Why should priests be celibate?

[Tis_Bearself]

Tis_Bearself:
I think the problem we run into with this line of thought is that it could be read as suggesting celibacy is somehow more holy or spiritual than having a marriage and marital relations. This viewpoint would have been generally accepted in the days of St Augustine and St Bridget. Not so much today.

The problem all of these attitudes run into is that the Church obviously needs people to choose the vocation of marriage and having children in order to keep the Church going through future generations until the Second Coming. I suspect back in the era of Paul, Christians were more likely to think Jesus would be coming back pretty soon, and there was also a great potential for converts, so they weren’t thinking about Christianity possibly going extinct for lack of members, or not having enough priests, etc to serve everyone. While I agree that celibacy can increase spirituality both through ascetic aspects and through just freeing up more of your time and resources to focus on loving God and neighbor, holding it up as the ideal of holiness undercuts both the need for the Church to keep producing new members until Christ returns, and the emphasis on family life that has been increasingly stressed by the Vatican in recent centuries.

We would also have to deal with situations like Louis and Zelie Martin being counseled by their spiritual director to abandon the Josephite marriage idea and instead have sex and conceive children, which led to them producing one Doctor of the Church, one potential saint currently on the path, and several other children who led holy lives. Obviously their counselor’s advice bore wonderful fruit, but if celibacy was the holy ideal, then their counselor should have told the Martins, who were both very interested in living a holy life, to keep on abstaining.

 

[godisgood77]

Priest can be celibate. The Church has had married priests for longer than it has had celibate priests and still has married priests in the eastern tradition and many exceptions in the Latin Rite. Ultimately. the tradition of non-married priests is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine… it is perfectly healthy to for the Church to evaluate the usefullness of the tradition periodically. Those who are going bananas over the debate show their fear… which, by the way, is against the one command given more than any other in the bible… “do not be afraid”

 

[Sarcelle]

Tbh I think some in the Church make far to much of celibacy, elevating it almost to the level of a dogma

If some in the Church think celibacy is a dogma then they are wrong.

The Church itself never stated that celibacy is a dogma, merely a discipline.

 

[Gorgias]

See…it’s tough to really make the case that on ROI alone the present model for priestly formation is a good one.

No… you just have to include “discerning out” in the cost structure. Think of it this way: if 25% of seminarians drop out, then the cost of ordaining one man is somewhere between 100% and 125% of the cost of his own formation. See? Simple!

Many Jesuit parishes in the US follow exactly this model. There could be a dozen Jesuits to a larger parish with only 2-3 being full time.

Apples and oranges – this is a different model: now you’re talking about religious priests, not secular. I thought that the context here was ordination of married men as secular priests?

If a Deacon is later called to be a priest, this seems like a non-issue to me.

As a single man? Sure. As a widower? Possibly. As a married man? No, this means that he already chose his vocation, and it was ‘marriage’.

…not Catholic teaching…never been Catholic teaching…Vatican II made this crystal clear.

Notice how “Vatican II made this crystal clear”, please: the contexts in which it’s noted are (1) early Church and (2) Eastern Rite. Not Latin Rite.

While I agree that celibacy can increase spirituality both through ascetic aspects and through just freeing up more of your time and resources to focus on loving God and neighbor, holding it up as the ideal of holiness undercuts both the need for the Church to keep producing new members until Christ returns

And Paul would agree, while continuing to hold up celibate life as the ideal.

celibacy was the holy ideal, then their counselor should have told the Martins, who were both very interested in living a holy life, to keep on abstaining.

We’re conflating terms, here. Celibacy =/= abstinence. The Martins weren’t ‘celibate’, they were ‘married.’

Those who are going bananas over the debate show their fear

There we go: demonize your interlocutors, again. Where’s that ‘ad hominem’ emoji when I need it?!?

The Church itself never stated that celibacy is a dogma, merely a discipline.

Right. And disciplines are put in place because they’re good for people. The arguments here aren’t making the case that celibacy is bad for men, but only that it happens to be inconvenient for the numbers of priests in a particular time and place. Not exactly an air-tight argument…

 

[Sarcelle]

That sounds feasible.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Those who are going bananas over the debate show their fear… which, by the way, is against the one command given more than any other in the bible… “do not be afraid”

Having a strong opinion does not equate to “fear”.

I frankly wonder about people who have to frame disagreement in terms of “fear” or “not having an open mind” or anything other than what it is, strong disagreement.

 

[jack63]

Anyway…God Bless!..Best Wishes!..we’ll talk/debate another time no doubt…

 

[AlNg]

In fact, if a married man walks into deacon formation intake today and says “I was really called to be a priest”, he’ll be given a hearty handshake and will not continue in formation.

That is not true at all. I know a man who studied for the priesthood (not in the USA) but was not able to complete his seminary training. He then got married. He is now in the USA and he told the local Catholic clergy that he always wanted to be a priest and still does but is unable to do so because of his marriage. It was recommended to him that he apply for the diaconate, which he did and for which he is now undergoing training and study. He was welcomed enthusiastically into the Deacon formation process.

 

[commenter]

A large number of men (reportedly) left “to get married”… But

• The vast majority of them left in the first 2 decades after the Council. To my knowledge few leave each year nowadays.
• Many (not all) of those who left “to marry” also took public positions, before or after leaving, disagreeing with Church teaching on other matters. Some joined the Episcopal or other denominations that oppose Catholic teaching. It would be accurate for most to say that some men who were losing their vocation left… and then…got married.
• So while we can’t judge individuals, we should avoid making decisions based on the 1970s realities, especially when there were other variables

 

[Gorgias]

I know a man who studied for the priesthood (not in the USA) but was not able to complete his seminary training. He then got married.

This is a good distinction!

For those who did not discern “I’d rather be married than be a priest”, later discernment for the diaconate makes sense. For those who discerned “celibacy? Nah… I’m getting married!”, later discernment for the diaconate presents a particular formation issue: are they attempting to become “mini-priests”? Do they regret their discernment of marriage over priesthood, and are trying to use the diaconate as a “consolation prize”? Not all will fit that description, of course, but it’s something that a good admissions board will consider as they make their decisions.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

• Celibacy is not a requirement for Eastern Catholic priests.

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

Celibacy is not an innovation. It goes back to the apostles. Peter alone was previously married but we are to understand by tradition and the biblical evidence that he was a widower throughout his ministry.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

“If anyone can continue in a state of purity, to the honour of Him who is Lord of the flesh, let him so remain without boasting.”
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Polycarp (A.D. 90)

“Let him that is pure in the flesh not grow proud of it, and boast, knowing that it was another who bestowed on him the gift of continence.”
Pope St. Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians (A.D. ~97)

“For it became Him who is most pure, and a teacher of purity, to have come forth from a pure bride-chamber. For if he who well fulfils the office of a priest of Jesus abstains from a wife…”
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures (A.D. 350)

 

[irenaeuslyons]

From the beginning, the church was personified as the Virgin Bride or the pure Body of Christ or the Virgin Mother, and it was fitting that a virgin church be served by a virgin priesthood. Among Jews, the priesthood was hereditary and accomplished through generation. But in the church, as an antithesis to this, the priestly character was transmitted by the Holy Spirit through sacrament. Virginity is therefore a special prerogative of the Christian priesthood. Even in the Jewish Dispensation, it was obligatory that a priest be continent while serving in the Temple. The celibate priest is giving up one good (marriage) for a greater good by accepting celibacy. Christ himself exhorts it.

Mt 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.’

 

[do_justly_love_mercy]

Misleading. It is if they want to be a bishop.

Do most Eastern Catholic priests want to be bishops? 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. It is therefore not remotely misleading to say that celibacy is not a requirement for Eastern Catholic priests. It is a fact.

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

 

[commenter]

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

Total celibacy is not a requirement for Eastern priests. But they do abstain from relations for certain periods of time prior to Divine Liturgy, and know, right now, they cannot remarry if their wife dies. They are not monks or bishops, but are aligned with them.

So it is not accurate to say their ministry is unrelated to celibacy, as is that of the Protestant ministers.

 

[goout]

I have to question the motives behind the sudden interest in ending the celibacy requirement. Perhaps in a very few places in the world it might make a difference in vocations, but not many. Places that have turned the corner on vocations (ours have been ticking up for a while) seem to have done so by a return to more traditional Catholicism. I
There is no evidence it would solve the abuse problem.

Why now?

I have to question the motivations of those who will not at least consider all legitimate options that might contribute to reforming clerical culture.

The clerical culture we’ve had is ill. And there is a stew of factors that combine to form a culture. You have to look at all legitimate options that contribute to forming that culture.

It’s true that you don’t have evidence that this would solve the problem, but you haven’t even considered it, so how can you have evidence?
Why now? Because clerical culture is ill. It may be improving, and we can hope that continues.

 

[tafan2]

First if all, we must answer: Is the clerical culture ill? Is it ill but improving? I will not take a position universally, but I will with regards the Church in the US. I would choose the latter, I’ll but vastly improving. Based on such evidence as the Pennsylvania Grand Jury Report and the list of accused priests various Diocese have published, it should be evident to all that the 2002 reforms in the US had a very drastic impact, for the better, with regards to abuse if minors. Now, I have said before, the problem did not completely go away, it simply moved to the abuse of young adults, particularly in seminaries. Even this is much less prevelant as the problems of past decades. And it appears to involve senior clerics, a very few bishops, but mostly a lack of accountability among bishops themselves. But the situation with the clergy we see in our parishes, vastly improved. And there is evidence the bishops finally realize their culpability and are taking steps to fix the problem.
So let’s go with I’ll, but vastly improving.

It’s true that you don’t have evidence that this would solve the problem, but you haven’t even considered it, so how can you have evidence?

Well, I have to disagree with this logic. It us not on my shoulders, who does not support ending the celibacy law, to provide evidence it will solve the problem, it is up to thise who advocate for the change. When they provide evidence, then I will consider that evidence. But just saying “I suggest we do X, oh and why don’t you see if X will work?” doesn’t quite cut it.

 

[commenter]

The clerical culture we’ve had is ill. And there is a stew of factors that combine to form a culture. You have to look at all legitimate options that contribute to forming that culture.

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

The priesthood crisis, drop in vocations, and incidents of sex abuse, is severe, but mostly happened a few decades ago.

But Catholics divorcing, getting married outside the Church, just “living together”, birth control, and other problems… that’s worse in 2020 than recent decades.

This crisis is not reported in the media, but it’s the bigger one.

 

[goout]

goout:

The clerical culture we’ve had is ill. And there is a stew of factors that combine to form a culture. You have to look at all legitimate options that contribute to forming that culture.

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

The priesthood crisis, drop in vocations, and incidents of sex abuse, is severe, but mostly happened a few decades ago.

But Catholics divorcing, getting married outside the Church, just “living together”, birth control, and other problems… that’s worse in 2020 than recent decades.

This crisis is not reported in the media, but it’s the bigger one.

And allow me to observe the answer to this illness: more committed Christian marriages leavening the world!

 

[commenter]

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