Why should priests be celibate?

[Michael_Anthony]

All I am going to add (and for time I haven’t read everything, so hopefully I am not repeating) Matthew 19:12 says: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.’” (NAB) from this (and other verses) many have chosen to be celibate, and the tradition of the Latin Rite is to ordain only celibate men, though exceptions have been made for some ministers in other denominations who have converted. In the Eastern Rites it is permitted for married men to become priests.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

i have always had a bit of a problem with the celibacy thing. my grandfather, on my mothers side, is one of the best people i know (even if we disagree on every theological point) and i think the lack of ability to pass on the biblical family is something of a weakness, honestly

On the other hand, I have some difficulty with the concept of there being dynasties of priests, or people becoming priests because of the situation into which they were born. I know that’s not what you are implying, but I can imagine there being seminary rectors who might have difficulty turning somebody away who is maybe not suited, but whose father and grandfather are much respected priests and they are afraid to move against them. Becoming a priest should be a matter of personal ability, choice, calling and suitability. Family connections, strings and familiarity often cloud judgement and compromise impartiality.

Or imagine if a priest who happened to be the grandson of the pope were made into a bishop. people would be saying, it’s because of nepotism and that the position wasn’t earned. This could undermine the credibility of that person, even if the rumours were untrue.

It’s bad enough in the corpoarte world (where I work) and I regularly see kids of high ranking managers being fast tracked up the ladder. It’s not good for the kids and its not good for the morale of the workforce.

 

[jack63]

All I am going to add (and for time I haven’t read everything, so hopefully I am not repeating) Matthew 19:12 says: “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.’”

Does this support celibacy? I honestly don’t know, but it wasn’t what I thought when I originally read and thought about Matthew 19. Matthew 19 supporting celibacy truly is a strained interpretation on a part scripture that is not completely clear. Even the resources put out by the USCCB acknowledge other legitimate interpretations of this part scripture.

Matthew, CHAPTER 19 | USCCB

From the USCCB website…

[19:11] [This] word: probably the disciples’ “it is better not to marry” (Mt 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

[19:12] Incapable of marriage: literally, “eunuchs.” Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs”) for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can…ought to accept it.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

Right, this isn’t the only verse, and is the most broad, others indicate some degree of preference for celibacy (at least by St. Paul), I was simply pointing out that there are multiple reasons someone may be celibate, and a verse that is less heavily referred to. Fr. Mike Schmitz in a recent talk (at SLS 2020) pointed out that in his family he has all 3, he who is celibate for the kingdom (IE voluntarily), his sister who has been made so by others (she never had the opportunity to get married), and his brother who is so “from birth” due to his experience of Same-Sex Attractions.

 

[Gorgias]

Has he made any factual errors?

Yes, and I literally pointed out an example of one glaring error in one of my replies to historyfan.

 

[AlNg]

I literally pointed out an example of one glaring error in one of my replies to historyfan.

It is not an error because even the Council of Trullo in canon xiii says that a priest may continue in conjugal relations with his wife who he had married before ordination.

 

[Gorgias]

It is not an error

The error is the assertion of no understanding of this restriction prior to the 16th century. Even historyfan points to the 11th century as an early example.

 

[AlNg]

The error is the assertion of no understanding of this restriction prior to the 16th century. Even historyfan points to the 11th century as an early example.

What you quoted doesn’t really say that does it?

Moreover, he makes a claim that even you have dismissed here: “prior to the sixteenth century the fathers of the Church had no scruple in admitting that in primitive times the canon had no existence and the custom was not observed.” This gross inaccuracy should cause us to be very suspicious of his research and conclusions.

The Catholic encyclopedia says: " Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy , not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices,"

 

[irenaeuslyons]

The Catholic encyclopedia says: " Undoubtedly during this period the traditions of sacerdotal celibacy in Western Christendom suffered severely but even though a large number of the clergy , not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices,"

The period of transition being cited was the sixth and seventh centuries. And the previous sentence to what you quoted recognizes that it was by men of “brutal nature”. The rule has always been unmarried bishops since the beginning.

“How could it be otherwise when there were intruded into bishoprics on every side men of brutal nature and unbridled passions, who gave the very worst example to the clergy over whom they ruled?”

 

[Gorgias]

What you quoted doesn’t really say that does it?

Good catch! However, that too fails to hold up, don’t you think? Unless he’s making the rather trivial point that Peter himself had been married, and that the Church wasn’t flush with canon lawyers at its very inception, there nevertheless was the point – made by the Church – that celibacy was an institution intended from the start!

 

[AlNg]

don’t you think?

What i think is that Mr.Henry Charles Lea was a brilliant scholar and historian in spite of his anti-Catholic bias. And as well he was a man active in social projects.

Henry Charles Lea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jack63]

Honestly, I’m having some trouble following this conversation about historical nuances at this point…And, that is all that has been proven to me…that there are lots and lots of historical nuances with regards to celibacy. Every point is countered and countered back and forth and back and forth…

I think celibacy for the kingdom of God is a beautiful thing that should always have its place. However, the question is “Are we trying to spread Christianity or a celibate priesthood?”

 

[babochka]

I came from a parish that had to keep the expenses of the parish paid plus a house as well. Everything was doubled. Both required new roofs, new furnaces, heating bills, plumbing issues, snow removal, taxes paid and so on. Doubled up bills. Our parish closed and the land sold.

Don’t most parishes have rectories? Ours does not, but every Latin Rite parish that I know of is already carrying those expenses. Married or not, a priest needs to live somewhere and those places will eventually require new roofs and furnaces.

I’m not saying in any way that supporting a priest with a family is not more expensive than supporting a celibate priest, but I am confused by the idea that maintaining a house in addition to the church is an expense that only comes with married priests.

 

[Gorgias]

What i think is that Mr.Henry Charles Lea was a brilliant scholar and historian in spite of his anti-Catholic bias.

I’m cool with that. What it tells me, then, is that we might be willing to accept his assertions – except in the areas in which he held personal bias. (I’m still uneasy, though, that he was willing to replace “historical narrative” with “personal ethical preaching.”)

However, the question is “Are we trying to spread Christianity or a celibate priesthood?”

How about “spreading the truths about eternal life with celibacy as an example of ‘life in the kingdom’”?

I am confused by the idea that maintaining a house in addition to the church is an expense that only comes with married priests.

Married priests with families would require one house per priest, no? Every rectory I’ve ever seen has a multiple living spaces (bedroom / bathroom / sitting room) and common areas (kitchen / living room). As parishes combine and the numbers of priests combine (which is what we’re seeing in my area), we only need one rectory for every two to three priests.

So… yeah: more expensive in a context that includes married priests with families.

 

[jack63]

On the rectory thing, literally every Catholic church I’ve attended have some living arrangements for the priest, but I agree that these living arrangement vary wildly. A smaller church that shares a priest with other parishes may simply contain an apartment for when the priest is in town. I’ve seen larger churches have a rectory that is mansion-like.

However, isn’t the size of the rectory kind of a moot point. The only serious proposal on the table is to take older married men and ordain them as priests. If this happened in the US or Europe these men would likely have their own income sources and perhaps their children would have moved out. Additionally, the Catholic church would simply say “no” to a married man to become a priest if it didn’t financially make sense.

The good thing is that almost all Catholic churches have a living space suitable for an older married couple. In fact, today most of these living spaces associated with Catholic churches in the US are significantly underutilized from what I’ve seen.

 

[Gorgias]

The good thing is that almost all Catholic churches have a living space suitable for an older married couple.

Agreed. Would they share that space with never-married priests, young or old? That’s the question – whether having married priests means that we’d have to provide separate rectories for each married priest and his wife/family, and thus, incur additional expenses.

 

[Sarcelle]

Especially if the priest and his wife are open to life which may result in several children.

 

[otjm]

You are conflating celibacy (not being married) with continence (not having sexual intercourse).

And further, not directed to you, are those conflating chastity; both married and celibates are called to chastity.

 

[otjm]

Rectories were built in a time where many parishes had more than one priest; they had a pastor, and the assistant(s) might be involved only in the parish, or might be teaching at a local Catholic high school or engaged elsewhere. as the number of priests went down, some of these rectories likely have been sold off (particularly with closed parishes) or converted to offices for parish employees.

Two parishes I have been in have either a house or an apartment for the pastor; there are no other priests assigned to the parish. In either case, a family could be accommodated without much if any change.

Two weeks ago I read a note about a local priest in our archdiocese; he is assigned to three parishes. There simply are not enough priests to go around - he is not the only priest with multiple parish responsibilities. we need more priests. Married priests are definitely not going to be the answer to it all; but one more man ordained is one more priest.

 

[Gorgias]

Two parishes I have been in have either a house or an apartment for the pastor; there are no other priests assigned to the parish. In either case, a family could be accommodated without much if any change.

I’m not saying that buildings aren’t available… I’m saying that the cost of keeping one rectory open per priest and used for him and his family is more expensive than having multiple priests living in one rectory.

Married priests are definitely not going to be the answer to it all; but one more man ordained is one more priest.

Sure, but… serving how many? Over my way, it’s not just the numbers of priests that is decreasing – it’s the numbers of parishioners, too. So, although we don’t like seeing churches close, are you suggesting that we ordain married priests in order to keep churches with smaller congregations open? That’s the tail wagging the dog – fewer parishioners attempting to support more priests (and their wives and families)!

I can see the logic of the proposition of probati viri in the Amazon… but in Western Europe or parts of the U.S.? Doesn’t make sense. It feels like change for the sake of acquiescing to the prevailing cultural norms.