Why cant priests marry when Peter, the first Pope, was married?

[PJM]

=PaulVF;10237933]Not to be contentious as I agree with most of what you say, but your closing 2 statements make me wonder.
Is the western Church then saying then that some priests of the eastern rite (and also some converted Protestants) are not putting God first by marrying?

Though nobody is ‘forced’ to become a priest we are All given God’s grace to answer His call, each in our own unique ways.

No

What’s “done is done” and because its a matter of Church practice and CAN be tolerated if it was done B$ taking the Vow of Chasity.

What is an accepted practice in OTHER chuches /Faiths must conform to what they are comming FREELY into.

A CONDITION is that IF their wife dies they cannot then REMARY

 

[Rolltide]

I appreciate the background on this topic; very informative. Especially these three important points you bring up; 1) taxing schedule, 2) a former “high lifestyle” and 3) simony and nepotism. However, as they are not relevant in today’s Church, why would they still preclude the clergy from marrying?

Interestingly, points 2 &3 were used as part of the justification for the Protestant split from the Church.

Actually, I think the most interesting part of the story is that celibacy was instituted as a widely popular reform. The fact that some are now calling for its end (as a reform) shows that the grass really isn’t any greener on the other side. BOTH have pros and cons, and both positions will inevitably be abused by some, because we are sinful beings.

 

[LilyM]

I appreciate the background on this topic; very informative. Especially these three important points you bring up; 1) taxing schedule, 2) a former “high lifestyle” and 3) simony and nepotism. However, as they are not relevant in today’s Church, why would they still preclude the clergy from marrying?

Interestingly, points 2 &3 were used as part of the justification for the Protestant split from the Church.

The schedules of priests are every bit as much a concern today - lots of places have severe shortages and many priests have to serve numerous sometimes far flung parishes. And simony? Maybe not but misuse of church funds to support their families is surely an issue.

 

[minion]

Thanks for the discussion everyone.

It sounds to me like celibacy for priests seems more out of practicality rather than a theological concern.

Can’t say I like this discipline, but i can honestly see the pros & cons of it now.

 

[Oiseprof]

Many Catholics still confuse priesthood with Religious Life. Professed Religious men and women make the three Vows of Religion, Poverty, Chastity and Obedience. Priesthood is an office or position of responsibility in the Church. Priests do not make the Vows of Religion unless they happen to be Religious as well - that is, members of a Religious Order. So there is nothing incompatible between priesthood and marriage. The long standing tradition is to ordain single men only. Priests are expected to be celibate because they are single. The Church expects all single Catholics to be celibate. Many married men, former Anglican priests, are being ordained these days, especially in England. We now have both married and single priests and my guess is that more married men and perhaps women will be ordained in the near future.

 

[Church_Militant]

I have an article on my blog that covers the reasons for celibacy. Check it out.
Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[vsedriver]

We now have both married and single priests and my guess is that more married men and perhaps women will be ordained in the near future.

women will never be ordained in the Catholic Church. It’s a done deal.

 

[vsedriver]

I believe an important factor in the imposition of celibacy was the question of inheritance. The Church wanted to keep her proprerty and not have it pass into the hands of potentially hostile relatives.

why wasn’t this a factor in the Eastern Church?

 

[DavidFilmer]

I should clarify - no Catholic priest (Orthodox, Latin Rite, or whatever) may marry. It is possible for a married man to be ordained priest (actually, deacon) in the Orthodox Church, but an unmarried priest (actually, deacon) may not marry. Also, if a married priest’s wife dies, he is not permitted to take another. A married priest may not be consecrated Bishop.

As others have pointed out, this is discipline, not doctrine. It could change tomorrow, but it is unlikely to do so.

The Church imposes other disciplines which none of the Apostles could have possibly met. For example, a priest is typically expected to hold a degree in theology (from a Catholic college or university), and be recommended to the priesthood by his seminary advisers and Formation Director.

Likewise, medical doctors (in the United States) are expected to attend an accredited medical school and hold a valid license to practice medicine. That could change tomorrow (and cobblers could thus be allowed to practice medicine), but it is unlikely to do so (which is good news to anyone scheduled for surgery tomorrow). Does anyone complain that doctors in Jesus’ time were not required to have any formal medical training or certification, and argue that modern doctors should not meet these requirements either?

 

[ajecphotos]

To me, I think that it would be a good idea to let already married men become priests. I think it would bring something special to the church and these days, catholic priests are overshadowed by news reports of some with bad ways regarding naughtiness (can’t bring myself to type the word).

If an Anglican priest can follow god and still be married and do his vocation properly from the heart then I don’t see why not married catholic men should not have the chance to enter the priesthood.

 

[october_baby]

As a former protestant, I can say that single clergy is for the best.

 

[DavidFilmer]

If an Anglican priest can follow god and still be married and do his vocation properly from the heart then I don’t see why not married catholic men should not have the chance to enter the priesthood.

For most on this forum, an “Anglican priest” is a protestant minister (Catholics do not typically regard them to have received Orders and they are not “priests” in the Catholic sense that they can offer valid Eucharist). Protestant ministers are typically married (and are usually expected to be married). Just because Anglicans call their ministers “priests” does not equate them to Catholic priests, according to Catholic doctrine, so any comparison is flawed (as far as Catholics are concerned).

In the Catholic Church, there are three “vocations.” The highest vocation is to the priesthood (this particular vocation is limited to men). The second vocation is to the consecrated (and unmarried) Religious life. The third vocation is to committed matrimony.

The Catholic Church does not recognize any “mix” of these vocations. A person may commit to only one vocation (but is not required (or even expected) to commit to any - ie, a person may remain single for life, and that’s perfectly OK).

An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord. [1Cor 7:33-35]

 

[Oiseprof]

*In the Catholic Church, there are three “vocations.” The highest vocation is to the priesthood (this particular vocation is limited to men). The second vocation is to the consecrated (and unmarried) Religious life. The third vocation is to committed matrimony.

The Catholic Church does not recognize any “mix” of these vocations.*

This is incorrect. The highest vocation, the state of perfection, is the Religious Life under the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Priesthood is an “office” rather than a state of life. Also, there are many members of Religious Orders who are both priest and Religious, though most priests are secular clergy.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Besides what has already been mentioned in terms of practical reasons, Christ gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose. They can impose requirements upon the faithful, as they do with Holy Days and fasting. Imposing celibacy on priests is perfectly within the bounds of Magisterial authority, and is in no way opposed to doctrine or dogma. It really doesn’t matter what we think; we need only obey. Those who obey His apostles, obey Him.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Regarding the Orthodox, please note their propensity or lack thereof for married priests to become bishops.

 

[guanophore]

Not to be contentious as I agree with most of what you say, but your closing 2 statements make me wonder.
Is the western Church then saying then that some priests of the eastern rite (and also some converted Protestants) are not putting God first by marrying?

Though nobody is ‘forced’ to become a priest we are All given God’s grace to answer His call, each in our own unique ways.

Not at all. Marriage and the commitment of celibacy in the monastic tradition are also considered vocations. It is just that the Church prefers to choose for priests among those who are called to be eunuchs for the Kingdom.

Matt 19:12
“…there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

As has been clarified by the Apostle Paul (posted above) such persons do not have divided interests (pleasing one’s wife as well as serving the Bride of Christ).

 

[Elizium23]

Perhaps ajecphotos was speaking of Anglican Ordinariate married priests, who are indeed valid Catholic priests in good standing?

The reason that converts can be married priests is because they are the exception to the rule. They come under the Pastoral Provision by the Popes so that converts may enjoy the priesthood if they are suited to ministry and especially so that the faithful of the Ordinariate will not be deprived of priests. It would be an utter waste if a convert with a background in pastoral ministry and/or theology who has spent years in formation and a well-respected member of a non-Catholic denomination should not be permitted to the Catholic priesthood just because he was already married. But your garden-variety Roman Rite seminarian goes to his vocation with his eyes open and full knowledge that the Latin Church demands celibacy of him. There is no comparison, really. The diaconate is still available to married men here.

 

[guanophore]

why wasn’t this a factor in the Eastern Church?

When the Emperor moved to Constantinople with the entire civil structure, there was no one left in Rome to organize the affairs of the citizenry. The Emperor prevailed upon the Bishop of Rome, the only one with sufficient leadership and structure to manage the civil government. He was given the title of Pontiff, and accepted the sceptre of secular rulership. This is when the conflation of spiritual and temporal power began, and continued unitl the Reformation.

With the co-occurrance of religious offices and secular power many abuses occurred, including the responsibility of the Church to support families, legitmate and illegimate heirs of priests. Some of the heirs squabbled over material goods and lands that had been charitably donated to the Church.

These kinds of events did not occur to any great degree in the East because the East never suffered the conflation of spiritual and temporal authority that the Western Church did. The East was overrun by Muslims, and did not even enjoy the authority to govern their own Churches, much less land and property.

 

[LBennett]

For those who are so quick to desire change to the current discipline of celibacy. A few things for us to consider on a practical level… Are parishes willing to absorb the expenses of educating, and paying for all the needs of a priests children, and adequate housing? The whole system would have to change. Parishioners that do not tithe would need to consider the implications. Parishioners could no longer throw a dollar in the collection and expect a parish to be able to financially support a priest and his family… Also, a priest does not have to be married to understand difficulites in marriage… A doctor does not have to have cancer to help his patients. Sometimes a clear unbiased eye can be very insightful. Yes, there are married priests and they are the exception. I know two who have side businesses in order to help meet the needs of their families (college, braces, etc) they don’t want to drain their parishes funds, especially if the church needs a new parish hall. The children feel the stress like protestant kids (preachers kids) to feel they have to be perfect… They are somewhat neglected because their father is not JUST their father but a father to every widow, child, and family of his parish. His own children often come last to his ministry. There would need to be really good spiritual reasons for the change… In this day and time of such impurity, pornography, and low morals, it stands as a stark witness to the culture to be able to have priests who have offered this sacrifice on behalf of all of us… Instead of us criticizing their sacrifice to Christ and to all of us, we should say thank you for making us your family, for saying yes to offer to God your life in service in this particular way… Celibacy and chastity is very unpopular these days… A priest must keep close to his prayer life, and not allow the secular world to overcome him or else he WILL have a difficult time remaining chaste and pure of heart. He needs a relationship with Jesus’ mother too. She loves her priest sons and prays for their vocations… I have known priests who have left too… I do not judge them… There are temptations for married as well as consecrated religious. It is in the prayer life and keeping oneself honest about oneself… Anyone called to this special calling must know themselves and have an identify rooted in their priesthood… Yes, all priests will be tempted against their vow at some point… It is part of the human condition. It is in embrasing this gift everyday that their joy and peace will come…

 

[Karen107]

Peter was married before he became a disciple and marriages are sacred not to be broken up by man let alone Jesus. Had Peter never been married he might never like St. Paul who never married. Can you imagine if Paul was how his mission might have been hindered or his family broken up or left without a father? It is a discipline confirmed in scripture by Jesus saying to become a disciple you must give up everything and follow me (that includes becoming married). And it is a good dicipline considering Priests are the head of their church family (why we call them Father). If they were married, than their first loyalty would be towards their wives and families which is in Catholic teaching (not helping someone at the church in the middle of the night) . Families might suffer because their dads might be hurt or martyrd for the sake of the church. The church would be hurt because they would have to support and allow the family to take presidence over the church mission(s) (and it has seen problems in that area as the historian talks about). So if a priest takes a vow to God, then they take it seriously about leaving everything to follow Jesus. I appreciate them for their dedicating their lives to the service of God and to us. God bless them.