Posted on 06/14/2002 10:21:48 AM PDT by Polycarp
5 Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them
1. Allowing priests to marry would end pedophilia.
It is completely untrue that celibate priests are more likely to be pedophiles than any other group of men, married or not. Pedophilia affects only 0.3 percent of the population of Catholic clergy, and sexual abusers in general account for less than 2 percent of Catholic priests. These figures are comparable to rates among married men, as non-Catholic scholar Philip Jenkins points out in his book Pedophiles and Priests. Other Protestant denominations have admitted to having similar problems among their own married clergy, so clearly the problem is not with celibacy.
2. A married clergy would create a larger pool of healthy priestly candidates, solving the current priest shortage.
There are actually plenty of vocations today in faithful dioceses: Denver, Northern Virginia, and Lincoln, Nebraska, have great numbers of men entering the priesthood. If other dioceses, such as Milwaukee, want to answer the question of why they have so few vocations, the answer is simple: Challenge young men to a religious life that is demanding, countercultural, sacrificial, and loyal to the Holy Father and Catholic teaching. This is the surest way to guarantee a greater number of vocations.
3. Married priests relate better to issues concerning marriage and the family.
To put it bluntly, one doesn't need to be an adulterer to counsel other adulterers. Priests understand the sacrificial nature and sanctity of marriage in a way that few others do. Who better to counsel a person in the ways of keeping the marital vow of fidelity than one who keeps the vow of celibacy?
4. It's unnatural for men to be celibate.
This idea reduces men to animals, creatures who can't live without their sexual urges being gratified. But humans are not animals. Humans make choices about the gratification of their appetites. We can control and channel our desires in a way that sets us apart from the rest of the animal world. And again, most sexual abusers are not celibate. It's sexual license that breeds sexual abuse, not celibacy!
5. Celibacy in the Latin rite is unfair. Since the Eastern rite allows married priests and the Latin rite allows married priests who have converted from Episcopalianism and Lutheranism, why can't all priests be married?
The discipline of celibacy among priests is one of the distinctive marks of the Roman Catholic tradition. Anyone who chooses to become a priest accepts the discipline. The Eastern rite, Lutheranism, and Episcopalianism, on the other hand, have a long tradition of married priests and the infrastructure and experience to handle it. However, Eastern rite priests and married priests who have converted from Lutheranism or Episcopalianism are NOT allowed to marry after their ordination or remarry after the death of their wife. In addition, the Eastern Church only chooses bishops from among their celibate, unmarried priests, clearly demonstrating that they see an inherent value in the nature of celibacy.
**********************
5 Arguments for Priestly Celibacy
1. Celibacy reaffirms marriage.
In a society that is completely saturated with sex, celibate priests are living proof that sexual urges can be controlled and channeled in a positive way. Far from denigrating the sexual act, celibacy acknowledges the goodness of sex within marriage by offering it up as a sacrifice to God. The sanctity of marriage is dishonored if it is treated merely as an outlet for sexual impulses. Rather, we as Christians are called to understand marriage as the inviolable commitment of a husband and wife to love and honor one another. A priest offers up a similar commitment of love to the Church, a bond that cannot be broken and that is treated with the same gravity and respect as in marriage.
2. Celibacy is scriptural.
Fundamentalists will tell you that celibacy has no basis in the Bible whatsoever, saying that Christians are called to "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28). This mandate speaks to humanity in general, however, and overlooks numerous passages in the Bible that support the celibate life. In 1 Corinthians, for example, Paul actually seems to prefer the celibate life: "Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . . Those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided" (7:27-34). This is not to say that all men should be celibate, however; Paul explains that celibacy is a calling for some and not for others by saying, "Each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another" (7:7).
Jesus Himself speaks of celibacy in Matthew 19:11-12: "Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. 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 God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it." Again, the emphasis is on the special nature of celibacy, one for which not all men are suited, but one that nevertheless gives glory to "the kingdom of God."
Perhaps the best evidence for the scriptural support of celibacy is that Jesus Himself practiced it!
3. Celibacy is historical.
Most people assume that the celibate priesthood is a convention introduced by the Church fairly late in history. On the contrary, there is evidence that even the earliest Church fathers, such as St. Augustine, St. Cyril, and St. Jerome, fully supported the celibate priesthood. The Spanish Council of Elvira (between 295 and 302) and the First Council of Aries (314), a kind of general council of the West, both enacted legislation forbidding all bishops, priests, and deacons to have conjugal relations with their wives on penalty of exclusion from the clergy. Even the wording of these documents suggests that the councils were not introducing a new rule but rather maintaining a previously established tradition. In 385, Pope Siricius issued the first papal decree on the subject, saying that "clerical continence" was a tradition reaching as far back as apostolic times.
While later councils and popes would pass similar edicts, the definitive promulgation of the celibate, unmarried priesthood came at the Second Lateran Council in 1139 under Pope Gregory VII. Far from being a law forced upon the medieval priesthood, it was the acceptance of celibacy by priests centuries earlier that eventually led to its universal promulgation in the twelfth century.
4. Celibacy emphasizes the unique role of the priest.
The priest is a representative of Christ, an alter Christus. In this respect, the priest understands his identity by following the example of Jesus, a man who lived His life in perfect chastity and dedication to God. As Archbishop Crescenzio Sepe of Grado explains, "[A priest's] being and his acting must be like Christ's: undivided" (The Relevance of Priestly Celibacy Today, 1993). As such, the sacramental priesthood is holy, something set apart from the rest of the world. Just as Christ sacrificed His life for His bride, the Church, so too must a priest offer up his life for the good of Christ's people.
5. Celibacy allows the priest's first priority to be the Church.
The image used to describe the role of the priest is one of marriage to the Church. Just as marriage is the total gift of self to another, the priesthood requires the total gift of self to the Church. A priest's first duty is to his flock, while a husband's first duty is to his wife. Obviously, these two roles will often conflict, as St. Paul noted and as many married priests will tell you. A celibate priest is able to give his undivided attention to his parishioners without the added responsibility of caring for his own family. They are able to pick up and go whenever necessary, whether this involves moving to a new parish or responding to a late-night crisis. Celibate priests are better able to respond to these frequent changes and demands on their time and attention.
They're not really contradictory at all if one ponders them a few minutes. Scripture provides its own authority. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the scriptures to see if what he told them was so. I do the same. If Paul had been a Catholic in the modern sense, he would have scolded the Bereans for not asking Pope Peter to tell them what to think.Too bad. Scripture is quite clear about Christ granting keys and authority to lose and bind. Another proof of the anti-scriptural foundation of protestantism.
Ah, but the good thing is that we don't have to twist and bend logic to cover up mistakes of the past. Did the church sell indulgences? Of course not! Perish the thought! But appropriate donations were suggested and very much encouraged. And if the unwashed peasants thought the church was selling indulgences, then it's their fault for being so ignorant (that's a modern English translation of one of the more embarassing bits of Trent).Did early popes reject modern doctrines such as the perpetual virginity of Mary. Well, yeah, but they were speaking as Johnny or Barney, not in their official capacity as popes. The church has always believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary even though no one even thought of the idea until several hundred years after she died. Never mind the assumption bit, that wasn't even thought of until very recently.
And how about that Pope Honorius teaching the monothelite heresy as official doctrine in the 7th century, then being condemned as a heretic by the Sixth General Council and anathemitized by Pope Leo II. That incident (one of many) blows the whole idea out of the water that the papal teaching office is infallible in matters of faith.
So how do we know when the pope is speaking infallibly? Well, we don't. Sometimes we'll know centuries after the fact, but even then we won't really know that we know. Fat lot of good that does Christians when the pope is granted the authority to loose and bind even though we're never quite sure when that exactly happens. Right now, Vatican II reigns, but there's nothing to stop Pope Skippy II in 2082 from shredding the whole thing and pretended that Vatican II really was never official church teaching at all.
Well, maybe they can change their minds after becoming a priest, if they don't like it. That would be perfectly acceptable.
Nope, lifelong Protestant with an awareness of history and the scriptures. You would do well to familiarize yourself with them, too.
Perhaps you should cite the source of your apparent belief that the Pope is the infallible interpreter of Scripture. If we accept the conditions of your argument, you can't be allowed to cite Scripture as your source because that would mean that we would have to assume that your interpretation is infallible.
As you can see, you have argued yourself into a corner. The fact is that no earthly interpreter is infallible, not even the Pope. But Scripture itself, which is God-breathed, is infallible. The notion that Church authorities or a "Holy Father" are the only ones able to interpret Scripture is not only flawed on its surface, it's evil at its heart. History is all too clear that the Catholic Church and the Pope are anything but infallible.
While everyone is arguing priestly celibacy I would ask where is the commandment from Jesus to women to go into nunnery , giving up the God -given joys of husband and children ?
It appears very much to me and probably others, that the Roman Catholic Church became too Roman and stopped being catholic, becoming more concerned with organizational authority and less with Jesus' teaching.
Did not Jesus himself tell us how pray ?
The Holy Scriptures were meant for all were they not ? Just as the Constitution of the United States of America was to be read and understood by all literate persons.
Thank you for your opinions.
"Perhaps you should cite the source of your apparent belief that the Pope is the infallible interpreter of Scripture."
If I make that assertion, I'll back it up.
"If we accept the conditions of your argument, you can't be allowed to cite Scripture as your source because that would mean that we would have to assume that your interpretation is infallible."
If I were to offer any interpretation of Scripture of my own, it would be fallible. At least on this thread, I haven't offered any interpretation of Scripture. And on any thread, you will never find me knowingly offering my own interpretations at all. It would be worse than fallible. It would be worth less than cow chips.
But my interpretation wouldn't be any worse than anyone else's here.
"As you can see, you have argued yourself into a corner. The fact is that no earthly interpreter is infallible, not even the Pope. But Scripture itself, which is God-breathed, is infallible."
Well, the funny thing is, if I'm in a corner, it looks pretty un-corner-like over my shoulder. Of course Scripture is infallible, but you've now argued that no one can really know what it really means for certain, because there is no infallible interpreter. That there are disagreements in this very thread amongst non-Catholic believing professed Christians about the meaning of a single verse demonstrates that the Bible is not self-interpreting. Look over your own shoulder. You may find that it is you with two intersecting walls behind you. ;-)
"The notion that Church authorities or a 'Holy Father' are the only ones able to interpret Scripture is not only flawed on its surface, it's evil at its heart. History is all too clear that the Catholic Church and the Pope are anything but infallible."
So say you. At this point, this is a bald assertion, not even an argument. Get back to me when you have an argument.
Now, back to the question at hand, for those of you offering your own versions of Scripture interpretation, please cite your source of authority.
It's an important question. On this little thread alone, we see a disagreement on a point of Christian doctrine between two devout, sincere, faith-filled Christian gentlemen. At least one of these gentleman has implied that on this point, it is very, very important to be free from error. But at least one of these fine gentlemen is in error. Both quote Scripture, both believe that Scripture is authoritative. But each has his own interpretation. Which one is in error? And more importantly, by what authority do we decide?
Thank you for your assistance.
May the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ continue to bless you,
sitetest
It's obvious he's put his feet up and is right at home. Oh, are you "Dr. Brian Kopp the foot doctor, he always spouted that line.
What a low opinion this author has of marriage! Does he think that all married people are adulterers? Is adultery the only problem married couples face?
This article reeks of the priest is superior to the poor mortal layman attitude that the Church of Rome has always had and which is the real cause of the ongoing sex scandals that have plagued the papacy. This is only the most recent example. It will continue because the Church of Rome is apostate and is no part of the Christian Faith. She is the Beast biding her time.
WHO is goig to pay for all of the houses needed for these families? WHO is going to pay for the education of the hildren? WHO is going to pay for the clothes for the wife and kids? The PARISHONERS are going to DOUBLE what they give or TRIPLE what they give....in order for the priests o marry?? I DON'T THINK SO!
What if the priest marries a non-Catholic? What if she cheats on him? What if the kids turn Satanic? What if the wfe is a cleptomaniac? What if she has an abortion?
Gee, people, it's not all that difficult to see a practical, secular side to celibacy.
They had better be the same as Rome's. you know there is no room for freedom of conscience in the Catholic Church.
There are some things that we won't really understand until Christ returns. The passage in question centers around 1 Timothy 3:2, which is translated in the Catholic bible thusly:
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.The Greek text literally means that the bishop should be a "one-woman man." One could derive several interpretations from that statement, but we can positively know that a bishop (priest, pastor, whatever) should not be a polygamist and should not hop from one marriage to the next like so many do today.-The New American Bible (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops)
With the principle of using scripture to interpret scripture, we can look at Paul's other writings on marriage and the clergy. As I and others have already quoted on this thread, Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:5 defended the right of apostles to "bring a Christian wife along with us as the other disciples and the Lord's brothers and Peter do." Church history tells us that Peter's wife traveled with him and that he witnessed her martyrdom. Apparently some churches were grumbling against having to support the wives of the apostles and other disciples.
As a sidenote, when Pope Pius XI died in the late 30s and the Vatican was preparing his grave, an inscription was uncovered that apparently says "Peter is here." In the grave were the bones of a man (no skull) with the feet removed (the Romans often hacked people down from crosses instead of removing the nails). The pope even announced in a 1950 Christmas address that the grave of Peter had been found. When the bones were studied more thoroughly, it was found that the bones of a second man were there as well as those of a woman. There were threads of expensive purple and gold fabric mixed in, probably added to the bones several centuries later. The best archeological explanation is that Peter, his wife, and an unknown man are buried there.
Getting back to the topic, in other passages, Paul commended the ability to be celibate and stated that a celibate life had much to offer the church. Paul himself was celibate though it's almost certain, for various reasons, that he was a widower. Thus, Paul clearly accepted celibacy as a valid option for those in the service of the church.
We can take from these passages the principle that (1) clergy have the right to be married if they wish, but (2) should not have celibacy forced upon them.
In another interesting note, church tradition holds that in the first church council formed by 120 early believers, including Mary, eighty canons were assembled to define church hierarchy and discipline. Pope Gelasius and the Council of Rome in 494 rejected 30 of these canons as apocrypha that were added later, but recognized fifty of them as valid apostolic teaching. Portions of these canons were quoted and endorsed by church fathers, ecumenical councils, and popes as far back as Clement in 102.
Canon 17R prohibits polygamists from serving in church office. Canon 21 gives eunuchs the right to serve as clergy unless they castrated themselves. Canon 27D affirms the right for clergy to be married.
It is clear that these early canons, developed in apostolic days and confirmed by Pope Gelasius at the Council of Rome, are in agreement with the principles derived from scripture: clergy are allowed to be married but do not have to be married. The idea of enforced celibacy did not seriously develop until almost a century later, wasn't codified until the Lateran Council in the 12th century, and wasn't uniformly enforced until the Council of Trent. In other words, it's a late development that is at odds with the beliefs of the early church.
If we hold to the authority of the scriptures and the teachings and practices of the early church, then it is clear that enforced celibacy is not a good idea. I have a lot of respect for many aspects of the Roman Catholic Church and will be vigorous to defend it when unfairly attacked; however, I'm not afraid to criticize it when it's wrong. I also have no compunction against criticizing Baptists, Lutherans, Episcopals, or any other church either. No one (most of all including me) is immune from error.
The higher-ups who covered for the offenders should all do the right thing and step down--or better yet, the Pope should ask them to. I'm no Bible expert, but my understanding is that being forgiven by God does not exempt you from suffering the earthly consequences of your actions.
Regardless of who says it on this forum, its no less true.
Seems to me that FReeper also used to say:
"Thank you for sharing your opinion. May God Bless you, illuminate your mind, and have mercy on your soul."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.