Why should priests be celibate?

[commenter]

po18guy:

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.

Permission to remarry from his dead wife? Eek!

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Two, if you lower the standard then you get less qualified applicants. When you start to attract less qualified applicants then the more qualified won’t apply.

What do you mean by qualified applicants?

What is the rejection rate at seminaries these days? I have the impression that as long as there are not glaringly obvious red flags, anybody who vaguely ticks the boxes will get signed up.

I don’t think that is a problem in and of itself, mind you. Most of the unsuitable candidates will work that out by themselves and drop out, or be pushed into dropping out early in the course. The vast majority of priests do an excellent job and are not lacking in suitability.

 

[Gorgias]

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

So, here’s the thing: we’ve provided citations for the accuracy of the position which refutes yours, but your source is… Wikipedia. I searched on your quote, and it’s literally just the Wiki page! I would submit to you that anonymous Wiki pages aren’t a more reliable source than properly attributed, scholarly research. No logical fallacy here – just the assertion that good scholarship trumps Wiki.

 

[MikeInVA]

Permission to remarry from his dead wife? Eek!

I think it’s dispensation from the bishop for special circumstances, e.g. the deacon is relatively young with several small children.

 

[ioannes_pius]

I would suggest reading the Encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus of Pope St. Paul VI on this matter:

http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-...uments/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis.html

 

[historyfan81]

Wel yes
But since you ask for sources ad that is a good thing ad I aplaud you for that here .

.Henry Charles Lea, An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church (J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1867).
And
Michele Prince, Mandatory Celibacy in the Catholic Church - A Handbook for the Laity

 

[Gorgias]

But since you ask for sources ad that is a good thing ad I aplaud you for that here .

Let’s look at the way Price begins her book:

Without the negative life experiences that I as a woman have had in the Catholic Church during the last 15 years – experiences which I perceive as inseparable from the requirement of compulsory celibacy for Catholic priests – this book would not have been written.

…It has been made clear to me both through these experiences and through (name removed by moderator)ut received during the process of composition that change in the rule of celibacy must begin with the laity, who must demand change. Their decision can be ratified later by the hierarchy.

This is not a fair and balanced historical inquiry; it’s a call for political revolt. In the “about the author” section on the back cover, it’s stated that her expertise is in social work and family/marriage counseling, and not on Catholic theology. The last line in the blurb is: “She is a committed Christian.” In other words, it seems to be asserting that’s left the Church, and is now fomenting dissent.

Hardly the kind of resource I’d think would be helpful in this debate.

 

[PetraG]

Permission to remarry from his dead wife? Eek!

She could give permission before she dies, and it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.

I think it’s dispensation from the bishop for special circumstances, e.g. the deacon is relatively young with several small children.

Yes, that is the usual circumstance that warrants an exception.

 

[historyfan81]

She says she writes do to her bad experiencie with the church
And with celebacy

That however does not mean its automaticly dismissed as conformation bais .

One can do a book arguing for something based on actual events or evidence and its not confirnation bais .

By that logic bart ehrman book on the existene of Jesus is wrong since ehrman does belive in jesus existance and had bad experiencie with the chirst mythtics and wrote to debuk them.

One only know if it has confirmation bais if after reading one finds fault in their argument or obstruction of evidence

 

[Gorgias]

But since you ask for sources ad that is a good thing ad I aplaud you for that here .

.Henry Charles Lea

In the preface to the second edition of Lea’s work (1907), the editor (?) states:

During the forty years which have elapsed since the appearance of the first edition of this work*, and the twenty-three since that of the second, much has added to our knowledge of the past and many changes have occurred in the present… the author had made no special preparation for recording and incorporating this new material, but has endeavoured to respond to the call by such revision and alteration as his other engagements have permitted.

*NB: the first edition is dated 1867

In other words, it was already inaccurate and out-of-date in 1907. Wanna take any guesses how much more inaccurate and more dated it is today, an additional hundred years later?

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.

His life story is quite interesting: his work on the Spanish Inquisition spurred some to accuse him of anti-Catholic bias (see Dewey’s “The Last Historian of the Inquisition”). His oeuvre seems to be as much polemics as historical inquiry: in Cheney’s On the Life and Works of Henry Charles Lea, he writes, “to most scientific historians it seems no more within their province to express ethical judgments on the men and institutions of the past… Mr Lea did not feel so.” He quoted a preface of one of Lea’s books in which he had written, “no serious historical work is worth the writing or the reading unless it conveys a moral… I have not paused to moralize, but I have missed my aim if the events narrated are not so presented as to teach their appropriate lesson.”

In other words, Lea is not presenting an objective historical narrative, but instead, presents his own opinions (as a non-Catholic) about clerical celibacy. Hardly the kind of source we might wish to use in order to draw reasonable conclusions.

 

[Gorgias]

That however does not mean its automaticly dismissed as conformation bais .

She literally states that this bias is the genesis and raison d’etre of her book! How can we not conclude that this is what her express goal is, then?

 

[historyfan81]

She wrote agianst something that does not automactly mean confirmation bais

 

[Gorgias]

She wrote agianst something that does not automactly mean confirmation bais

Right. But, she explained that her conclusions – namely, that celibacy must be abolished – proceeded from her experiences. In other words, her conclusion wasn’t based on her research; rather, she started with her conclusions, and then started researching and writing. In other words, “bias”.

 

[historyfan81]

maybe iam wrong (i could be)

if i find a paper descredtting his works ok i will come back and apologyze beacuse until now they are only acussations on him being not only anti catholic but anti spanish since according to the spanish papers (formus actually) he incites to much of the black leyend wich …really has become quite a scape goat

and in english i can only find he was an anti catholic and anti spanish but gives no reasons as to why
the only was that

he makes is that Inquisition weakened Spain and undermined its overseas empire. this … is true at least the empire undermining part

the inquisision was part of the spanish mistakes with the vierrienatos , as it exctrecly prohibited not only the natives religions (example the inti raymi was outlawed and the temples of the gods destroyed)
also des i mean the inquistors called the indias gente sin razon meaning people with out reason
and later the inquistion persecuted the French and similar texts. so try to persecute freethinkers

so yes while not being fully resposible the inquistion is a part of spains abuses and mismanegment of the vierreinatos, and spain making the americas more medieval than medieval europe its ltself wich is one of the main reasons why latin american countries have failed

so yes in the only anti cahtolic statment and anti spanish statement that they accuse him of him true ,
but i will still investigate if there are more

 

[Gorgias]

if i find a paper descredtting his works ok i will come back and apologyze

Well, in all charity, I’ve quoted from a paper asserting – and proving from Lea’s own words in print! – that his project isn’t purely “history”, but rather “personal ethical polemics”. I’m not sure what else needs to be proven?

 

[AlNg]

his project isn’t purely “history”,

Can you give us a specific example of a factual error from the many volumes of Lea on the Inquisition ?

 

[Gorgias]

Can you give us a specific example of a factual error from the many volumes of Lea on the Inquisition ?

That’s not the way it works. I’m citing an author who points out not only that others have called his impartiality into question, but also who have shown – from his own pen – that he’s not about impartiality, but rather, about asserting his own biases in the guise of ‘historical narrative’. If you want to show that these assertions are false, be my guest. I’ve already demonstrated that other authors have asserted a contrary opinion.

 

[Gorgias]

so yes in the only anti cahtolic statment and anti spanish statement that they accuse him of him true

@historyfan81,

I’ve noted the additions you made to your post. Yes, I agree – it seems that there are no authors who refute the claim that he has made anti-Catholic statements in print. Although @AlNg seems to want me to personally substantiate the assertions made by others, it seems clear that Lea isn’t the objective observer we might hope he would be, and thus, we must call into question his claims.

 

[ConsistantlyBaffled]

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

 

[AlNg]

it seems clear that Lea isn’t the objective observer we might hope he would be

Has he made any factual errors?