Why do the Western rites of the Church RARELY permit married priests when St. Peter was married?

[Lead_Me_Home]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 8:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Some traditions say that St. Peter was married with children befor he was call to be an apostle.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm I know that the Pope is only required to be a Catholic man, so there will always be a successor to St. Peter until the coming of the Lord. If ST. Peter was married why aren’t more married men allowed to become priests? I admire and respect chaste priests, but is it necessary?

 

[CatholicGuy22]

The celibacy rule of the latin rite priest is a discipline. I think it brings the best out of our priests because if they had a family it would be hard to run a parish and do everything else a priest does. We dont claim we have scripural evidence for celibacy but we just inforce it to make our priests better. The church can change this rule anytime they want but that wont happen. Peter was married and again we dont claim we have scriptual evidence for celibacy of priests, it is just a discipline that will bring the best out of priests.

Pax

 

[Rascalking]

I’m in the middle of this issue. I know why priests can’t get married, and I accept it. The previous poster was one hundred percent correct.

However, I wish they could get married. I think more people would become priests if they could.

 

[peary]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 8:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Some traditions say that St. Peter was married with children befor he was call to be an apostle.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm I know that the Pope is only required to be a Catholic man, so there will always be a successor to St. Peter until the coming of the Lord. If ST. Peter was married why aren’t more married men allowed to become priests? I admire and respect chaste priests, but is it necessary?

We don’t know too much about Simon Peter, actually, except what is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the site you mentioned. Most of it comes from secondary sources. If you go by the Bible itself, the only thing we know is that he was married, but we don’t know if his wife was still living at the time Christ called him to serve. We only know that his mother-in-law lived in the same house. The wife is never mentioned. If he had children, it is assumed that they were all grown by the time of his ministry. But we also have this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 - “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” So, we DO know that Peter’s wife accompanied him on his journeys.

The vow of celibacy in the western priesthood has nothing to do with the marriage of apostles. Although the eastern priesthood of the Church (and orthodox churches as well) have maintained the married option for its priests, these come with certain stipulations: a seminarian may get married BEFORE he becomes a deacon and priest, not afterwards. Also, once your wife dies, you must remain celibate. Eastern Church bishops have a tradition of celibacy. Many have a misperception of Church law when it comes to married priests. They tend to believe that the eastern church operates the same way as protestant denominations when it comes to marriage, which is not true at all. If the western Church wanted to change its law on unmarried priests, it could. More information on unmarried/married priests can be found here:

catholiceducation.org/articles/facts/fm0014.html

 

[GEddie]

The celibacy rule of the latin rite priest is a discipline. I think it brings the best out of our priests because if they had a family it would be hard to run a parish and do everything else a priest does. We dont claim we have scripural evidence for celibacy but we just inforce it to make our priests better. The church can change this rule anytime they want but that wont happen. Peter was married and again we dont claim we have scriptual evidence for celibacy of priests, it is just a discipline that will bring the best out of priests.

Pax

I’d also add that in our currently sex–maddened general society, the celibacy of Catholic clergy is a useful witness to a Life so powerful as to transcend sexuality. Our LORD and the Virgin Mary were the highest point reached by human life; both lived without sexual activity in order to live fully for GOD, which negates the modern idea that “you are not a human being unless you are sexually gratified.” While we do not have the 2 of them with us physically, we have the Catholic priesthood, and the brothers and sisters.

The vast majority of human life is called to sexuality, via marriage, for the propagation of the human race. This is good in itself. However, the Everlasting Life, when we see it, will be so humanly awesome, awesomely human, and, well, everlasting, that even the procreative instinct will be beside the point. That is the message of the celibate clergy.

ICXC NIKA.

---

PS: CG22, are you in Purgatory, Colorado???

I really like the pic in your header. You will be in my prayers. GEddie

 

[Thoma25]

I think we should be very careful with the idea of loosening the requirements for priesthood just to get more priests, especially when it comes to celibacy. If you look to Protestantism, you’ll see clergy that is allowed to marry. (You’ll also see female clergy, openly gay clergy, female bishops, and a lot of other things; but that’s beside the point). There’s also a high divorce rate, because they often have to make a choice between their community and their family. Given the many responsibilities required by the average parish priest, you’ll see that one of two things must suffer if he were married: either he will not have the attention to devote to his parish, which during this time of renewal is of utmost importance, or he will not have time to devote to his family. Also, many parishes are having financial trouble; how would the situation be improved if the parish had to support a priest’s family as well?

Personally, I think that if the celibacy issue is discouraging people from joining the priesthood, then they’re probably not called to it in the first place.

 

[GEddie]

I’m in the middle of this issue. I know why priests can’t get married, and I accept it. The previous poster was one hundred percent correct.

However, I wish they could get married. I think more people would become priests if they could.

Even if that were true, it is doubtful whether enough priests would be added to compensate for the lesser efficacy of priests who have to worry about families, and the greater burden on a Church that has to support all the priestly families.

And how would one prevent the Church from becoming a “family run business?”

Celibacy has practical as well as spiritual utility.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Matt_707]

Hi Leadmehome,

You are right. It is possible for there to be married latin rite priests. Should it? Celibacy is what breathes life into the Body of the Church. How would it fair if all priests were married?

Also, I’m not sure if you have kids, but let me ask anyone that does. Do you consider being a parent a full time job? Ask a priest the same question. The answer is yes. You can not commit yourself to too many things or something will suffer whether it be the Church or your family.

God Bless

-Matt

 

[Aquinas29]

My understanding is that the concept of celibacy comes from Mathew 19:12 -

“For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it.”

Paul mentions in 1 Cor 7:32-35 “~ But I would have you to be without solicitude.** He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord**, how he may please God.”

The Church Fathers wrote about it, such as St. Augustine:

Christian Doctrine
On Christian Doctrine (Book III)
25. … for example,** if he has embraced a life of celibacy and made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, he contends that the commands given in Scripture about loving and ruling a wife are not to be taken literally, but figuratively; and if he has determined to keep his virgin unmarried**, he tries to put a figurative interpretation on the passage where it is said, “Marry thy daughter, and so shall thou have performed a weighty matter.” Accordingly, another of our rules for understanding the Scriptures will be as follows,–to recognize that some commands are given to all in common, others to particular classes of persons, that the medicine may act not only upon the state of health as a whole, but also upon the special weakness of each member. For that which cannot be raised to a higher state must be cared for in its own state.

I believe that, if Peter’s wife was still alive by the time he had started his active ministry, they would have been living as “brother and sister”. Celibacy was a tradition in the early church, as St. Paul wrote in his letters, and was backed up by St. Augustine, St. Cyril and other church fathers. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that “clerical continence” was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.

A bit long winded, but I hope this helps a bit.

 

[Rolltide]

It’s important to note that the Orthodox Church allows married priests, and they have a similar priest shortage to the Catholic Church…

 

[Coder]

I think we should be very careful with the idea of loosening the requirements…

In general, would a married priest who is faithful to the Magisterium serve the kingdom better than a dissenting celibate priest?

 

[GEddie]

In general, would a married priest who is faithful to the Magisterium serve the kingdom better than a dissenting celibate priest?

He could. But there is no connection. You could as easily have married dissident priests.

And, having apparently knuckled under to dissident pressure in the matter of celibacy, the Magisterium might face a snowstorm of dissent in other matters, after its repeal.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Coder]

He could. But there is no connection. You could as easily have married dissident priests.

My point is that if we are going to have a priority then perhaps selection of the obedient should take precedent over selection of the celibate. Celibacy could still be encouraged.

And, having apparently knuckled under to dissident pressure in the matter of celibacy,

The respectful request for a change in a non-doctrinal practice is not dissent. Acceptance of contraception and women priests and giving a doctorate of law degree at a Catholic university to a president who supports the injustice of legal abortion - those are problems.

 

[Thoma25]

I don’t believe that there is any need to change such a long standing Ecclesiastical tradition as priestly celibacy. There are certainly many problems we would face in doing so, however, and very few if any that would be solved. As other posters have pointed out, the Orthodox and Eastern Catholics allow for married clergy, under certain conditions, and they are experiencing the same problems as the Latin rite. So the real question is, why should we respectfully request that such a long standing tradition be changed when it would do little except create the problems already addressed? I think it is far more respectful to adhere to the current discipline which has been in place for millennia, which is precisely what we need in this relativistic age: obedience to the Church and its decisions, not more undermining changes.

The Church is already suffering from the “perpetual change” mentality of many of its members, and I really don’t think we should give the progressives (read: Modernists) any concessions. First, they attack the idea of mandatory celibacy; then, if having gotten their way, they’ll want to address the female priest issue, the unchanging nature of dogma, the inerrancy of Scripture and Tradition, and on it goes. Unless there is a serious and immediate problem related to celibate clergy, which there isn’t, we really shouldn’t go down the slippery slope of tearing down yet more Ecclesiastical traditions to make peace with a hyper-sexualized world.

 

[adstrinity]

We don’t know too much about Simon Peter, actually, except what is stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the site you mentioned. Most of it comes from secondary sources. If you go by the Bible itself, the only thing we know is that he was married, but we don’t know if his wife was still living at the time Christ called him to serve. We only know that his mother-in-law lived in the same house. The wife is never mentioned. If he had children, it is assumed that they were all grown by the time of his ministry. But we also have this quote from Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 - “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” So, we DO know that Peter’s wife accompanied him on his journeys.

Douay-Rheims:

5 Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

5 “A woman, a sister”… Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it, a sister, a wife: whereas, it is certain, St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7 ver. 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women, as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel, and supplied them with necessaries.

Also, regarding Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Priests marrying, they may, but, I believe if they are to become bishops, and ESPECIALLY if they are Patriarchs/Primates, they MUST be celebate (correct me if I’m wrong…and I know you all will.)

 

[Coder]

Attributes of a Bishop: usccb.org/nab/bible/1timothy/1timothy3.htm

 

[Abu]

Priestly Celibacy is an Apostolic Norm

While the fact of priestly celibacy is a discipline, it is also more than a discipline because it is an Apostolic norm from the choices made by Jesus, and Sacred Scripture attests to its roots. The celibacy required for priests from the apostles was mandatory, and obligatory as seen clearly from the authoritative passages below:

Christ, by remaining celibate, wrote Pope Paul VI, signified his total dedication to the service of God and men (The Celibacy of the Priest, June 24, 1967). If Christ found celibacy to be central to His service of God and man, we should not be surprised if He finds the same to be central to the lives of His priests; to those who act in Persona Christi.

“In 1969 Christian Cocchini, S.J. completed his doctoral thesis at the Institut Catholique, on the history of clerical celibacy. The president of the examiners who approved his dissertation was Cardinal Danielou. Cocchini’s mastery of the sources from the New Testament to the seventh century is unequalled.

This is what he found:
“From the beginnings of the Church, and throughout the Greco-Latin world, a single rule prevailed: Priests were celibate; or else, if they had married before ordination, they and their wives promised to live together thereafter without the use of the marriage. This rule was an Apostolic norm; it was proclaimed and practiced by the Apostles; and that norm in turn was founded upon the example of our Lord Himself.

“Clerics were often chosen from among married older men. After ordination they were required to abstain from conjugal intercourse. In effect then, they were not married. Qui habent uxores, tamquam non habentes sint. “Let those who are married live as if they do not have wives”. Pope Leo the Great in 458 AD borrowed those words of Saint Paul in order to describe the celibacy of the clergy.” *. The Origin Of Priestly Celibacy, by Hugh Ballantyne, June 2003]

So the celibacy required for priests is from the time of the apostles, and obligatory, as confirmed by all scholarship, and by the Fathers and Popes.

Any relaxation of this norm is strictly limited and confined to exceptional circumstances.*

 

[thistle]

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 8:14[/BIBLEDRB]

Some traditions say that St. Peter was married with children befor he was call to be an apostle.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm I know that the Pope is only required to be a Catholic man, so there will always be a successor to St. Peter until the coming of the Lord. If ST. Peter was married why aren’t more married men allowed to become priests? I admire and respect chaste priests, but is it necessary?

There is nothing in scripture to support the claim that Peter was married when he was called by Christ. Scripture does not mention his wife. It only says his mother-in-law stayed with him. To me that suggests he was probably a widower at that time and he looked after his mother-in-law.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Some traditions say that St. Peter was married with children befor he was call to be an apostle.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm I know that the Pope is only required to be a Catholic man, so there will always be a successor to St. Peter until the coming of the Lord. If ST. Peter was married why aren’t more married men allowed to become priests? I admire and respect chaste priests, but is it necessary?

Jesus Christ, our Savior, was a virgin and celibate. He dedicated His life to our salvation. He did not marry even though the Jews did not have a social or religious custom of celibacy for the sake of the Jewish religion (the Jewish priests and Levites married).

The Virgin Mary, who assists Christ in all that He does for our salvation, was a virgin even though it was God’s plan for her to marry and bear a child.

Therefore, virginity and celibacy are better than marriage.

Council of Trent: “CANON X. If any one says that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony; let him be anathema.”

Most priests and all Bishops should be unmarried because Christ was unmarried, because they must dedicate their lives to the Church, because the priesthood and episcopate is a higher calling than marriage, because virginity and celibacy are better than marriage.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There is nothing in scripture to support the claim that Peter was married when he was called by Christ. Scripture does not mention his wife. It only says his mother-in-law stayed with him. To me that suggests he was probably a widower at that time and he looked after his mother-in-law.

The early Church Fathers have said much the same about Peter’s wife.
She must have died because there is no mention of her at all.