why can't priests marry?

[vsedriver]

**
we see in the bible Abraham was obedient to God and just as he was about to slay Issac , Gen 22:10 an angel called out to him and Issac lived … Abrahams faith was rewarded**

Was it Abraham’s faith that was rewarded or his obedience?

Surrendering one’s will and being obedient to the Church is a frightening thought for many people. For Catholics, being obedient to the Church is being obedient to Christ.

 

[guanophore]

Hi folks,

I think what the OP means is why isn’t it voluntarley for priests to marry or not before they take the vow, like it is the case with deacons or in the Eastern Catholic Churches?
You answered for monks and nuns. Yes, they choose to go to a monastery and live a life in celibacy.
I really have great respect for monks and nuns. But Jesus IMO, never meant priests to be cilabate only. They are free to stay celibate or marry - but **before **the vow, if you wish so.
Also Paul writes i.e. in 1 Cor 7:7: “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” (NASB)

Blessings,
Esdra

Of course they are free. No one can compulse a vow, either to marry, or to be celibate. The Latin Rite prefers to choose from among those called to celibacy, for a variety of reasons.

Therefore, if one is called in this day and age to be a Roman Catholic priest, God will most likely give him the gift of celibacy. If not, then he may be called to something else. It is a discipline, so it could change. God told the Church “whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven”, and God is willing to work within the limitations of humanity, as evidenced by the incarnation itself.

Roman Catholic priests identify with Christ in this area, and represent the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, with Jesus as the example of the priestly life.

 

[guanophore]

I agree. However, celibacy is the clearest sign of the nature of heaven on earth, in that in heaven they neither marry, or are given in marriage. This is a supernatural testimony to the world about total consecration to God. A sign of contradiction, if you will, especially in this sexualized age.

 

[pablope]

Whoa there! Let us not devalue marriage as something as “pleasures of the flesh”. There are very many good Catholic priests who are married in the Latin Rite. Marriage is a vocation and sex is an integral part of marriage. Didn’t St. Paul said that its better for one to marry than burn with desire? Why are we condemning those who choose to follow St. Paul’s advice? Sex is sacred! Its part of God’s plan! You should read Theology of the Body to get this understanding.

God knows His Church. He respects the rules of the Church because He gave the keys to Peter who passed it along his successors. So God will not call a married man to the Roman Catholic priesthood. But of course there are special circumstances that maybe God will guide one to go through and still end up in the Roman Catholic priesthood whilst being married. God can also lead one to Eastern Christianity where the married do get ordained.

Whoa…It was not my intention to devalue marriage or married priests in the Eastern rites. Sorry, it came across that way.

My response to the question was regards to the OP having to give up marriage in the Latin rite, which he apparently do not want to do as his cross.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whoa…It was not my intention to devalue marriage or married priests in the Eastern rites. Sorry, it came across that way.

My response to the question was regards to the OP having to give up marriage in the Latin rite, which he apparently do not want to do as his cross.

Not just Eastern, but even in the West. In fact, there are more married Latin Rite priests in the US today than there are Eastern Rite married priests. (so I heard from the Eastern Forum). Lets just not make judgments on people who are married but desired to be priests are those who cannot keep it in their pants during priestly ministry.

Honestly though, if one is a married man and feeling a calling to the Roman Catholic priesthood, then perhaps its not a true calling. God will not call one person to break the rules of His Church. Remember, He said what they held bound on earth will be bound in heaven. The celibacy rule is man-made, but God will honor it.

A deacon perhaps?

 

[praxising]

Hi folks,

I think what the OP means is why isn’t it voluntarley for priests to marry or not before they take the vow, like it is the case with deacons or in the Eastern Catholic Churches?
You answered for monks and nuns. Yes, they choose to go to a monastery and live a life in celibacy.
I really have great respect for monks and nuns. But Jesus IMO, never meant priests to be cilabate only. They are free to stay celibate or marry - but **before **the vow, if you wish so.
Also Paul writes i.e. in 1 Cor 7:7: “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” (NASB)

Blessings,
Esdra

I just read through this thread and nowhere found the answer given to me by several priests on another Catholic forum a few years ago. I used to have references, and I’ll go look for them but here’s what happened as I recall:

There were married priests in the Church until about 1100 (?) when the Ottoman Empire was in power. The problem was, that under their civil laws, only individuals could own real property, not corporate bodies like the Church. People would leave their property to their Priest, thinking they were giving it to the Church. The Priest would pass, and the property would pass to his sons who would divide it up or sell it or whatever.

To get around this, the Pope of the time declared priests could not be married and, any marriages that existed were actually invalid. So, all the wives were technically adulterers, the offsping illegitimate, and could not inherit property. The priests then made wills leaving all of their property to the Bishop.

I was told it is still this way today. Part of one Bishop or Archbishop leaving and another coming in, is the transfer of all real property to the next Bishop. Possibly in countries where there is corporate ownership this is just symbolic/ceremonial, but I was told, by the priest, that even in America, each Bishop technically owns all Church property.

So, in the next 1000 years, there has been a lot of theological justification for the celibate priesthood. And it gives rise to a lot of speculation about Peter living in some chaste relationship with his wife for which there is no ongoing tradition or Scriptural justification.

 

[praxising]

This is from a Vatican document, which certainly glosses over portions of the history of married priests, but refers to the time I think my post refers to:

Of the numerous synods convoked throughout Europe during the eleventh and twelfth centuries to enforce with rigour the neglected law, the most notable are the First Lateran Council (1123) and the Second Lateran Council (1139), considered as ecumenical in Roman tradition. Lateran I made into general law the prohibition of cohabiting with wives (c. 7). Lateran II, c. 7, reiterating the declaration of the Council of Pisa (1135), also declared marriages contracted subsequent to ordination to be not only prohibited, but non-existent (… matrimonium non esse censemus). At times, this Council is wrongly interpreted as having introduced for the first time the general law of celibacy, with only unmarried men being admitted to the priesthood. Yet what the Council was doing, in a more pointed way, was re-emphasizing the law of continence (… ut autem lex continentiae et Deo placens munditia in ecciesiasticis personis et sacris personis dilatetur…)60 Subsequent legislation, however, continues to deal with questions relating to married men ordained secundum legem, not contra legem.

The principle sources for this legislation are the Quinque Compilationes Antiquae and the decretals of Gregory IX. These decretals form part of the Corpus Iuris Canonici, a work completed in the fourteenth century and which influenced law-making until the appearance of the 1917 Code of Canon Law. From these sources, we learn that from the time of Alexander III (1159-1181) married men were not, as a rule, allowed to have ecclesiastical benefices; a lower cleric who married would have his benefice withdrawn, but not his right to subdiaconate ordination on the condition that he discontinues his marital life. A son of a priest (considered legitimate if born before ordination) was prohibited from succeeding to his father’s benefice. Young wives and the wives of bishops were to agree at the time of ordination to enter a convent.61 The rights of the wife were also protected.

 

[joe370]

I agree. However, celibacy is the clearest sign of the nature of heaven on earth, in that in heaven they neither marry, or are given in marriage. This is a supernatural testimony to the world about total consecration to God. A sign of contradiction, if you will, especially in this sexualized age.

I think that sums it up best!!!

 

[praxising]

I’m not too good with numbers, but I’m pretty sure it was definitely not the Holy Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire spread from east to west, correct? And I think it was the eastern-most of the churches that had the most married priests.

I wouldn’t have mentioned it, but it was clearly agreed-on by at least three priests in the forum I used to post on, that the issue that made it a Churchwide ban on marrying preordination and post was this property thing. Not that they didn’t have issues before. There was a lot of historical scandal about how the priests either continued to have relations with their wives, or, if they didn’t like them, just got tossed out as adulterers in some cases. A lot of the newly illegitimate sons were made priests themselves and given parishes to compensate or cushy jobs working for Bishops. It was a huge deal. Like common knowledge and no big deal. But forums were a lot different pre-scandal. Folks weren’t so touchy about the warts, you know?

Hey, I’m no expert. This is just what was understood about it a few years ago.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m not too good with numbers, but I’m pretty sure it was definitely not the Holy Roman Empire. The Ottoman Empire spread from east to west, correct? And I think it was the eastern-most of the churches that had the most married priests.

I wouldn’t have mentioned it, but it was clearly agreed-on by at least three priests in the forum I used to post on, that the issue that made it a Churchwide ban on marrying preordination and post was this property thing. Not that they didn’t have issues before. There was a lot of historical scandal about how the priests either continued to have relations with their wives, or, if they didn’t like them, just got tossed out as adulterers in some cases. A lot of the newly illegitimate sons were made priests themselves and given parishes to compensate or cushy jobs working for Bishops. It was a huge deal. Like common knowledge and no big deal. But forums were a lot different pre-scandal. Folks weren’t so touchy about the warts, you know?

Hey, I’m no expert. This is just what was understood about it a few years ago.

I want to respond to the bolded. In the Byzantine Rite, there is no issue if a priest were to have relations with his wife. They are married, why should they be forbidden to have relations? I know there are issues about it in the Roman Catholic Church, but this is just an additional discipline stemming from the original discipline of celibacy. There was never a standing rule from the beginning that priests were to stop having relations with their wives.

 

[praxising]

I want to respond to the bolded. In the Byzantine Rite, there is no issue if a priest were to have relations with his wife. They are married, why should they be forbidden to have relations? I know there are issues about it in the Roman Catholic Church, but this is just an additional discipline stemming from the original discipline of celibacy. There was never a standing rule from the beginning that priests were to stop having relations with their wives.

I posted a link to a Vatican article, if you wade through it, you’ll see that certain times, a married man could become a priest, but he and his wife had to agree to cohabit without sexual relations. Forever. I doubt that worked very well. I do believe if he was made Bishop, she had to go into a convent. But they’d give her nice status.

Priestly celibacy (being unmarried) wasn’t an original doctrine or discipline of the Church. Until much later when they tried to prove it was. Sorta kinda. You’re right about there never being a standing rule from the beginning about the wives.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I posted a link to a Vatican article, if you wade through it, you’ll see that certain times, a married man could become a priest, but he and his wife had to agree to cohabit without sexual relations. Forever. I doubt that worked very well. I do believe if he was made Bishop, she had to go into a convent. But they’d give her nice status.

Celibacy (being unmarried) wasn’t an original doctrine of the Church. Until much later when they tried to prove it was. Sorta kinda.

Like I said, this is just from the RC point of view. Byzantines are big on doing things the same way it was done 1500 years ago. Priests today are not forbidden to have relations with their wives. I know the RC Church today do that for their married clergy. The only restriction in the Byzantine Rite I believe is priests cannot have relations on the night before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Not sure if that meant they can do it during the day before sunset or before Vespers if they have it every day.

 

[guanophore]

I posted a link to a Vatican article, if you wade through it, you’ll see that certain times, a married man could become a priest, but he and his wife had to agree to cohabit without sexual relations. Forever. I doubt that worked very well. I do believe if he was made Bishop, she had to go into a convent. But they’d give her nice status.

Priestly celibacy (being unmarried) wasn’t an original doctrine or discipline of the Church. Until much later when they tried to prove it was. Sorta kinda. You’re right about there never being a standing rule from the beginning about the wives.

The preference for celibate priests emerged very early, and was tied to the monastic movement. The Church craved the influence of the Holy men, who themselves preferred to remain in secluded in monastery. Many of these were ordered out of their quiet devotional lives into urban areas that were full of corruption and disobedience. Some of them begged to be allowed to return to their isolation, but remained out of obedience to the Bishop.

 

[praxising]

Like I said, this is just from the RC point of view. Byzantines are big on doing things the same way it was done 1500 years ago. Priests today are not forbidden to have relations with their wives. I know the RC Church today do that for their married clergy.

Wait. Seriously? You mean those Episcopalian Priests who laterally transfer in are expected to stop having conjugal relations?

The only restriction in the Byzantine Rite I believe is priests cannot have relations on the night before celebrating Divine Liturgy. Not sure if that meant they can do it during the day before sunset or before Vespers if they have it every day.

I’m sure it’s all precisely laid out somewhere. So this is what they did 1500 years ago?

I wish sometimes we’d all be bigger on doing what they did 2000 years ago.

 

[praxising]

The preference for celibate priests emerged very early, and was tied to the monastic movement.

I read that, and I believe it. Monks were considered “holier” than others because of their seclusion. Like Essenes were.

The Church craved the influence of the Holy men, who themselves preferred to remain in secluded in monastery. Many of these were ordered out of their quiet devotional lives into urban areas that were full of corruption and disobedience.

And dense populations that needed more priests who were not in sudden large supply.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wait. Seriously? You mean those Episcopalian Priests who laterally transfer in are expected to stop having conjugal relations?

I heard that but I can’t confirm. Whats their age anyway? Have there been converts who are still in their child bearing age?

I’m sure it’s all precisely laid out somewhere. So this is what they did 1500 years ago?

More or less. Though I haven’t really gone into detailed research on it as its not a topic of my interest. All I know is that the Byzantine faith always relies on the Church Fathers and try their best to keep the same teachings inherited from then. That is why many of what the Eastern Churches do today is what the ancient tradition of the RC Church was over a millennium ago, because they don’t want to change it while the RC keeps updating based on current philosophies.

I wish sometimes we’d all be bigger on doing what they did 2000 years ago.

2000 years ago is a bit too much. At that point the Apostles haven’t figured stuff out, and many traditions we see today haven’t even began to evolve. I think it was from Nicaea that the Church took shape into what we see today. That is why some anti-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church only began then.

 

[praxising]

2000 years ago is a bit too much. At that point the Apostles haven’t figured stuff out, and many traditions we see today haven’t even began to evolve. .

I think that’s what makes it seem attractive to me. I like us better stumbling about in the dark, sends everyone more forcefully toward the Light. And I don’t know much about the lateral transfer priests, I know of one who was still raising his kids, but never heard anything about the sexual aspect of his marriage. TMI, IMO.

 

[rinnie]

I agree. However, celibacy is the clearest sign of the nature of heaven on earth, in that in heaven they neither marry, or are given in marriage. This is a supernatural testimony to the world about total consecration to God. A sign of contradiction, if you will, especially in this sexualized age.

Yes I have heard people condemn Priests for this, saying that they are going against the word of God for not marrying and having Children.

They cannot see the great honor it is for a Priest to imitate Christ in this way. This is very sad.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yes I have heard people condemn Priests for this, saying that they are going against the word of God for not marrying and having Children.

They cannot see the great honor it is for a Priest to imitate Christ in this way. This is very sad.

Agreed. There are now almost 7 billion people on earth. I’m sure we can spare a few men to be celibate and serve God fully. Theology of the Body states that celibacy is a sign of things to come. Because in heaven no one will be married to another, but all as the Church would be married to Christ.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think that’s what makes it seem attractive to me. I like us better stumbling about in the dark, sends everyone more forcefully toward the Light. And I don’t know much about the lateral transfer priests, I know of one who was still raising his kids, but never heard anything about the sexual aspect of his marriage. TMI, IMO.

Well, I think it would have been better if we’ve adopted the way the East spreads the faith, allowing each new locale to adopt their own customs and traditions based on their own culture.