Why should priests be celibate?

[jack63]

One Catholic bloggers I like to read is Fr. Longenecker. He is a married Catholic priest. In his blog he often says something to the effect of…for every argument for keeping celibacy as is, there is another equally good argument for allowing more options for married men to be ordained. As is evidenced by this thread, he’s right.

There is not a single argument in this thread against changing the celibacy requirement that I haven’t read before here on CAF. I could give a good counter argument to each and every one of them.

I hope and pray that there are more opportunities to allow the ordination of married men. Hopefully, these men can act as positive models and show that they have a place in the Catholic Church as priests, and they can work well alongside celibate priests.

 

[AlNg]

The episcopacy for both east and west adhere to celibacy.

Not true historically. Pope Adrian II, his wife Stephania and their daughter lived together in the Lateran Palace.

 

[AlNg]

The MARRIAGE culture we’ve had is Ill!
The percentage of stable marriage vocations has stopped dramatically!

That is true for American Catholics but not so much for Hindus in India.
For American Catholics 28 percent of Catholic adults who have been married have since divorced.
For every 1000 married Hindus in India, 2 are divorced.
Although the method of counting is different, the statistics remain.

 

[goout]

It’s ludicrous to say the celibacy issue finally deserves consideration. It’s been under almost continuous public reconsideration for 60 years, at least.

No it hasn’t.
There have been lay people talking about it for a long time. Unfortunately it’s usually part of a mixed bag of appeals to unorthodox missives. (like ordination of women etc…)

Clerical culture has not given celibacy a serious look. And I think some see it as a threat to a culture they prefer.
Do you think a McCarrick type cleric would like to see married men permeating the priesthood? I doubt it.

 

[PennyinCanada]

The priest shortage has been manufactured by the homosexual culture within the priesthood. There have been prayerful, faithful men who felt called to the priesthood and were turned away as being somehow ‘not suited’. Over the years I have heard older parishioners say that they wondered why there were men in the parish, prayerful, faithful, helping at the soup kitchen, pleasant, cheerful and friendly men, applied to the priesthood and turned away. “I thought we had a shortage of priests!!” So here we are. The faithful have endured much over the years.

 

[Gorgias]

The priest shortage has been manufactured by the homosexual culture within the priesthood.

There are some who make that claim. And, perhaps, there are dioceses in which those who admit men to seminary attempt to cast them in their own image (whatever image that might be).

However, to make a blanket statement in the way you have, here, seems to me to be an invalid generalization.

Over the years I have heard older parishioners say that they wondered why there were men in the parish, prayerful, faithful, helping at the soup kitchen, pleasant, cheerful and friendly men, applied to the priesthood and turned away.

It could be for any number of reasons… not the least of which being that, perhaps, these “pleasant, cheerful, friendly men” never felt called to the priesthood.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Do most Eastern Catholic priests want to be bishops?

I said nothing having to do with “most”. And if your into finding truth based on majority polling, you will be disappointed. The potential of being a bishop is definitely something that is considered during discernment for those who were not yet married. Having spoken at length with a friend throughout the process for the Greek Orthodox church, i know he took it into consideration too. And if you read Augustine, he talks of his friend taking it into consideration as well.

The fact is that in most Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, likewise in Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Churches of the East, it is the norm for priests to be married and for bishops to be drawn from the ranks of monks or, less commonly, to be widowers.

First of all, you are using “norm” as a synonym for majority. This is misguided because the reality is that celibacy and marriage are both acceptable standards in the eastern orthodox church. One can’t be “more” normative than the other. They are both necessary standards. Secondly, you make a false distinction between monks and priests as if a monk with holy orders is somehow different than another priest with holy orders. Furthermore, candidacy for orthodox bishops is not limited to monks even though celibates are less likely to take on roles as parrish priests in those churches. Last of all, widowed priest candidates follow in the tradition set by Peter who was both a widower and a monogamist.

It is therefore not remotely misleading to say that celibacy is not a requirement for Eastern Catholic priests. It is a fact.

It is misleading. Being unmarried is a requirement to being raised to the episcopacy in the orthodox churches and last i checked this was an important part of the Church. Secondly, celibacy simply means “not married” which widowers fit because death dissolves sacramental bond of marriage.

As for the apostles, there is no evidence that Peter was the only married apostle. It is presumed that most of the apostles would have been married men as this was the norm in the culture in which they lived. There is also no reliable evidence that Peter was a widower.

The church fathers have already spoken on this. He was the only one. Peter was widowed, and it was likely before he ever began following Jesus.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

continued…

1 Cor. 9: 5 suggests that his wife was still alive when he was undertaking his missionary work.

1 Cor 9:5 • ‘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?’

The church fathers have all addressed this verse. The modern translations which state “wife” instead of “woman” are in error. It is the same word for both meanings. How do we know he meant woman instead of wife? Paul admits he was a celibate just two chapters earlier in the same epistle and recommends celibacy. I suppose we are to believe he put down his quill between chapters and decided he wanted a wife?

1 Cor 7:8 • ‘But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.’

So it is obvious that Paul was not reversing his position and it actually meant woman. Secondly, it is missing a definite article to specify a certain “wife”. Furthermore, scripture has already shown that Cephas had a mother-in-law he cared for so this proves nothing of him being married at the time.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

Not true historically. Pope Adrian II, his wife Stephania and their daughter lived together in the Lateran Palace.

His wife and daughter were murdered well before he became pope by a man named Eleutherius. He was previously a laymen and a widower.

 

[AlNg]

His wife and daughter were murdered well before he became pope by a man named Eleutherius. He was previously a laymen and a widower.

My sources say that his papacy began on December 14, 867. At that time he was still married and had a daughter. In 868, the wife and daughter were murdered,.

Misleading. It is if they want to be a bishop. The episcopacy for both east and west adhere to celibacy.

No, because Ísleifur Gissurarson was a bishop of Iceland for 24 years and he lived with his wife and they had three sons.
Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was received into the Roman Catholic church in 1959. He was named Titular bishop of Eleutherna in 1963 and Bishop Ferraz died in 1969, leaving a wife and seven children. He was legally accepted as a married Catholic Bishop.
FERRAZ, Hermes. Dom Salomão Ferraz e o Ecumenismo . São Paulo, João Scortecci Editora, 1995. pp 78ff
And there are several other Catholic bishops who were married men.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

No, because Ísleifur Gissurarson was a bishop of Iceland for 24 years and he lived with his wife and they had three sons.
Salomão Barbosa Ferraz was received into the Roman Catholic church in 1959. He was named Titular bishop of Eleutherna in 1963 and Bishop Ferraz died in 1969, leaving a wife and seven children. He was legally accepted as a married Catholic Bishop.
FERRAZ, Hermes. Dom Salomão Ferraz e o Ecumenismo . São Paulo, João Scortecci Editora, 1995. pp 78ff
And there are several other Catholic bishops who were married men.

The edge cases you cite where the church lacked the proper information, lied to, or confused, or showed incompetence, doesn’t change the rule. The existence of murderers in LA doesn’t prove there is no law which forbids it. People going free because of malfeasance doesn’t dispute the law either.

 

[historyfan81]

Because in the old days the Church did not want to deal with the mess of inheratence of property to the children of priest.
Ever since the tradition has stuck around

Rigth now I dont see why they should be I guess its holding on to the tradition since it helps spiritualy

 

[AlNg]

The existence of murderers in LA doesn’t prove there is no law which forbids it.

There is no comparison between murderers in LA and married Catholic bishops. The Catholic Church has accepted married men as bishops. The state and the moral law do not accept murder of innocent people in LA. Murder of innocent people in LA is intrinsically evil and against the Ten Commandments. It is not so with married Catholic bishops.

 

[commenter]

The priest shortage has been manufactured by the homosexual culture within the priesthood

There may have been a “homosexual culture”, whatever that means, in some seminaries. More pervasive was the Liberal Culture.

My diocesan seminary was famous for teaching “Mathew, Marx, Luke and John”. Dissent was rampant, according to some men I talked to who were later ordained, or forced out. There was no support for the magisterium, or for the devotional life, but heavy focus on whatever the media emphasized that year.

I don’t know, but suspect, people were not so much pro homosexual, but rather pro dissent in general. The priority of free expression, of individual Independence, resulted in a big minority of persons taking it to the next level in their actions; homosexual, and otherwise.

Like fasting, celibacy was minimized or even ridiculed in the classroom before it was abandoned in real life.

 

[Gorgias]

Because in the old days the Church did not want to deal with the mess of inheratence of property to the children of priest.
Ever since the tradition has stuck around

That old red herring?

Not so much: celibacy wasn’t instituted in order to “keep our properties intact”; it sprang from ancient Jewish customs of periodic continence and the new Christian context of frequent Eucharistic liturgy, not to mention Jesus’ own words and Paul’s exhortations.

There’s an interesting essay on the subject on the Vatican website. At the moment, I don’t recall the title or the author, though…

 

[historyfan81]

intact”; it sprang from ancient Jewish customs of periodic continence and the new Christian context of frequent Euch

its both a yes and a no , sure celebecy was practiced before the 12th century. but it was not obligatory

a priest could only marry before ordination. After ordination, they were expected to be celibate. But, if they were not celibate, if they had relations with their wives, *they were not guilty of the sin of adultery.
e priest himself might not own church property or the house that he lived in. But the priest might be related to the local lord, who, in time, used his relationship to the priest and the priest’s children to be able to inherit church land, and build up a family dynasty.

especially since most of the time it was the younger son that joined since the eldest would inherent the land of his father priesthood was like a social security for them

This was a problem for the Church, as the loss of land meant loss of revenue that came with the land, and which funded Church activities.

so yes one can spin it any way they can but the loss of land and simony was a main factor on why Obligatory celebecy for the priesthood was neccesarry to and sure there are other factors but to dowplay the factor of loosing land or saying it had nothing to with is… well not historicaly acurrate and dishonest

 

[PetraG]

Married men who are ordained must make no such vow.

Actually, I think they do: that is, in the Roman Rite there is a promise that if they lose their wife they will not re-marry. A permanent deacon told me that even a permanent deacon may not re-marry after his wife dies unless he obtains permission.

 

[Gorgias]

its both a yes and a no , sure celebecy was practiced before the 12th century. but it was not obligatory

Hmm. Incidentally, I think I’ve found the document: it’s The Biblical Foundation of Priestly Celibacy. From that document:

Scholars generally agree that the obligation of celibacy, or at least of continence, became canon law from the fourth century onwards. Here certain incontrovertible texts are quoted repeatedly: three pontifical decretals around AD 385 (Decreta and Cum in unum of Pope Siricius and Dominus inter of Siricius or Damasus) and a canon of the Council of Carthage of AD 390.

However, it is important to observe that the legislators of the fourth and fifth centuries affirmed that this canonical enactment was based on an apostolic tradition. The Council of Carthage, for instance, said that it was fitting that those who were at the service of the divine sacraments be perfectly continent (continentes esse in omnibus): «so that what the apostles taught and antiquity itself maintained, we too may observe».

yes one can spin it any way they can

Yes. One can. And, one way to spin it, in opposition to the facts, is that it became mandatory due to financial reasons. That’s not the fact. That straw man is a later invention.

to dowplay the factor of loosing land or saying it had nothing to with is… well not historicaly acurrate and dishonest

Right back at’cha, brother.

 

[historyfan81]

Yes it true those documents do exist and I even mentioned .

there was the “loophole” not to mention in the ea

This is also true since before the gregorian reforms local priest and bishops did there own thing .

This battle for the foundation of papal supremacy is connected with his championship of compulsory celebacy and his attack on simony .
Gregory VII did not introduce the celibacy of the priesthood into the Church , but he took up the struggle with greater energy than his predecessors. In 1074 he published an encyclical absolving the people from their obedience to bishops who allowed married priests.

And this is what iam referring to it ,became an enforced law with no loopholes

So sir the the one who is comitting a logical two actually wel you, the black and white fallacy .

Since its
A) these laws existed before so it had nothing to do with political power
B) these laws where put in to place in the 12th century.

Where grey (these laws,existed but loopholes and Church and due to the papacy wanting to exter power and not loose lands, enforced these laws and closed these loopholes)
Is a valid option.

And the fallacy of hasty generalization

Ie since this documents predates the greogorian reforms therefore priest became célebate for this reason .

yes the laws where made before the 12th century , but it was not enforced and had loopholes.

So yes you are correct that but like I said these laws where created before they where not enforced and had loopholes.

The enforcment and the reason why today priest are celibate had to with a papacy looking for polítical gain and exheting its power.

I do admit y wording was bad and it makes it seem like I do belive the laws where created in 1100s which is not the case and I do aplogyze for that and my bad english

 

[Sarcelle]

Wasn’t there a time in Church history when any Catholic man was eligible to be Pope?

Being a member of the clergy was not a necessity to be eligible for being Pope.

I remember reading that somewhere.