why can't priests marry?

[guanophore]

You are really doing a stretch.

It seems like a stretch to you because you have been separated from the Sacred Traditions of the Apostles. This occurred during the Reformation 500 + years ago, when your faith tradition began. The loss of doctrine and practice over time leaves moderns believing that the ancient ways are a “stretch” or that the CC has “added to the Bible”.

It is, however, the ancient practice of the Church.

 

[placido]

all the disciples were married except JOHN.

How do you know that “all” were married except John? Where can we find that information?

 

[placido]

There is no such restriction from Jesus and Mary; it is Paul’s heretical act.

But in Matthew 19:12 we see Jesus allowing (even encouraging) what you describe as “heretical” act.

 

[Steven_John]

In Australia where i live catholic priests dont marry.
I have an old Hungarian born man i visit in the old folks home.
He said to me one day (not exact quote)
Steven
you need to leave the Catholic church and become an Anglican, then become a priest and leave them, return to the Catholic church and they will take you as a priest and you can keep your family.

It sounds odd in these terms but Anglican priest can convert and become Catholic priests with families.

Bless you

 

[wina]

In Australia where i live catholic priests dont marry.
I have an old Hungarian born man i visit in the old folks home.
He said to me one day (not exact quote)
Steven
you need to leave the Catholic church and become an Anglican, then become a priest and leave them, return to the Catholic church and they will take you as a priest and you can keep your family.

It sounds odd in these terms but Anglican priest can convert and become Catholic priests with families.

Bless you

But still the choice in your hand. And remember religion is not the faith. Some people may have religion but they don’t have faith.
God bless you

 

[Evan]

In Australia where i live catholic priests dont marry.
I have an old Hungarian born man i visit in the old folks home.
He said to me one day (not exact quote)
Steven
you need to leave the Catholic church and become an Anglican, then become a priest and leave them, return to the Catholic church and they will take you as a priest and you can keep your family.

It sounds odd in these terms but Anglican priest can convert and become Catholic priests with families.

Bless you

Not all Anglican priests become Catholic priests. It is on a case by case basis. If that was the reason for leaving the Church, I’m pretty sure you would never be given holy orders. Probably not even the Diaconate.

 

[Steven_John]

But still the choice in your hand. And remember religion is not the faith. Some people may have religion but they don’t have faith.
God bless you

Oh i could not do it for me it would be a fruit of deceit. It does show an irony, if a married priest is ok then they are ok.

my reason for posting was not about me but it does illustrate how things are.

To go deeper, I see much blessing in unmarried priests but ponder given married priests are ok, is the church missing out by a near double standard.

Bless you

 

[formerlysure]

I am trying very hard to adopt and accept the Church teaching on celibacy for the priesthood but I have not been able to find the logic in it so it’s been a real challenge for me to accept and support.

As a woman, my feeling is that there are much better ways for a man to express his commitment to Christ than to abstain from marriage, particularly if the man shares love with a woman yet is a priest or wishes to become one. Avoiding sin, being of service, etc. are far better ways for a man to demonstrate his love and commitment to God than this arbitrary sacrifice of marriage.

I really wish the church would make it optional. Make it the choice of each priest whether he wishes to be celibate or married, regardless of which commitment is made first (frankly, what the heck difference does it make). Certainly there shouldn’t be priest trawling the night clubs for women, but there could be expectations that priests considering marriage would observe courtship rules rather than illicit dating practices and could be counselled on how to manage their process of finding a wife.

I’ve read every argument I can find for celibate priesthood but have yet to read anything that’s very compelling. I think it’s time to abandon this requirement and hope it will happen.

 

[guanophore]

How do you know that “all” were married except John? Where can we find that information?

1 Cor 9:4-5
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

 

[guanophore]

To go deeper, I see much blessing in unmarried priests but ponder given married priests are ok, is the church missing out by a near double standard.

Bless you

There is a cost, sure. But the Church is so much in need of the libido of the consecrated man, directed to bring new birth and fruition to the Bride of Christ.

1 Cor 7:32-35

32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

 

[guanophore]

I am trying very hard to adopt and accept the Church teaching on celibacy for the priesthood but I have not been able to find the logic in it so it's been a real challenge for me to accept and support.

You sure came to the right place.

There is a long and involved history, and knowing it helped me a lot.

For one thing, it is not a “teaching” in the same sense as the doctrines of the faith. It is a discipline, and therefore, could change, just like fasting disciplines and other practices.

The logic, of course, is taking after Christ, and following the recommendations of Paul that I posted just above. The Western Church has been prone to many abuses within the clergy throughout her lifetime, and she has learned that it is expedient to choose for priests among those who are called to the celibate life. This is a very old practice, and goes back to early popes and bishops benefitting from the hermits and monks that were pressed into service in parishes. Their singlemindedness has always been a great gift to the Church.

During the Midieval period, the Church in Europe experienced a great many problems from priests having children, then their parishes being unable to support the families. They discovered that having priests from orders that had taken vows of celibacy were much easier to manage. Moving them was also easier because it did not affect a whole family. There was also the problem of property and the inheritance rights.

As a woman, my feeling is that there are much better ways for a man to express his commitment to Christ than to abstain from marriage, particularly if the man shares love with a woman yet is a priest or wishes to become one.

I would not say “better”, but different, certainly. Jesus was clear that this gift should be received by those to whom it is given, but that it is not given to everyone.

Matt 19:8-12
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11 But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

The Latin Rite chooses for priests from among those who have received this gift. If God wants a man to serve as a priest in the Latin Rite, He will give that man the gift. This is because whatever the Church binds on earth is bound in heaven.

Matt 19:8-12
9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

Avoiding sin, being of service, etc. are far better ways for a man to demonstrate his love and commitment to God than this arbitrary sacrifice of marriage.

I agree, and certainly a person called to the celibate life has anything but an “arbitrary” gift. Candidates for the priesthood are in a discernment process for many years before they take this vow.

I really wish the church would make it optional. Make it the choice of each priest whether he wishes to be celibate or married, regardless of which commitment is made first (frankly, what the heck difference does it make).

The Church considers the priest to be acting in the person of Christ. He “marries” the Bride of Christ, and should have his full attention upon serving this Bride. If a person will abandon a vow, or be lazy about a vow, replace it for another vow, that person is not a good candidate for the priesthood.

Certainly there shouldn't be priest trawling the night clubs for women, but there could be expectations that priests considering marriage would observe courtship rules rather than illicit dating practices and could be counselled on how to manage their process of finding a wife.

Yes. This kind of counseling happens early in the process, and most candidates are encouraged to explore courtship until they are certain if they have the call, or not.

I’ve read every argument I can find for celibate priesthood but have yet to read anything that’s very compelling. I think it’s time to abandon this requirement and hope it will happen.

If the example of Paul and Jesus are “not very compelling” then I doubt anything would be.

 

[Steven_John]

I am trying very hard to adopt and accept the Church teaching on celibacy for the priesthood but I have not been able to find the logic in it so it’s been a real challenge for me to accept and support.

As a woman, my feeling is that there are much better ways for a man to express his commitment to Christ than to abstain from marriage, particularly if the man shares love with a woman yet is a priest or wishes to become one. Avoiding sin, being of service, etc. are far better ways for a man to demonstrate his love and commitment to God than this arbitrary sacrifice of marriage.

I really wish the church would make it optional. Make it the choice of each priest whether he wishes to be celibate or married, regardless of which commitment is made first (frankly, what the heck difference does it make). Certainly there shouldn’t be priest trawling the night clubs for women, but there could be expectations that priests considering marriage would observe courtship rules rather than illicit dating practices and could be counselled on how to manage their process of finding a wife.

I’ve read every argument I can find for celibate priesthood but have yet to read anything that’s very compelling. I think it’s time to abandon this requirement and hope it will happen.

Thats a good post, I agree the priesthood should be celebrated in celibate priests, married and priestess also, they are not the same. As to what is best most already have some concept but truly G-d knows.
A celebrate priest is very good and love your use of scripture, they can have the same baggage so to speak so speak more form value perspective, thats a good way to help.
Others may respond form a priest who has experience of marriage, or for them it would be easier to take counsel with a priestess. I have seen religious and laity who are those priests.

Now as for who can truly offer mass that’s the real question. Of course without being seen as priests and priestesses they can already lead liturgy.

An area i see different to the CC is the sacrifice should be at all our hands any way, not just in the hands of the priest.

I praise and thank G-d the opportunity to read your post and your posting it, may you and yours be blessed

 

[Hail_Linus]

Hi all,

from the catholic bible,

Matthew
Chapter 8:14,

we see that Peter was married,

Can anyone explain to me why the Catholic Church does not allow their priests to be married even though Peter was married?

Thank you in advance

1. 
   *]We actually do not see Peter married in Matthew 8. It appears that he may have been a widower since his wife was not present. Furthermore, early writing do hold that Peter was a widower. There are later traditions that say she was martyred at some point after the resurrection but is not as credible since it came later. However, there is no dogma about this and you are free to interpret the relevant verses as showing Peter was married at that time.
   
   *]This is not a Papal issue, this is a Patriarchal issue.
   
   *]Even though there was a time when married men could be ordained in the Latin Rite, those married Priests were still expected to be celibate you can see this in the Council/Synod of Elvira which took place around 306 AD prior to Constantine legalizing Christianity.
   
   *]Unmarried priests were never permitted and the Pope has no authority to change this. While this might offend some you have to keep in mind that the Catholic Church has a strong desire to reunite with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Permitting ordained priest to marry would end all hope for reunification and may even cause Eastern Churches in union with the Pope to break away.
   
   *]It should also be noted that an unmarried Deacon may not marry either. Also, if a married Deacon becomes a widower he may not remarry which is why they usually become Priests.
   
   *]From what I understand, all rites including Eastern Orthodox only select celibate priest to be Bishops.
   
   Personally I would like to see more married men be ordained as priests. However, it is not my call.
   
   Finally, being the child of clergy seems to be very difficult. I listen to a lot of Protestant radio and I can’t tell how often I have heard stories of people feeling they were neglected by the Pastor Dads and many times the story is coming from a Pastor who has come to the realization that he has neglected his children by focusing in his pastoral duties.
   
   I have also heard married Anglican priests that have been ordained in the Catholic Church often feel they cannot focus as much on their pastoral duties as the celibate priests since their attention is necessarily divided between their pastoral duties and their responsibilities as husband and father. neglecting.

 

[SteveVH]

A celebrate priest is very good and love your use of scripture…

I don’t mean to poke fun at your mis-statement of “celebrate” rather than “celibate”, as I make mistakes all the time. It’s just that it reminded me of a joke I once heard:

There was a young monk in training who asked the older monk about the origin of the practice of celibacy. The older monk went into the basement to find the source and failed to return after a long periond. Worried, the younger monk went looking for him to make sure he was okay. When he found him the older monk was in tears. When the younger monk asked him why he was crying, the older monk replied “the original word was ‘celebrate’!”

 

[pablope]

I am trying very hard to adopt and accept the Church teaching on celibacy for the priesthood but I have not been able to find the logic in it so it’s been a real challenge for me to accept and support.

I’ve read every argument I can find for celibate priesthood but have yet to read anything that’s very compelling. I think it’s time to abandon this requirement and hope it will happen.

I recommend a book for you to read…Many Are Called-Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood by Scott Hahn.

Hopefully it will enlighten you further on the Catholic priesthood and the rule of celibacy.

As a side note, I have listened/read conversion stories of former pastors, Scott Hahn, among them, that now see the wisdom behind the rule of celibacy and are now advocates for it.

 

[pablope]

1. 
   

   *]This is not a Papal issue, this is a Patriarchal issue.

 

[Steven_John]

I don’t mean to poke fun at your mis-statement of “celebrate” rather than “celibate”, as I make mistakes all the time. It’s just that it reminded me of a joke I once heard:

There was a young monk in training who asked the older monk about the origin of the practice of celibacy. The older monk went into the basement to find the source and failed to return after a long periond. Worried, the younger monk went looking for him to make sure he was okay. When he found him the older monk was in tears. When the younger monk asked him why he was crying, the older monk replied “the original word was ‘celebrate’!”

G-d bless you had a big smile when i read your post, i cant spell or type.
Thank G-d you understood

 

[guanophore]

1. 
   *]We actually do not see Peter married in Matthew 8. It appears that he may have been a widower since his wife was not present. Furthermore, early writing do hold that Peter was a widower.

1. 
   What early writing is that? How can he be accompanied later by a wife?
   
   1 Cor 9:5-6
   5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?
   
   Do you think Peter remarried? Or was he carrying his deceased wife’s ashes about?
   

   There are later traditions that say she was martyred at some point after the resurrection but is not as credible since it came later. However, there is no dogma about this and you are free to interpret the relevant verses as showing Peter was married at that time.

   I would hope that when one is “freely interpreting” they would take other Scriptures into account.
   

   *]Unmarried priests were never permitted and the Pope has no authority to change this.

   ARe you paying attention to what you are writing?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Furthermore, early writing do hold that Peter was a widower. There are later traditions that say she was martyred at some point after the resurrection but is not as credible since it came later. However, there is no dogma about this and you are free to interpret the relevant verses as showing Peter was married at that time.

The tradition that St. Peter and his wife were martyred together in Rome. There is no dogma needed for this as the events would not change our faith or salvation.

 

[Hail_Linus]

What early writing is that? How can he be accompanied later by a wife?

Concerning the early writing about Peter being a widower I have remember where what letter it was. I’ll let you know if I remember but I do know it exists.

1 Cor 9:5-6
5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Do you think Peter remarried? Or was he carrying his deceased wife’s ashes about?

The Greek phrase in 1 Cor 9:5-6 “adelphaen gunaika.” The first means “sister,” and the second can be translated as either “woman” or “wife.” Therefore he either had a sister-wife or perhaps a sister-woman and neither of these phrases specifically refer to a sacramental marriage. It might but it might not.

I would hope that when one is “freely interpreting” they would take other Scriptures into account.

Did I say otherwise?

ARe you paying attention to what you are writing?

I am sorry but I do not understand why you are complaining about the sentence “Unmarried priests were never permitted and the Pope has no authority to change this.” This just elementary. It is possible for a married man to be ordained as Priest, it is impossible for a single ordained Priest to marry.

Are you suggesting ordained priests can get married? Are you suggesting that the Pope has the authority to permit single priests to marry? Do you think the Pope has authority of the other Patriarchs in regards to the disciple of celibacy in the priesthood?

If you are suggesting any of these then I have to ask you if you are paying attention to what you are writing. To suggest any of these would be truly ABSURD.