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

[Esdra]

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.

You are right: In the Orthodox Church(es) you are allowed to marry as a decon. You can become a priest if you have married as a decon.
You are not allowed to remarry if you are a priest and your wife dies.
There are NO married bishops or patriarchs. If you are a married priest you are not allowed to become a bishop or patriarch.
In the (Western) Catholic Church (I am not sure abou the Eastern Catholics though!) you are allowed to marry before you become a decon. But then your not allowed to become a priest nor are you allowed to become a bishop, cardinal or the pope.

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.

I have never heared that former Anglican, Episcopolean or Old Catholic/Utrecht priests/ministers are allowed to become priests although they are married.
I think this is good. Maybe the Catholic Church will rethink their practice of “forced” celibacy.
I would, just as Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:7-9 that it is better to marry instead of “burning in passion”.
This means that it should be the priest’s free choice to be in celibacy or to marry.
I also think that all the things with (child) abuse could have been prevented by this rule above.

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.

Actually, I think so too. I think this practice is not good. I would not make celibacy as a requirement for the Priesthodd. Even in the old days of the Church it was not a requirement but only since 1022 AD!
The best solution, in my eyes, would be (as track in the right direction) to use the practice of the Orthodox Churches. So there will be married priests - but no married bishops, cardinals and no married pope.

Peace
James

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Esdra,

I think you got the horse before the cart on this one … Let me explain…

I have never heared that former Anglican, Episcopolean or Old Catholic/Utrecht priests/ministers are allowed to become priests although they are married.
I think this is good. Maybe the Catholic Church will rethink their practice of “forced” celibacy.
I would, just as Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:7-9 that it is better to marry instead of “burning in passion”.
This means that it should be the priest’s free choice to be in celibacy or to marry.
I also think that all the things with (child) abuse could have been prevented by this rule above.

There is no more ‘forced celibacy’ then there is a ‘forced seminary education’ for those interested in the priesthood. The man considering a vocation to the priestly life must consider that not only giving up marriage (celibacy) but leading a chaste life is a requirement - and he will spend several years just learning about what it takes to become a priest. Truly, no one is suddenly ordained and then bishop suddenly states, “Oh, you can’t get married!” This is no ‘flash-in-the-pan’ type decision - each one of these men has had years to think about it, to pray about it, to get counseling about it - in brief, they know what they are getting into. Additionally, no one is ‘forced’ to be a priest - it is a calling from God that few respond to.

Concerning the idea that there would be a reduction in child abuse if priests did not have ‘forced celibacy’ - it is totally without data to support such an idea. If you look at all of the people who have sexually abused minors virtually all of the men are married, have been married or were living together with a sex partner at the time of the child abuse. Those who seek sexual gratification from children - do not necessarily abstain from having sex with adults - it is just that children are their preference for a sex partner. This is a sickness which seems to have no cure…medical cure - and marriage is not the answer or cure for pedophilia.

The priests who abused children are sick men who not only have sinned greviously but have broken man’s law. These weak men have also given public scandal - and have seriously betrayed the faith that was placed in them by the Church, the community and by these innocent children.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, VetA,

Here is an interesting reference site on non-denominationalism: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-denominational_Christianity The criticsm at the end seems to bring it all toghether.

God bless

i and many of my friends here regard ‘non-denominational’ as a denomination, but to make it easier for you, what requirements do your church’s elders say are the bare minimum to be come a pastor or assistant pastor

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Wanner47,

This was an excellent reference - Actually, after reading it and the scriptural references, I think all of the objections have been answered.

Thanks for sending this.

God bless

Here you go, Pat; this article answers all of your questions:

catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0404sbs.asp

 

[PRmerger]

I will also note that there is no case where “celibacy isn’t possible”.

Indeed. And as a corollary, sex is not required to live. It seems that some think it is a basic need for survival, like food and water. (Note to wags: yes, sex is needed for survival of the species. I get that! )

In the history of the world–in all civilizations, in all times, in all societies, in all cultures–I daresay that not a single person has ever died from not ever having sex!

 

[PRmerger]

What I find really amazing is that there is all of this axe grinding about how the CC is wrong about something - yet these misguided souls refuse to actually verify the Chruch’s teaching on that particular matter.

[SIGN1]That is my #! pet peeve on the CAFs!![/SIGN1]–ex-Catholics (usually accompanied by these qualifiers: “altar server”, "12 years of Catholic schooling with nuns!’) who are adamantine that some whacky belief they’re professing was taught by the CC. And the fact that they’re an ex-Catholic means that, by golly, they’re speaking with authority.

Yet if you ask them a simple question like
-what’s the Immaculate Conception?
or
-where’s Scripture in the Mass?

they fail miserably in their explanation.

 

[wmscott]

You might not make any, Doki, and I accept that. However, if you look at the stats for this thread on the front page, there are almost 10x as many people reading it as there are posting on it. I write to you with those lurkers in mind, as I know many of them have your same misunderstandings and objections. If just one of them is able to better understand that the Church is unable to forbid marriage to anyone, then “real progress” has been made.

You have rejected the authority that the CC has to choose from among those called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom to serves as priests. Not everyone rejects that authority the way you do.

You are absolutely correct. However, I will wager they got it 200 posts ago.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Dokimas,

Seriously, after being on CAF for a while, noting the responses you have received, just what would you consider ‘real progress’?

I realize that you did not create, author, or develop any of these ideas that appear to just critisize the Catholic Church. Ultimately, if you support and espouse these ideas so whatever criticism they get, you need to stand and defend them with actual scripture - and just make statements.

So, let’s here something solid from you - no one is forcing anyone to do anything… but if you make statements, defend them with substance.

God bless

We are making no real progress.

 

[Dokimas]

Please show the verses that say this. I see nothing about only the cuckolded party being able to divorce.

This is what I read:

but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Matthew 5

and this:

And He said to them, "(I)Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;

And if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery. Mark 10

And, why would it be a sin to marry a divorced woman in your systemology, Dokimas? Does Jesus say, except if this woman was divorced because her husband committed adultery?

Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” NJKV

That says to me, that if a man divorces his wife and remarries, he commits adultery. The exception is sexual immorality. It doesn’t make sense for Jesus to give an exception if the man commits adultery while married and lets the man off the hock by allowing divorce. Context and understanding what is logical helps here.

In the eyes of God/Jesus a divorced woman is married so to marry her it would be adultery.

 

[Dokimas]

I note that Doki did not answer this. Wonder why not?

The following was my answer. If you need help understanding how it answers the question, just ask me.

[SIGN]3 ¶ The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
5 "and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6 “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.”
7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.
9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
10 His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:
12 “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

Jesus condemns adultery. Jesus does NOT condemn those who can’t choose celibacy. He said ‘he who is able to accept it, let him accept it.’ One would think it’s fair that if one can NOT accept it, He does not hold that against them.[/SIGN]

How about this one?

Originally Posted by Dokimas
[SIGN]Nope. It’s out of exasperation that you compare the two things when one is definately a sin (adultery/divorce) and a man desiding celibacy was not for him. Celibacy is not a sin; getting married because celibacy isn’t possible isn’t a sin. Apples with apples.[/SIGN]

 

[Dokimas]

i and many of my friends here regard ‘non-denominational’ as a denomination, but to make it easier for you, what requirements do your church’s elders say are the bare minimum to be come a pastor or assistant pastor

I’ve answered this before: Paul’s writings to Timothy and Titus.

 

[Dokimas]

I will also note that there is no case where “celibacy isn’t possible”. All things are possible with God, and one does not have to be at the mercy of his sexual passions. Jesus came to deliver us from bondage to our flesh.

You disagree with Paul. No offense but I think I’ll stick with Paul’s understanding.

1Co 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Dokimas]

In the history of the world–in all civilizations, in all times, in all societies, in all cultures–I daresay that not a single person has ever died from not ever having sex!

Unless you include the spouses that are murdered by someone to whom sex is denied.

BTW, you are not in agreement with Paul who wrote:

1Co 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

 

[Dokimas]

You might not make any, Doki, and I accept that. However, if you look at the stats for this thread on the front page, there are almost 10x as many people reading it as there are posting on it. I write to you with those lurkers in mind, as I know many of them have your same misunderstandings and objections. If just one of them is able to better understand that the Church is unable to forbid marriage to anyone, then “real progress” has been made.

You have rejected the authority that the CC has to choose from among those called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom to serves as priests. Not everyone rejects that authority the way you do.

Maybe it’s not working quite the way you think. Maybe some are able to see through answers and see Biblical truth in spite of us.

I don’t reject CC authority. I’m not catholic. How can someone from England reject USA authority???

 

[Dokimas]

You are absolutely correct. However, I will wager they got it 200 posts ago.

And it may not be as funny as you think it is.

 

[Dokimas]

Hi, Dokimas,

Seriously, after being on CAF for a while, noting the responses you have received, just what would you consider ‘real progress’?

I realize that you did not create, author, or develop any of these ideas that appear to just critisize the Catholic Church. Ultimately, if you support and espouse these ideas so whatever criticism they get, you need to stand and defend them with actual scripture - and just make statements.

So, let’s here something solid from you - no one is forcing anyone to do anything… but if you make statements, defend them with substance.

God bless

Have you missed the Scriptures I often post that seem to say what I believe?

Of the 8 posts I just made, at least 3 included Bible verses.

 

[guanophore]

I have never heared that former Anglican, Episcopolean or Old Catholic/Utrecht priests/ministers are allowed to become priests although they are married.
I think this is good. Maybe the Catholic Church will rethink their practice of “forced” celibacy.

Wm, here is one that did not “get it” 200 posts ago.

You would benefit from reading back through the thread, Esdra. The Church has not ever, nor does she now, practice “forced celibacy”. We consider the gift of celibacy to be from God, and it is impossible to “force” a gift of God onto somone". they are either givent he gift or not, and this is not from the Church, but from God, and they either receive it or not, but that is up to them. The church has no power to “force” that from either end. It is between the individual and God.

The church strongly supports the teaching of Jesus that, to those whom the gift is given, it ought to be accepted. She aslo chooses from among those so gifted to serve as priests.

I would, just as Paul writes in 1 Cor 7:7-9 that it is better to marry instead of "burning in passion".

This means that it should be the priest’s free choice to be in celibacy or to marry.
I also think that all the things with (child) abuse could have been prevented by this rule above.

You are displaying your lack of understanding about pedophilia here, Esdra. Most pedophiles are married heterosexuals. Pedophilia cannot be prevented by marriage, and does not respond well to treatment.

A person who is willing to satisfy his sexual desires at the expense of other people has no business serving as a priest, whether he is married or celibate. Hiding his aberration within marriage will not change anything.

What you are suggesting is that a man’s sexual urges should not be submitted to the HS for control, but that we as humans should try to arrange a socially acceptable outlet for them to prevent them from getting out of control. A person who has this much need for structure outside himself to discipline his basic natural urges is not appropriate for the priesthood.

Actually, I think so too. I think this practice is not good. I would not make celibacy as a requirement for the Priesthodd. Even in the old days of the Church it was not a requirement but only since 1022 AD!

Once again, your history is a bit lacking Esdra. the preference for celibate priests grew out of the monastic movement in the 300’s. It was recognized by the bishops that a person who was undivided in their interests was much better suited to serve the parish.

The best solution, in my eyes, would be (as track in the right direction) to use the practice of the Orthodox Churches. So there will be married priests - but no married bishops, cardinals and no married pope.

Thank you for this proclamation, Pope Esdra.

 

[guanophore]

You disagree with Paul. No offense but I think I’ll stick with Paul’s understanding.

1Co 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

No, Doki, I don’t disagree with Paul. I disagree with your interpretation of Paul. Paul said “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. He did NOT say " a person will soon die if they don’t gratify their sexual passions". I assure you, this will not happen. I work in a facility with incarcerated males, and many of them burn with sexual passion. None of them die from it. Many of them abstain from sexual activity.

Paul says “IF they cannot exercise self control”. As we will agree, self control is one of the fruits of the Spirit. If one is weak in faith, or young in the faith, one may have insufficient fruit of the Spirit to govern their passions in a mature manner. In this case, Paul makes a concession that they marry.

However, for those in spiritual formation for the priesthood, one of the basic requirements to serve as a priest is the fruit of the Spirit, especially self control. This does not only apply in matters of sexual passion, but in all areas.

If a person cannot exercise self control, they are not suited for the priesthood. You will find this principle in the letters to Tim and Titus you reference, even extended that they should have control over their household as well.

 

[guanophore]

Unless you include the spouses that are murdered by someone to whom sex is denied.

You are not really falling for this drivel, are you Doki? This is one of the greatest lies of the culture of death in which we live.

Do you really think that a spouse not having sex must preciptiate murder on the part of the one denied? I cant even believe you brought this up at all.

You must have very little faith in the HS to be able to keep His people chaste, and a lot of faith in the sexual urge being stronger than the HS.

I think that most people living under the power of the culture of death believe the sex drive is stronger than God, come to think of it.

 

[guanophore]

Maybe it’s not working quite the way you think. Maybe some are able to see through answers and see Biblical truth in spite of us.

I don’t reject CC authority. I’m not catholic. How can someone from England reject USA authority???

Yes, you do reject the authority of the CC. Jesus gave to Peter the duty to feed and care for the sheep. This was centuries before there was an England, or a USA. If the authority given by Him was regional, you might have a point, but the Apostolic authority was over the whole church, and still is. You are a rebellious subject of the Roman Pontiff, whether you know it, or not.

When God appoints someone to be in authority over you, they are in authority. You may not know about it, you may not recognize it, and if you do those two, you may rebel against it, but it does not change the authority God has given.