Why NOT allow optional celibacy for the priesthood?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Titus813
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dshix said:
This is incorrect. The authority for the Laws and discipline of the Church come directly from God. If you disobey the Church, you are disobeying God. God’s command can be different for different times, but right now He has decided celibacy is proper for our time.
Click to expand...
Celibacy is not divine law. Do not confuse every law of the Church to be of divine origin. Even the Church herself distinguishes between those.
 
I’ve always been for allowing a priest to be married if they choose to. But I don’t think the Catholic Church will ever change the policy.
 
Burdensome1 said:
A priest is set aside from the rest of humanity, to be different. The Church understands this, even if the laity often does not.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t get married. Otherwise, Christ wouldn’t have chosen married Apostles.
Catholicism (like Judaism) draws a bright line between sexual activity and worship activity.
Click to expand...
Ummmm, no, that is not the position of the Church. Here’s just a simple example of that from the Catechism:
1639 The consent by which the spouses mutually give and receive one another is sealed by God himself.
141 From their covenant arises “an institution, confirmed by the divine law, . . even in the eyes of society.”
142 The covenant between the spouses is integrated into God’s covenant with man: "Authentic married love is caught up into divine love
Click to expand...
Marriage is a sacrament, and like other sacraments, it has its graces. Sexual activity in a sacramental marriage is a form of worship.
 
ValPal said:
That may be true, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t get married. Otherwise, Christ wouldn’t have chosen married Apostles.

Ummmm, no, that is not the position of the Church. Here’s just a simple example of that from the Catechism:

Marriage is a sacrament, and like other sacraments, it has its graces. Sexual activity in a sacramental marriage is a form of worship.
Click to expand...
True. Christ’s relationship with His Church is akin to a marriage. In fact one of the last images of Scripture we have in Revelation is the Bride of the Lamb. A marriage. Those who think that marriage is not good enough be worthy of service to God is wrong. While celibacy has its own merits and truly praiseworthy, marriage is not a lesser vocation or lesser calling. St. Paul writes that a husband and wife should have a relationship akin to Christ and His Church.
 
This is just theological mad libs. Catholicism does not use or allow sex in worship. Saying that marital relations are “worship” is just doing violence to language.

Invoking the Apostles as examples of sexually active priests is fraught. The early Church got its ideas from somewhere, and one popular reason to be Catholic is the notion that most of them came from the Apostles.

Next someone is going to say the Easter candle is a phallic symbol.
 
Burdensome1 said:
This is just theological mad libs. Catholicism does not use or allow sex in worship. Saying that marital relations are “worship” is just doing violence to language.

Invoking the Apostles as examples of sexually active priests is fraught. The early Church got its ideas from somewhere, and one popular reason to be Catholic is the notion that most of them came from the Apostles.

Next someone is going to say the Easter candle is a phallic symbol.
Click to expand...
Just a notion? There are other Apostolic Churches, mind you.
 
I have found no such prohibition in Canon Law. What source are you using?
Click to expand...
You have found no prohibition against sex during Catholic worship? Well then, you and the missus (or mr) should jump up on the altar at Mass and hit it.

:confused:
 
Before you continue this conversation Burdensome1, please read Theology of the Body by Pope John Paul II. Then come back to us about marital relations and worship.
 
Burdensome1 said:
You have found no prohibition against sex during Catholic worship? Well then, you and the missus (or mr) should jump up on the altar at Mass and hit it.

:confused:
Click to expand...
So are you telling me you only worship God one hour a week on Sundays and he’s an afterthought the other 167 hours?
 
Burdensome1 said:
You have found no prohibition against sex during Catholic worship? Well then, you and the missus (or mr) should jump up on the altar at Mass and hit it.

:confused:
Click to expand...
Is it appropriate to jump on the altar to baptize someone? Is it appropriate for priests to jump on the altar to receive Holy Orders? Ridiculousness that applies to every other sacrament is not going to prove your point.

If sex, which can bring forth life, was so offensive to God, there would not be a sacrament of marriage in the first place.

Also, it is noted that you cannot cite official document to support your position.
 
Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Click to expand...
 
Matthew 19:12 For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Click to expand...
The above clearly indicates an option.
 
Shin said:
Why not?

From the Revelations of St. Bridget of Sweden:

It happened that a person who was absorbed in prayer heard then a voice saying to her:

"O you to whom it has been given to hear and see spiritually, hear now the things that I want to reveal to you: namely, concerning that archbishop who said that if he were pope, he would give leave for all clerics and priests to contract marriages in the flesh. He thought and believed that this would be more acceptable to God than that clerics should live dissolutely, as they now do. For he believed that through such marriage the greater carnal sins might be avoided; and even though he did not rightly understand God’s will in this matter, nonetheless that same archbishop was still a friend of God.

But now I shall tell you God’s will in this matter; for I gave birth to God himself.

You will make these things known to my bishop and say to him that circumcision was given to Abraham long before the law was given to Moses and that, in that time of Abraham, all human beings whatsoever were guided according to their own intellect and according to the choice of their own will and that, nevertheless, many of them were then friends of God. But after the law was given to Moses, it then pleased God more that human beings should live under the law and according to the law rather than follow their own human understanding and choice. It was the same with my Son’s blessed Body.

For after he instituted in the world this new sacrament of the eucharist and ascended into heaven, the ancient law was then still kept: namely, that Christian priests lived in carnal matrimony. And, nonetheless, many of them were still friends of God because they believed with simple purity that this was pleasing to God: namely, that Christian priests should have wives and live in wedlock just as, in the ancient times of the Jews, this had pleased him in the case of Jewish priests. And so, this was the observance of Christian priests for many years.

But that observance and ancient custom seemed very abominable and hateful to all the heavenly court and to me, who gave birth to his body: namely, because it was being thus observed by Christian priests who, with their hands, touch and handle this new and immaculate Sacrament of the most holy Body of my Son. For the Jews had, in the ancient law of the Old Testament, a shadow, i.e., a figure, of this Sacrament; but Christians now have the truth itself- namely, him who is true God an man - in that blessed and consecrated bread.

After those earlier Christian priests had observed these practices for a time, God himself, through the infusion of his Holy Spirit, put into the heart of the pope then guiding the Church another law more acceptable and pleasing to him in this matter: namely, by pouring this infusion into the heart of the pope so that he established a statute in the universal Church that Christian priests, who have so holy and so worthy an office, namely, of consecrating this precious Sacrament, should by no means live in the easily contaminated, carnal delight of marriage.

And therefore, through God’s preordinance and his judgment, it has been justly ordained that priests who do not live in chastity and continence of the flesh are cursed and excommunicated before God and deserve to be deprived of their priestly office. But still, if they truthfully amend their lives with the true purpose of not sinning further, they will obtain mercy from God.

Know this too: that if some pope concedes to priests a license to contract carnal marriage, God will condemn him to a sentence as great, in a spiritual way, as that which the law justly inflicts in a corporeal way on a man who has transgressed so gravely that he must have his eyes gouged out, his tongue and lips, nose and ears cut off, his hands and feet amputated, all his body’s blood spilled out to grow completely cold, and finally, his whole bloodless corpse cast out to be devoured by dogs and other wild beasts. Similar things would truly happen in a spiritual way to that pope who were to go against the aforementioned preordinance and will of God and concede to priests such a license to contract marriage.

For that same pope would be totally deprived by God of his spiritual sight and hearing, and of his spiritual words and deeds. All his spiritual wisdom would grow completely cold; and finally, after his death, his soul would be cast out to be tortured eternally in hell so that there it might become the food of demons everlastingly and without end. Yes, even if Saint Gregory the Pope had made this statute, in the aforesaid sentence he would never have obtained mercy from God if he had not humbly revoked his statute before his death."
Click to expand...
Wow! I’ve never heard of this. Pretty crazy. Maybe this is why our popes will never allow it now. 😉 …although I don’t know if this revelation is approved by the Church.
 
Titus813 said:
I am sure this topic has been discussed many times on these forums, but (in light of today’s first reading) I just wanted to offer my two cents…

I have heard many arguments against this:
  1. Priests are “married to the Church”, so they can’t also be married to a woman, etc.
    — This is a pious expression that has no basis in Church teaching. Many priests have been and currently are married while fulfilling their priestly duties.
  2. Many Protestant churches allow married ministers. They still have declining numbers of men pursuing that calling.
    — This is to me a specious argument, comparing apples to oranges. Is the one, holy, catholic, apostolic Church on the same footing as mainline liberal Protestant denominations that have all but abandoned orthodox Christianity? If I were a member of one of those churches, not only would I not want to be a minister, I would also not want to be a part of the congregation of an institution that had so clearly forfeited its commitment to orthodoxy. Surely the calling to be a Catholic priest, who confects the Eucharist and forgives sins, is stronger than the call to minister in a denomination that allows for contraception, female ordination, ordination of practicing homosexuals, etc.
  3. The priest shortage is only a problem in the Western world. In the developing world there are plenty of priests being ordained.
    — Yes, and in those countries, there is also widespread and rampant violation of priestly celibacy, such as would be a great scandal if it were to occur in the United States. Which is worse, a priest fathering children out of wedlock, or a priest satisfying his natural urge to sexual intimacy within the confines of marriage, a holy institution ordained by God?
  4. But celibacy is preferable to marriage because a priest can wholly devote himself to his flock and to the things of God.
    — Surely this is true for many men. Celibacy is a good and holy ideal, and for those who can accept it, a great blessing. However, one must acknowledge that for many priests it is a burden that causes great psychological distress and prevents them from carrying out their ministry to the best of their abilities. An unhappy and bitter priest is not a good priest. Look at the number of priests who drop out of active ministry each year, and one cannot deny that this is a problem. And those are only the most visible cases. How many more priests labor on heroically, burdened by not being able to share their lives and their most intimate selves with a wife and family?
  5. Parish priests are so busy that there is no way they could make time for a family and also their priestly ministry.
    — There are many professions that are equally demanding of time and effort as the priesthood. Surgeons who must take call regularly at the hospital, for instance. Or men that must work two or more jobs to support their families. Many lawyers. Jobs that require extensive travel, etc.
    Furthermore, if celibacy were made optional, there would be more priests to share the workload in our parishes, and their wives could help as well, making things easier for everyone. This leads to the next objection:
  6. How could a parish support a priest AND his family, let alone more than one family? The rectory wouldn’t be big enough, there wouldn’t be enough money, etc.
    — The easiest objection to this is that this same situation is already dealt with in countless Eastern rite churches, Protestant congregations, synagogues, etc. Would it require the congregation paying more money to support the priest and his family, or even more than one family? Yes! Is it worth paying more money for happier, healthier priests, and in order to solve our priest shortage? I say, “Yes!” Can Catholics afford this? Yes!
In conclusion, at least in my experience, nearly every Catholic young man I have spoken with regarding whether or not he might be called to the priesthood is impeded by one thing: celibacy. There is all manner of self-deception that goes on here. To ease their consciences, guys will come up with a million other reasons why they shouldn’t be priests. I would ask them this, though: What if celibacy were made optional for the priesthood tomorrow-- would you still consider yourself not called to be a priest? In my experience, there are many, many young men who could not honestly answer “Yes” to that question.

I have heard people blame our “sex-obsessed” culture for the decline in men pursuing a calling to the priesthood. There may be truth to that, but this probably isn’t going away any time soon. Also, if it is such a big “problem” that more young men want to share their lives with a loving wife and family, I would say that is a pretty good problem to have-- marriage is a blessing from God.

I have known many, many strong, holy, intelligent, heterosexual Catholic men who would make EXCELLENT priests, but who are clearly dissuaded from going down that road because of the requirement for celibacy. In my opinion, this is a shame, and we should take a good, long look in the mirror and ask ourselves if it really makes sense to keep this discipline intact, both for the good of the faithful and for the good of our priests. Optional celibacy seems like the way to go.
Click to expand...
It would bring up new problems. If you look at the Eastern Church or the Protestants, it’s not all that rosy. Rural churches have issues getting someone because they have to pay them what? Maybe 50K in salary a year and they often have families that split their time.

Celibacy isn’t really the problem. I think the problem is that Catholics in this country are having smaller families and only recently has there been actual marketing and awareness of vocations.
 
SuperLuigi said:
It would bring up new problems. If you look at the Eastern Church or the Protestants, it’s not all that rosy. Rural churches have issues getting someone because they have to pay them what? Maybe 50K in salary a year and they often have families that split their time.

Celibacy isn’t really the problem. I think the problem is that Catholics in this country are having smaller families and only recently has there been actual marketing and awareness of vocations.
Click to expand...
Again, why do you have to pay somebody more just because they have a family? Does Walmart pay married employees more than single employees? Eastern Churches don’t have money to pay their own clergy not because of higher salary demands because of a family. Because of the fact that most Eastern Churches are still heavily ethnic and their congregation size is dwindling. Many ethnic Eastern Churches have mostly elderly as their regular attendees. They are on retirement, thus cannot contribute to the Church as much.

Married priests is what the world needs today. With our hypersexual culture, we would need someone in our community who would serve as the epitome of married life. Sure, priests are humans and fail themselves. But they are called to much higher standards which, when done right, can serve as a guide to the flock.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Married priests is what the world needs today. With our hypersexual culture, we would need someone in our community who would serve as the epitome of married life. Sure, priests are humans and fail themselves. But they are called to much higher standards which, when done right, can serve as a guide to the flock.
Click to expand...
I take a simplistic approach; if a married man wants to become a priest, simply examine it on a case-by-case basis. There are certainly issues associated with having married priests; e.g., a priest with younger children shouldn’t be bounced around to different parishes like and unmarried priest, etc. OTOH, there are benefits. I’d rather see a married priest in pre-Cana, or see a married priest if I needed to be counseled on marital issues (which I don’t, thankfully 🙂 ).
 
ConstantineTG said:
Again, why do you have to pay somebody more just because they have a family?
Click to expand...
No, but there is a moral obligation to pay employees a just wage. A just wage for a single person wouldn’t necessarily be a just wage for a person who is the sole breadwinner for his spouse and family.
Does Walmart pay married employees more than single employees?
Click to expand...
No; but they still are obligated to pay a just wage to all. If the wage they pay is just for both, then we’re all good; if it’s just only for some, then it’s not morally defensible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top