

God bless you!

 

[JRKH]

I knew there would probably be an explanation. I have heard of the priesthood of all believers part, but in practice it may not be as evident. Some of my disposition is from my readings of the protestant reformation. Back then there was a more of a separation of classes between the laymen and the priesthood. You are correct that my understanding is lacking, but I’m learning.

I think it’s safe to say that over the centuries various aspects of Christian life have been promoted or ignored. In the middle ages certainly there was a “class” distinction in society and that was refelcted in The Church as well.

Even today I would say that most average catholics don’t know that they too are “priests”. However, what is important is what the Church 'teaches" on the matter and not what individuals do or do not know. That part gets into catechesis wish is something we need to do a better job of.

peace
James

 

[KathleenGee]

It is more actively being taught now in relation to our culture and how it perceives ‘priests’.

Christ is Prophet, Messiah, and King; He is of the Order of Melchizedek and our priesthood comes from Christ.

We as lay people share in the same ministry as Jesus in prophecy, our dignity found in His kingship, and sanctity found in His sacraments. We as lay then take Christ as such into the world where then we in turn minister through Christ and His works.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The big case we saw with the scandals made the public think the abuse happened because the priests were not married. What woman would want to marry a pervert? Perversion is latent and deforming. What the media wasn’t wanting the people to know was that the abuse rate was at about 2%. And our conversions coming in at Easter were the greatest in recent history.

Actually, it’s much less than that …around 0.7% – there are about 46,000 priests in the US and there are about 300 CONFIRMED cases of abuse (322 the last time I researched this). So if one does the math, that is about 0.7% … the lowest of ANY group. This does not excuse the action but it shows that this type of abuse happens among married groups in larger percentages showing that marriage plays no part in this.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Probably these are the two main ‘objections’ that some (not all) Protestants have to celibate clergy:

1, A mistaken belief that celibacy will ‘cause’ sexual abuse, i.e. pedophilia. It does not but that doesn’t stop some misguided people from trying to claim it does. . .because if they can get enough people to buy this theory, it really will make it appear as though the only people who could ever abuse children would be Catholic priests!

1. An unwillingness to recognize the Catholic Church as having authority to determine standards for the priesthood or indeed to make any kind of dogmatic, doctrinal OR disciplinary teaching if it appears to contradict “Scripture” or is not explicitly presented IN Scripture. Of course, the fact that they themselves contradict various Scripture passages and teachings among themselves and come up with extra biblical doctrines like SS and TULIP (of course, not all protestants are proponents of either) seems to escape their eagle eyes. . .

 

[wmscott]

I knew there would probably be an explanation. I have heard of the priesthood of all believers part, but in practice it may not be as evident. Some of my disposition is from my readings of the protestant reformation. Back then there was a more of a separation of classes between the laymen and the priesthood. You are correct that my understanding is lacking, but I’m learning.

Texas, I just want to applaud you for your fair mindedness and willingness to learn about the Catholic Faith. It takes a great man or woman to graciously accept the fact that they can still learn something new. I am always willing to learn and admit that I do not have all the answers or know everything. So good on you!!!

Here at CAF if you are truly interested in learning what Catholic believe and what the CC teaches, please feel free to ask the questions, one at a time is best, and there are many here that will delight in informing you as to what the truth is as to what we believe.

If I may make a request of you. That is defending the truth in the face of falsehoods and lies. I am not asking you to accept or believe in Catholicism, its theology, traditions, doctrines, disciplines, or beliefs. However, I am asking that you know what the truth is about Catholicism, its theology, traditions, doctrines, disciplines, or beliefs and when you come across anti-Catholic lies and falsehoods, dispel them with the truth, do not allow lies and falsehoods to persist. I can sense that you are a fair individual and this should not be too hard of a request for you.

As a Southern Baptist who converted some 26+ years ago I know where you are or may be, and one of my greatest sins is in persecuting the Church Christ established. I have since reconciled that sin and am a better person for it. It was a long road to learning what the truth was. There were a lot of deep rooted bigotry that had to be purged with the truth, but with the help of a great Catholic lady, my wife, who exemplified and evangelized her faith with love, patients, and example lead me away from the sin of living in a spiritual wasteland and put me back on the path to God. What greater role can a woman of the church have than to lead a lost soul back to God?

Peace.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Probably these are the two main ‘objections’ that some (not all) Protestants have to celibate clergy:

1, A mistaken belief that celibacy will ‘cause’ sexual abuse, i.e. pedophilia. It does not but that doesn’t stop some misguided people from trying to claim it does. . .because if they can get enough people to buy this theory, it really will make it appear as though the only people who could ever abuse children would be Catholic priests!

I can only answer for me and what I have experienced. While that thought may exist among the general population anybody who knows anything about pedophilia will not agree. I am pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be in a relationship than not. I think that the social concerns of celibacy that are more predominate among protestants would be more general concerns of the effects of long term repression. Like has been discussed celibacy is a gift. The concern is for those who do not have that gift, but try to live as if they do. There is no way to know if this is a real concern or not. Only the HS does as He is the gift giver.

The other is that it could alienate or separate the priests from the members of the Church. It reinforces that concept that the priesthood is in a separate class than the common man. Some parishioners could have the thought that the priest cannot relate to them because their lives are so different. Many protestants benefit from the example that protestant ministers set on what it means to be in a loving marriage, and they don’t get to see that example from the priests.

1. An unwillingness to recognize the Catholic Church as having authority to determine standards for the priesthood or indeed to make any kind of dogmatic, doctrinal OR disciplinary teaching if it appears to contradict “Scripture” or is not explicitly presented IN Scripture. Of course, the fact that they themselves contradict various Scripture passages and teachings among themselves and come up with extra biblical doctrines like SS and TULIP (of course, not all protestants are proponents of either) seems to escape their eagle eyes. . .

I have a different twist on this one. I don’t see how the Church would not have authority to make rules for being a priest. It stands to reason that any organization would have the authority to regulate its own membership. I think the problem comes when the Church attempts to justify it using scripture that only has marginal references to ministry. The problem protestants have with this is that then it becomes something used to condemn protestants and their rules for ministers. It drives another wedge between us, like we need any more.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I can only answer for me and what I have experienced. While that thought may exist among the general population anybody who knows anything about pedophilia will not agree. I am pretty sure pedophiles are more likely to be in a relationship than not. I think that the social concerns of celibacy that are more predominate among protestants would be more general concerns of the effects of long term repression. Like has been discussed celibacy is a gift. The concern is for those who do not have that gift, but try to live as if they do. There is no way to know if this is a real concern or not. Only the HS does as He is the gift giver.

The other is that it could alienate or separate the priests from the members of the Church. It reinforces that concept that the priesthood is in a separate class than the common man. Some parishioners could have the thought that the priest cannot relate to them because their lives are so different. Many protestants benefit from the example that protestant ministers set on what it means to be in a loving marriage, and they don’t get to see that example from the priests.
***That is a good point but I don’t think that the example of a loving marriage is ‘necessary’ to priest (or indeed to pastoral) function. After all, most doctors have not experienced the ills that they diagnose and we don’t expect them to have first hand knowledge of disease through having it themselves before we trust them! And we don’t expect our lawyers to have lived through divorce before we allow them to counsel people seeking divorce. Heck, we don’t even expect them to necessary be married before allowing them to counsel people about to marry, pre nups, etc. So it isn’t just the ‘bad’ examples but the ‘good’ examples that don’t necessarily need to be modeled.

Priests also usually have different functions from a pastor. They often have far more people to tend. Also I doubt that for example your pastor has to get up in the middle of the night to give the sacrament of the sick (extreme unction) to a dying member of the congregation, or to hear confessions. And your pastor usually does not have to travel to more than one church. He might (in some of the Protestant Churches) say two services on a Sunday; he doesn’t say a daily Mass (sometimes more). Still, it is a discipline. It can change. Where priests are married (and yes, we do have some even in the Latin rite), mostly it works well. But we trust the Holy Spirit. If He wishes to ‘change’, no doubt He will direct us and it will happen just as He wishes and in the time frame He wishes.

I have a different twist on this one. I don’t see how the Church would not have authority to make rules for being a priest. It stands to reason that any organization would have the authority to regulate its own membership. I think the problem comes when the Church attempts to justify it using scripture that only has marginal references to ministry. The problem protestants have with this is that then it becomes something used to condemn protestants and their rules for ministers. It drives another wedge between us, like we need any more.

Well, I think part of the trouble is that when people in the Church try to explain why a Protestant interpretation (Such as Dokimas’ contention that celibacy was antiBiblical for priests) is in error. We are NOT necessarily teaching that the Church is ‘justifying’ its position in a defensive kind of way. And certainly we aren’t condemning Protestant ministers, many of whom do a wonderful job teaching and living Christ. It’s just that in ‘correcting’ it can look as though we are going too ‘far’ in an opposite direction, when what we are really trying to get is get the pendulum to swing ‘in the middle’ where it belongs.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Texas, I just want to applaud you for your fair mindedness and willingness to learn about the Catholic Faith. It takes a great man or woman to graciously accept the fact that they can still learn something new. I am always willing to learn and admit that I do not have all the answers or know everything. So good on you!!!

Here at CAF if you are truly interested in learning what Catholic believe and what the CC teaches, please feel free to ask the questions, one at a time is best, and there are many here that will delight in informing you as to what the truth is as to what we believe.

If I may make a request of you. That is defending the truth in the face of falsehoods and lies. I am not asking you to accept or believe in Catholicism, its theology, traditions, doctrines, disciplines, or beliefs. However, I am asking that you know what the truth is about Catholicism, its theology, traditions, doctrines, disciplines, or beliefs and when you come across anti-Catholic lies and falsehoods, dispel them with the truth, do not allow lies and falsehoods to persist. I can sense that you are a fair individual and this should not be too hard of a request for you.

As a Southern Baptist who converted some 26+ years ago I know where you are or may be, and one of my greatest sins is in persecuting the Church Christ established. I have since reconciled that sin and am a better person for it. It was a long road to learning what the truth was. There were a lot of deep rooted bigotry that had to be purged with the truth, but with the help of a great Catholic lady, my wife, who exemplified and evangelized her faith with love, patients, and example lead me away from the sin of living in a spiritual wasteland and put me back on the path to God. What greater role can a woman of the church have than to lead a lost soul back to God?

Peace.

Awe, shucks, little old me? I have more flaws than you can shake a stick at. I have stepped on some toes here already. Sometimes it is hard to explain a position you might believe in without some folks perceiving it as an attack on their Church or their faith. Communicating your good natured approach is very hard when it is in writing.

As far as defending the truth is concerned that is what gets me in trouble some times. I try to express the truth of the evangelical protestant position on things. I might even opine at what I perceive protestants think right or wrong. Sometimes I can be incredulous and react strongly to a topic and that never goes over well. If I ever learn enough about Catholicism to correct someone I’m sure I’ll barge right through that door too. We all need to be careful in discussing our differences that we can take an academic approach and not let our passions drive our speech. We can disagree about what the truth is, and agree about what our respective beliefs truly are at the same time.

Thanks for the kind words. Now I hope I don’t disappoint you and say something stupid.

 

[KathleenGee]

SirKnight,

Thanks for your statistical (name removed by moderator)ut…we all know how ‘reliable’ they can be when quoting media…I heard a Catholic say here it was 98%…before that 5%…

Pedophilia is a sickness from an immature mind…so I doubt an immature mind, even when having sex in marriage, would not be a successful and viable married partner.

Every human institution has a 3% deviancy rate.

 

[wmscott]

Awe, shucks, little old me? I have more flaws than you can shake a stick at. I have stepped on some toes here already. Sometimes it is hard to explain a position you might believe in without some folks perceiving it as an attack on their Church or their faith. Communicating your good natured approach is very hard when it is in writing.

As far as defending the truth is concerned that is what gets me in trouble some times. I try to express the truth of the evangelical protestant position on things. I might even opine at what I perceive protestants think right or wrong. Sometimes I can be incredulous and react strongly to a topic and that never goes over well. If I ever learn enough about Catholicism to correct someone I’m sure I’ll barge right through that door too. We all need to be careful in discussing our differences that we can take an academic approach and not let our passions drive our speech. We can disagree about what the truth is, and agree about what our respective beliefs truly are at the same time.

Thanks for the kind words. Now I hope I don’t disappoint you and say something stupid.

Believe me I have put my foot in my mouth many times Saying something “stupid” I prefer the term “uninformed” and saying something malicious that perpetuates a lie or falsehood is something different. By being uninformed and making an assertion, then being provided with the correct information, it’s what is done with that information afterwards. Constructively it is not offensive, but as you may have observed here already there are those who will deny the truth and perpetuate a lie and falsehood no matter what. Catholics are just bad and unholy pagans to the extreme; to we are just “plain wrong” in every theological beliefs, it is my way only (fill in the denomination) on the milder side.

Any question asked in true Christian charity is welcomed and the same charity will be reciprocated. Peace

 

[ALLGIRLS]

The only people who have an issue with this are those anti-Catholics you want to use it as “proof” that the Catholic Church isn’t Christian because it “forbids” people to marry. 1st of all, no one is “forbidden” to marry. Most Catholics are married! Priests agree to not marry before they become priests. Plus, there are even priests who are married, as has been pointed out (Eastern Rite priests, and converts from Anglicanism or Lutheranism). So that argument just falls flat. 2nd, although we appreciate your concern (whoever posted it, I can’t remember now) about “the price” the Church pays for celibate clergy, we’ve been doing fine for 2000 years now, the majority of that time w/ celibate clergy, and Jesus promised the gates of Hell would not prevail again the Church, so I think we’ll be alright.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Dokimas]

Actually, it’s much less than that …around 0.7% – there are about 46,000 priests in the US and there are about 300 CONFIRMED cases of abuse (322 the last time I researched this). So if one does the math, that is about 0.7% … the lowest of ANY group. This does not excuse the action but it shows that this type of abuse happens among married groups in larger percentages showing that marriage plays no part in this.

Are you sure you want to get into numbers? Seems your 300 is for one yr. What if one of those 300 were your child? How much money has it cost the CC?