Were The First Bishops Married?

[Greg_McPherran]

Hi and Thank You Martin,

Imprimartin:

Greg,
I understand that you submit to the church but that you think that
the church decreed an error in practice.

Actually I would say might be an error in the degree, not a black and white error.

Imprimartin:

But you commit another fallacy here (non sequitur) by saying that celibacy causes dissent.

Can you show me where I said that? What I said was a.) that from a management point of view we need to put more weight on assent and less weight on celibacy. I think by adjusting these priorities, we can advance the mission of Jesus to transform the world. And I also think that b.) we may be missing some of the wisdom of Scripture that does not seem to support such strict requirments on celibacy and in fact far from it.

Celibacy is smiled on by Jesus, but He seems to clearly be making it a matter of choice and I don’t see where He connects it with clergy in a strict sense. For example, even single non-clergy can remain celibate for the kingdom of God - true? Likewise, being married does not rule out being a priest (we have a few today). Also, Paul seems to make it very clear that clergy can certainly be married as Alan pointed out.

Thank You Martin,
Greg

 

[sullivansoul]

I’ll be the first to say the opposite: many were married AND continent. Why does this bother so many people? Is it possible that the early fathers actually believed that a priest should deny himself sexual pleasure for the kingdom of God?

Why are we so quick to jump to the conclusion that the Church is incorrect on such an issue? Are we really that wise?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

sullivansoul:

Is it possible that the early fathers actually believed that a priest should deny himself sexual pleasure for the kingdom of God?

I think to assume that one would deny his own wife, what the Church rightly defines as unitive and procreative, could be absurd and unkind especially if the wife was not expecting it. Since when is unkindness Christian? Even married Catholic priests today are not required to be continent. If this was the model of the Church fathers, then why don’t we do that now?

sullivansoul:

Why are we so quick to jump to the conclusion that the Church is incorrect on such an issue? Are we really that wise?

I have made no conclusion at all, I have raised the question.

sullivansoul:

Are we really that wise?

I have seen and accept the wisdom of the Church teaching. I question if what we are seeing with the state of decline in social morality if the Church is being wise in this area. Sometimes a Pope may not change something assuming wisdom of the predeccesors, but the reasons for the rule may no longer be valid. Sometimes to not change can be worse than changing.

What I have seen with dissent and (other problems), the claim of wisdom is fairly questioned. The Pope admits the wrong of the Church to Jews, I think the inquisition, etc. The Bishops report says the “Skoke of Satan” has entered the Church and they admit the failure of the bishops.

Please see my posts regarding Scripture and placing a higher priority on assent than celibacy?

Greg

 

[metal1633]

Greg_McPherran:

You are basically seeing my point. What I also find as possibly hypocritical, is that everyone refers to the early Church Fathers when correcting Protestants, but we try to bypass the early Church Fathers when it comes to married clergy. It seems we can be cafeteria Catholics about what we want to model from the early Fathers.

Thank You Alan,
Greg

It is certainly unnessesary to quote the Fathers on Celibacy because it is so clearly endorced by Christ and by Paul. As to the rest I am not quite sure if I get your question or your position. Priestly Celibacy in the West and the Celibacy of Bishops in the East are perfectly acceptable practices. It can change but it probably wont. The reasons for Clerical Celibacy are still valid and changes in society wont change that. In the Eastern Rites there are many more Celibate Priests than there are Married Priests even though they are permitted marriage.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

metal1633:

It is certainly unnessesary to quote the Fathers on Celibacy because it is so clearly endorced by Christ and by Paul.

Yes, but there is no sense of it being a requirement for priesthood. This is where I think we are missing the spirit of the law expecially in light of a bishop having only one wife. How do go from a bishop having only one wife to requiring unmarried?

Greg

 

[metal1633]

Greg_McPherran:

Yes, but there is no sense of it being a requirement for priesthood. This is where I think we are missing the spirit of the law expecially in light of a bishop having only one wife. How do go from a bishop having only one wife to requiring unmarried?

Greg

No one is REQUIRED to be unmarried. In the Western Church Priests and Bishops are chosen from among those who have already chosen celibacy. In the Eastern Church a Priest may be married but the Bishops are chosen from among the celibate Monks. Because it is endorsed in the NT it over time became normative. It is not a Dogma.

As to "bishop having only one wife", If he was a widower does he stop being a bishop? Was Paul himself in viloation of this “Law” by not being married?

Paul was not making Law that REQUIRED a married Bishop. He was teachings AGAINST POLYGAMY

 

[metal1633]

Greg_McPherran:

I still think that the way we enforce it as a discipline has made it effectively a doctrine. I think the Church may be more in line with Scripture by strongly recommending celibate clergy but still allowing married priests.

The Church DOES allow Married Priests, but it is normative for priest to be chosen from among the Celibate. I am Celibate. I am a cannidate for the Priesthood. I am also an Eastern Rite Catholic. If I got married I would STILL be a cannidate for the Priesthood.

I also don’t understand how the Church can say that a married man is not called by God to the priesthood. If a married man truly believes that he is called by God to the priesthood and shows extraordinary faithfulness and love of God, how could the Church ever reject this or even claim to know that the man is not called by God?

Because it is for the Church to decide if the man has actually been called by God to the Priesthood. And if he HAS been called to the Priesthood then depending on the situation he could be a Priest in one of thge Eastern Rites. Calibacy is only the norm in the Latin Rite. And even within the Latin Rite there are married Clergy who were protestant ministers and converted.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

It sounds as if a married Catholic man could request ordination in the Latin Rite under a dispensation of some sort?

 

[MrS]

metal1633:

Paul was not making Law that REQUIRED a married Bishop. He was teachings AGAINST POLYGAMY

2nd level of teaching…

A priest signifies his “marriage” in ordination to the Church and to Christ with a ring. Yes he is married to the Church, and that will require so much of his time and efforts that he should not have a 2nd wife.

MrS

 

[Imprimartin]

Greg_McPherran:

Hi and Thank You Martin,

Actually I would say might be an error in the degree, not a black and white error.

Can you show me where I said that? What I said was a.) that from a management point of view we need to put more weight on assent and less weight on celibacy. I think by adjusting these priorities, we can advance the mission of Jesus to transform the world. And I also think that b.) we may be missing some of the wisdom of Scripture that does not seem to support such strict requirments on celibacy and in fact far from it.

Celibacy is smiled on by Jesus, but He seems to clearly be making it a matter of choice and I don’t see where He connects it with clergy in a strict sense. For example, even single non-clergy can remain celibate for the kingdom of God - true? Likewise, being married does not rule out being a priest (we have a few today). Also, Paul seems to make it very clear that clergy can certainly be married as Alan pointed out.

Thank You Martin,
Greg

Greg,
You wanted to know how I can claim that you said “Celibacy causes dissent”. You didn’t say that in so many words but I read your words to imply the following logic:

-You ask us which is better: (A) A celibate priest who dissents in various ways OR (B) A married priest (non-celibate) who teaches church teachings.

You say this as if these were the only two choices.

-Then you say:

Greg:

I think the Church may be making a serious mistake right now and we are seeing the consequences.

I consider that perhaps faithfulness and holiness are more important than celibacy and the incredible massive dissent of the celibate seems to strongly speak to that.

In other words, if we choose choice A, then we will have what you’ve quoted above. While I agree with you that if we do not make efforts to weed out dissenting priests (married or not), we will have what you say above.
But the key is what you say in the first part about “seeing the consequences”. That speaks directly to causes. You are saying that the church is (or will) experience the consequences of a choice she has made or is making. That is a non-sequitir. That’s what I meant when I said what I said. Celibacy doesn’t cause dissent. Pride causes dissent.

Hope that’s clearer,
Martin

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello and thank you Martin,

Imprimartin:

Greg,
You wanted to know how I can claim that you said “Celibacy causes dissent”. You didn’t say that in so many words but I read your words to imply the following logic:

-You ask us which is better: (A) A celibate priest who dissents in various ways OR (B) A married priest (non-celibate) who teaches church teachings.

You say this as if these were the only two choices.

-Then you say:In other words, if we choose choice A, then we will have what you’ve quoted above. While I agree with you that if we do not make efforts to weed out dissenting priests (married or not), we will have what you say above.

Yes, my point was that we enforce celibacy but we do not ***enforce ***assent. I would rather see a celibate dissenter quickly replaced with a married obedient.

Imprimartin:

But the key is what you say in the first part about “seeing the consequences”. That speaks directly to causes. You are saying that the church is (or will) experience the consequences of a choice she has made or is making. That is a non-sequitir. That’s what I meant when I said what I said. Celibacy doesn’t cause dissent. Pride causes dissent.

I was referring to seeing the consequences of allowing dissent, not that celibacy causes it. If we replaced dissenters with married obedients (thus allowing more non-dissenting priests into the Church) the Church as a whole may advance the mission of Jesus. I think perhaps I should send a letter to the proper channels in Rome if I wish to suggest allowing more married priests. We must presume their wisdom and judgement in this matter and always obey. Our Church lovingly welcomes her children to make suggestions however, and this is the spirit I wish to have about this. I guess attitude is everything right? I just really seek to help the Church progress.

Thank You Martin!

Greg

 

[Imprimartin]

-Snip-

I was referring to seeing the consequences of allowing dissent, not that celibacy causes it. If we replaced dissenters with married obedients (thus allowing more non-dissenting priests into the Church) the Church as a whole may advance the mission of Jesus. I think perhaps I should send a letter to the proper channels in Rome if I wish to suggest allowing more married priests. We must presume their wisdom and judgement in this matter and always obey. Our Church lovingly welcomes her children to make suggestions however, and this is the spirit I wish to have about this. I guess attitude is everything right? I just really seek to help the Church progress.

Thank You Martin!

Greg

What about replacing dessenters with chaste and unmarried obedients? Yes, it might take a little longer for dissent to die off (if that’s possible), but the church’s 2000 year old wisdom might know a little something that we do not. I also wish for the church to progress in certain areas. But I think we can agree that not all “progress” is good. (in fact I wouldn’t even call some things “progress”)
And so what if the church’s fallible decision in this area of discipline is actually right?! I think that the proper course of action is to determine the cause of our current climate of dissent among some priests. Is it celebacy or is it pride/dissent? If you wish to make a suggestion to the church, we should probably do it in the most constructive way we can and help them out with the research. Y’know what I mean?

In Christ,
Martin

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Imprimartin:

but the church’s 2000 year old wisdom might know a little something that we do not.

In general, I have taken that position. However I have seen in Massachusetts that a.) the teaching on contraception has effectively been erased in some cases as if it was a de facto understanding that that Catechism just hasn’t caught up with the trends yet, and b.) the other issues (I don’t care to mention). Also the bishops report says that the “Smoke of Satan” has entered the Church. Is this wisdom?

 

[Greg_McPherran]

I think my previous post is too much of a cheap shot. I ran out of time editing it. The point I wish to make is that we do seem to need some boost to prmote assent and truth. This is why I like Catholic Answers, because they seek to promote the truth (the voter’s guide in USA Today, for example). I thought my idea of additional married priests and emphasizing assent as well as celibacy might help. As I have said, I could be wrong and I only ask people consider it with an open mind before they conclude.

Best to All,
Greg

 

[Imprimartin]

Greg_McPherran:

In general, I have taken that position. However I have seen in Massachusetts that a.) the teaching on contraception has effectively been erased in some cases as if it was a de facto understanding that that Catechism just hasn’t caught up with the trends yet, and b.) the other issues (I don’t care to mention). Also the bishops report says that the “Smoke of Satan” has entered the Church. Is this wisdom?

I’ve thought for a while that Massachusetts was liberal (although a bostonian disputed that point once). At risk of being too general, Apparently the bostonians think societal trends and opinions have something to do with the moral truth although I don’t know where they get that idea. I don’t deny that there are liberals out there and in other places but I don’t think that the cause is celibacy. (See below) The smoke of satan has always been in the church since the time of Christ, (Judas, et al). Rumblings and grumblings of the populous is not the measure of the validity of a rule. Nor is the abuse of a rule. Even if liberal/backbone-less priests are letting the grumblings continue, it can be pretty difficult to fight an entire culture. The proper thing to do here is stand silently for the truth and, if people don’t like it, let them leave if they want to leave as Jesus did in John 6.

Greg:

I think my previous post is too much of a cheap shot. I ran out of time editing it. The point I wish to make is that we do seem to need some boost to prmote assent and truth. This is why I like Catholic Answers, because they seek to promote the truth (the voter’s guide in USA Today, for example). I thought my idea of additional married priests and emphasizing assent as well as celibacy might help. As I have said, I could be wrong and I only ask people consider it with an open mind before they conclude.

Opening up the priesthood to married (and presumably orthodox) people might be a good idea to solve the dissent problem on the surface and in the short run. The logic being, “bring in as many orthodox people as you can no matter who”. But I think, in the long run, we would be asking for trouble on all sorts of levels and I think the church knows this from experience in addition to any scripture advising and church father advising.

Martin

 

[metal1633]

Greg_McPherran:

It sounds as if a married Catholic man could request ordination in the Latin Rite under a dispensation of some sort?

Probably not. If he were an former protestant minster, like an anglican priest, who then converts to the Catholic Church, then yes it has been done. But it is rare. The norm is a Celibate Clergy in the West. In the East it is a little differant. A married man may become a Priest but a single Priest may not marry. All the Eastern Bishops are chosen from among the Monastics who are all celibate.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Well, we all should be grateful to priests. Thank you to Father Serpa, Father (Cestusdei, not sure his name), and metal (candidate for priesthood).

Greg