Priestly Celibacy: Yes, it is Apostolic [Ecumenical]

Catholic Exchange ^ | December 11, 2008 | Amy Blythe

[NYer]

Christ came to redeem mankind from slavery to the passions by His life of sacrifice. Everything about Him went against the grain in a most unprecedented, radical manner causing scandal to the Jewish people who were expecting a temporal Messiah. Observe: he loves sinners, and eats with them; adulterers receive mercy; the ill He heals on the Sabbath. Most disturbing of all, He is not married but is a virgin and preaches continence for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

The priesthood of the New Law is not made up of the powerful and intellectual but of men from ordinary walks of life who have renounced everything to live in continence, to follow the Master more closely. There are many in secular circles, and some even within the Church today, who question the validity of this charism in relation to the priesthood, arguing that it no longer suits the modern times in which we live. Others claim that there is no evidence, either scriptural or historical, that supports the apostolic roots of a celibate priesthood. Contrary to all the negativity, in-depth research vindicates priestly celibacy as indeed apostolic.

The proponents of abolishing the celibate priesthood use Scripture, claiming that the Apostles were married based on the passage relating the cure of Saint Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever by Jesus (Matt 8:14-15). The reasoning is as follows: the Apostle has a mother-in-law, therefore he is married. Yes, Saint Peter obviously married at one time, but does that mean that he is married at the time of his apostolic call by Jesus? There are women who pass away before their mothers and before their husbands. In some such cases the mother-in-law moves in with her son-in-law. This possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if the Apostle is married at the time of his calling, the Lord states unequivocally what is required to follow Him: to leave everything, including family and wives (Luke 14:26-27). What of the invitation of Christ to a continent life (Matt19:10-12). Further on in the same text renunciation of possessions is declared a necessity to be a disciple. It is in response to the words of the Prince of the Apostles that we receive confirmation again from Jesus’ own lips as to what they have sacrificed: lands, home, mother brother, sister, wives and children inclusive (Matt19:16-30). It is clear that the desire of the Lord is to have men who are divested of all worldly ties and responsibilities in order to devote themselves unreservedly to His service.

A subsequent argument by the opponents of celibacy is that it is an invention imposed by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Opponents present Scripture and early ecclesial history in a manner that can be misleading for the ordinary lay Catholic unacquainted with all the facts. Major research has been undertaken into this controversy by scholars Cardinal Stickler, Father Cochini S.J., Roman Cholij as well as Stefan Heid. What they all assure us of is that continence is the norm for the priesthood both East and West from the beginning of the Church’s history. Among the aforementioned, Stickler provides the most succinct and easy to understand presentation of the subject. He demonstrates that if a man was married prior to ordination, both he and his spouse took a vow of perpetual continence, this applied from the lower clerical ranks up to Bishop. In the West, the Council of Elvira in the fourth century makes direct reference in Canon 33 to this renunciation of the martial rights and notes that this meant no begetting of children. The penalty for violating this vow is removal from the clerical ranks. If a priest violated this solemn promise and begot a child it was considered adultery. As Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife.

Probably the favorite of all opponents arguments centers upon a Saint Paphnutius of Egypt called “a Bishop and hermit.” It is asserted that at the Council of Nicea this holy man pleads with the Fathers to not impose continence on priests saying that it is too heavy a burden to place upon them. He proposes to allow the particular Churches to decide on their own practice. Up until recently, this was believed to be a justification for the current married practice among the clergy of the East. Stickler, Cochini, Cholij and Heid all masterfully tackle this long-standing. The veil was lifted from this mystery by study into the Council documents, in which accurate records were kept of every Bishop present. Examination of the oldest texts revealed that among the names of Fathers in attendance, there was no such Bishop by that name. Stickler acknowledges that his name does appear in later copies of the Council’s proceedings but it is a contradiction because he was honored at the time of Nicea as a Confessor, not a Father. It is concluded that his bishopric was of the nature of a legend, a creation of hagiographers’ pious devotion.

The perplexing question then arises: If priestly celibacy dates from the Apostles, why is it that only in the fourth century do we begin to see actual Church law enforcing celibacy? A principle which must be understood is the following: the absence of a formal ecclesial declaration up to a certain period does not imply that the dogma, doctrine or discipline is not universally believed by the Body of Christ. In other words, controversy begets definitive pronouncements by the Church. The Divinity of Jesus Christ, his being fully God, was not formally declared until the fourth century at Nicea but the Church always professed this belief. The denial of this truth by the heresiarch Arius demanded a concrete defense. The same can be applied to Mary’s title as Mother of God. It was not formally declared until the fifth century at the Council of Ephesus, yet she was venerated as such from the very beginnings. Again, it is the refusal of Nestorius to render Mary her rightful veneration that prompted a concrete response. In this case, as Stickler notes, the Church made specific laws regarding celibacy among the clergy because of widespread abuses where the vow of continence was not being faithfully lived out. It is at this point that we begin to see one of the first rifts between East and West.

Eventually, due to these increasing difficulties and abuses, the Latin West began gradually selecting more and more candidates to the priesthood and Bishopric from among the monastics. Over a period of time, especially with the establishment of seminaries by the Council of Trent, the phenomenon of married clergy completely disappeared. As for the Eastern Church we have a very different response conditioned both by geography and politics. While the Latin Church had the great advantage of the central authority of the Pope, the East had problems attaining any kind of conformity in discipline due to myriads of regional Councils all making decisions in dealing with abuses and there was no one to give a definitive judgment. Added to these issues is the close relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Church. This had benefits in allowing for religious freedom but often it led to the government interfering with the hierarchy’s efforts to properly exercise governing authority. Despite these influences, there is today within the Eastern Churches a large number of celibate priests, but, if the circumstances of history had been more favorable, the clergy of the East would be entirely celibate as well.

Ultimately, continence - celibacy — receives its supreme value from the fact that Jesus chose it for Himself and for His Mother Mary. This should not be brushed away as a mere coincidence nor should this way of life be viewed just as a “discipline.” This is missing the point. Priests share in the eternal priesthood of Christ and are Persona Christi, to be mirrors of His very Person not just in word and act but their very mode of being. The Lord came not to be served but to serve and to pour Himself out as a ransom for souls. By this charism of continence - expressed most completely and perfectly by virginity — the priest is poured out and consumed like Christ, not for a physical family but for the souls of the faithful. Of course, the debate on the celibate priesthood will always exist but for Catholics the best answer will be found by kneeling before Jesus crucified where virginity’s lasting value is silently conveyed in two words: love and sacrifice.

For further information please see:

The Case for Clerical Celibacy by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler (Ignatius Press)

Celibacy in the Early Church by Stefan Heid (Ignatius Press)

The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy by Father Christian Cochini S.J. (Ignatius Press)

[NYer]

Ping!

[stefanbatory]

Wasn’t the Apostle Peter married? If not, how did Jesus heal his mother-in-law?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Wasn’t the Apostle Peter married? If not, how did Jesus heal his mother-in-law?

The article tries to make the hairsplitting point that "maybe Peter had a mother-in-law because he was married at one time, but his wife died" as a way of getting around the obvious fact that Peter was, in fact, married. This fails on two points:

1) Paul quite clearly states that Peter and other apostles were "leading about wives" (i.e. were married) in I Corinthians 9:5, and indeed, he makes the point that he, himself, was perfectly within his rights to do the same.

2) In that culture, when a woman's husband died, she returned to her own kinship group. If Peter's wife had died before his calling from Jesus, his former mother-in-law would have returned to her own ancestral family to be cared for by them, not Peter.

[trisham]

Yes, Saint Peter obviously married at one time, but does that mean that he is married at the time of his apostolic call by Jesus? There are women who pass away before their mothers and before their husbands.

**********************

It was rather common for women to die in childbirth until as recently as what? Less than a hundred years ago?

[RJR_fan]

A Calvinist historian made an interesting point in his book Who Owns the Family? The Jewish folks encouraged their "best and brightest" to become rabbis. They then matched their sharpest young men with the best available young wives, taking up collections if necessary to provide the dowry. Rather than squeezing maximum use out of one life, they opted to amortize that ministry across multiple generations.

In our experience, God's glory is magnified by projects that might take generations to fulfill. Charles Haddon Spurgeon, for example, was a seventh-generation Baptist preacher. My beloved mentor, Calvinist scholar/writer Rousas John Rushdoony, came from a pulpit dynasty 1,500 years old. Ever since the Gospel came to Armenia, a Rushdoony had seen to it that a son or nephew was trained to take his place in the chain of witness. (both of his grandfathers, BTW, were martyrs.)

Something about normal robust human sexuality images God's nature in a way that singleness doesn't. "In the image of God created He them. Male and female created He them." The affectionate interplay of familial relationships derives from the interactions of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Some have the extraordinary vocation of living single. However, clerical celibacy also owes a great deal to the neoplatonic disdain for the created order.

[SnakeDoctor]

One of the greatest battles in Christianity today is the defense of marriage. How can we simultaneously believe that marriage is a sacred union, before God Himself, and demand that clergy not participate in that which is supposedly sacred?

SnakeDoc

[DogwoodSouth]

Yes, it is Apostolic, but it is not Dogma. To be honest, I have a difficult time finding a

First of all, priestly celibacy is a venerable tradition (small-t, that is) and, as such, I defend it and respect it as a great facet of the Catholic faith.

However, I am a historian as well as an adult convert to Catholicism and I’m fully aware the priestly celibacy, while ancient (even apostolic) in roots, was not universal in practice in the Western Church for many centuries. On the one hand, I appreciate the defence and preservation of priestly celibacy, but I also think that the Church should consider letting the practice be a personal decision instead of a mandate. I think there would be great value in allowing married men to seek ordination.

Theologically and dogmatically, marriage and ordination are not mutually exclusive, as attested by the many married men who’ve received a papal dispensation from the vow of celibacy and ordained as priests in the past century.

Let me be clear: I DO NOT support allowing already-ordained priests to marry (this has never been allowed in the Church, East or West -— married men have often been ordained, but ordained priests have never been allowed to marry after ordination). And I certainly DO NOT support the ordination of women. The Church has spoken definitively on the subject of women’s ordination and rightly declared it to be a modern invention devoid of Apostolic or Scriptural basis.

Just my two cents on the matter at hand...

[DogwoodSouth]

Sorry... that second sentence was supposed to read: “To be honest, I have a difficult time finding a comfortable position on this because I see the great value of a celibate clergy, but I also know that there can be great value in married clergy as well. Rome has spoken on the matter and allowed both (although, I know, married clergy are the exception to the rule).

[DogwoodSouth]

I’ll have to ask how you are so familiar with the inner psyche of hundreds of thousands of men you’ve never met and don’t know. To not know them at all, but to still “know” that they are “sexually frustrated.” Wow. A regular Nostradamus, eh?

I’ll point out that the Apostle Paul was celibate as was our Lord Jesus. Do you rank yourself higher on the holiness totem pole than these?

[Just another Joe]

Ultimately, continence - celibacy — receives its supreme value from the fact that Jesus chose it for Himself and for His Mother Mary.

The author lost me right there.
Jesus may have chosen celibacy for himself but for his mother?
Didn't Mary go on to bear other children after Jesus was born?

[Religion Moderator]

This thread in the Religion Forum is tagged “ecumenical” - that means no antagonism. For more guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum, click on my profile page.

[Former Fetus]

I’ll point out that the Apostle Paul was celibate

Paul was a Pharisee, therefore he HAD TO BE MARRIED. You are not suggesting that he divorced his wife after his encounter in the road to Damascus, are you?

[NYer]

The article tries to make the hairsplitting point that "maybe Peter had a mother-in-law because he was married at one time, but his wife died" as a way of getting around the obvious fact that Peter was, in fact, married. This fails on two points:

You are both neglecting an important distinction. Peter was already married when Jesus called him. Some of the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches follow this approach and allow married men to become priests. However, our Lord was celibate and called it a gift from God (Matt. 19:11-12). Paul also acknowledges that celibacy is a gift from God and wishes that all were celibate like he is. (1 Cor. 7:7).

Celibacy is a practice in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It is not dogma.

[DogwoodSouth]

Actually, the perpetual virginity of Mary is an ancient dogma of the Faith, defended by the early Church Fathers and even by Martin Luther!

I won't “re-invent the wheel” since so much has been written on the subject by others, but I'll summarize the “Mary had other children” question by saying that while in the word “brothers” (as in “brothers of the Lord” in Scripture) COULD have referred to any male relative of the Lord (i.e. cousin, step-brothers, etc.) So, it IS biblically possible that Jesus was an only child of Mary. Couple this biblical possibility with the unbroken Tradition of the early Church on this subject and you've got a pretty strong argument for Mary's perpetual virginity.

You can read more about it here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp.

[Just another Joe]

Thanks for the information.
I'll have to reread the parts of scripture with an eye to how they are commenting on "brothers" and "sisters" of Christ and see what other theologians say about it.

[DogwoodSouth]

Aren’t you familiar with Paul’s words on the matter (his words, my emphases):

“Now to the UNMARRIED and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to REMAIN AS THEY ARE, AS I DO...” (1 Corinthians 7:8)

[DogwoodSouth]

Cool. I accidently posted a link to some early patristic writings on the matter, but the biblical facet is better handeled here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Brethren_of_the_Lord.asp.

Happy reading! ;-)

[NYer]

I am a historian as well as an adult convert to Catholicism and I’m fully aware the priestly celibacy, while ancient (even apostolic) in roots, was not universal in practice in the Western Church for many centuries. I also think that the Church should consider letting the practice be a personal decision instead of a mandate.

The Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches allow for married priests. And while this remedies certain problems, it creates new ones.

Speaking to the 11th General Synod Fathers, gathered for their eighth meeting this morning (October 15, 2005) at the Vatican, Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir, who is Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites in Lebanon--a Catholic rite which allows for married priests--addressed the issue, which has been brought up by many, particularly in light of the U.S. sex abuse scandal, of commonly permitting married priests in the Roman rite.

">
Vatican City, Oct. 07, 2005 (CNA) - The Cardinal defended the practice of the celibate priesthood and discussed the beauty of the tradition, calling it the "most precious jewel in the treasury of the Catholic Church."

While pointing out that "the Maronite Church admits married priests" and that "half of our diocesan priests are married", the Cardinal Patriarch said that "it must be recognized that if admitting married men resolves one problem, it creates others just as serious."

"A married priest", he said, "has the duty to look after his wife and family, ensuring his children receive a good education and overseeing their entry into society. ... Another difficulty facing a married priest arises if he does not enjoy a good relationship with his parishioners; his bishop cannot transfer him because of the difficulty of transferring his whole family.

He noted that "married priests have perpetuated the faith among people whose difficult lives they shared, and without them this faith would no longer exist."

"On the other hand," he said, "celibacy is the most precious jewel in the treasury of the Catholic Church,"

Lamenting a culture which is all but outright opposed to purity, the Cardinal asked: "How can [celibacy] be conserved in an atmosphere laden with eroticism? Newspapers, Internet, billboards, shows, everything appears shameless and constantly offends the virtue of chastity."

Suggesting that their are no easy solutions to the problem of priest shortages in the Church--an oft brought up point during the Synod--he noted that, "Of course a priest, once ordained, can no longer get married. Sending priests to countries where they are lacking, taking them from a country that has many, is not the ideal solution if one bears in mind the question of tradition, customs and mentality. The problem remains." - Source

As for the history of priestly celibacy, I believe you will find extensive background information at this link - The Church's Most Precious Gem

This discussion surfaces periodically here on FR. The following article was written by a former Lutheran pastor who was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis in 1999.

Married Priests Back Celibacy (Part 1 of 2)

Let's not forget 1 Cor. 7:32-33, 38 where Paul recommends celibacy for full-time ministers in the Church so that they are able to focus entirely upon God and building up His kingdom. He “who refrains from marriage will do better.”