How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

You are an Episcopalian according to your profile page. I am a Catholic. Is it any of my business that you belong to a church whose very existence is rooted in the frustrated, illicit and adulterous desires of a mere king, Henry VIII, who could not obtain papal approval to abandon his legitimate wife after more than twenty years of marriage for another woman whom he later beheaded at an early stage in his career as a regal male Liz Taylor?

Why is it any of your business whether the Roman Catholic Church to which you do NOT belong maintains a celibate priesthood? Should either of us be pushing rabbis to eat pork or lobster? Do you have any suggestions as to how Muslims ought to pray? Any advice for atheists or agnostics on how to best practice their atheism or agnosticism?

I would point out that Roman Catholicism, even in its gravely afflicted AmChurch form, has yet to consecrate lesbian bishops. Clean up your own tiny backyard before sticking your nose into the vast estate next door which your theological ancestor Henry VIII abandoned NOT for doctrinal reasons but to facilitate his serial adulteries.

If you really believe that "Peter, and many of the rest of the original 12 apostles were married," here is your chance to instruct us poor Biblically ignorant Catholics who preserved the Bible (all of it and not the truncated form which left out the books of the OT inconvenient to the reformation) and passed copies to you guys.

Answer me this:

Name each of the 12 apostles and, for each one, NAME the wife and give a Scriptural reference demonstrating that each specific couple lived together as man and wife after each apostle was called by Christ to follow him.

Next, although God is the actual author of all of Scripture, St. Paul was the penman of much of the New Testament. He is often referenced as an Apostle and was certainly a successor of them. Give us the same information and Scriptural references on St. Paul.

Remember no forbidden "traditions of men", no Scriptural "interpretations", no forbidden adding or detracting from the words of Scripture. Show me and the other Catholics how the Bible speaks for itself in this regard. If you cannot, then concede that your argument is "unScriptural" or explain why it is not unScriptural.

God certainly created marriage. God also created beasts with cloven hooves and ordered Jews not to eat them. Priests, if we are talking about normative priests of the Roman rite of the Roman Catholic Church cannot legitimately marry because each and every one (other than Lutheran and Episcopalian married clergy admitted to the Church and to the Catholic priesthood) have taken solemn vows of chastity and obedience, both of which prohibit their marriage after ordination as does Canon Law. What Peter (and his successors) have bound on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and what he or they have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The vows may be loosed by the pope, individually or collectively. Priestly celibacy is disciplinary and not doctrinal, like the old mandatory meatless Friday rule and, like that rule may be abolished at any time. Of course, even the pope has no authority to require priests TO marry or to marry some specific woman or her to marry a priest.

You do not begin to agree with Roman Catholics on the meaning of the word "clergy." You would be a rather rare Protestant if you believe, as we Catholics do, that clergy include only priests with sacramental powers, a member of a sacrificial priesthood, etc. There is no point in arguing over whether or not "clergy" "may", "might" or "must" marry when there is no agreement in the first place as to the definition of clergy.

Furthermore the reformation gave rise to the curious idea (at least in the history of Christianity) that all is included in the Bible (or at least in the books that reformed churches recognize) and that there is nothing beyond Scripture or in addition to it that has authority. We are to accept that Jesus Christ was incarnated, lived, engaged in His ministry, suffered, was crucified, died in atonement for our sins, rose on Easter and ascended into heaven leaving behind the Paraclete, all so that a disobedient priest of eccentric views and a yen to marry a nun would be able to come along 1485 years or so later to found Jesus Christ's Church or the first of 10,000 of them, each utterly necessary to its adherents because of nuances of difference over understandings of Scripture (which is, of course, perfectly clear in its meaning despite the existence of 10,000 differing groups of Sola Scriptura believers, each his or her own authority on Scripture because most are literate and can read someone else's translation of Scripture whichever one of many differing versions or translations) authoritatively.

If you actually believe something substantially along the lines of the history outlined above, please keep it to yourself or among yourselves or go teach it to anyone who will believe it. Define your clergy as you please. I am afraid that you will find little agreement from Catholics adequately grounded in the Faith and for good reason.

As you all know, the original words of all writings were laboriously copied and handed down over the generations.

And in the process of copying these documents, occasionally errors were introduced.

It turns out that in the phrase that the catholics took to mean "celibate manhood" the original phrase was "celebrate manhood".

There is probably an especially hot place in Hell reserved for these fellows.

They can always correct their mistake and revert to the original meaning but the perverts and deviates have such control of the situation now that they are unlikely to give up their palace of sodomy now known as the catholic church.

As a Roman Catholic, I believe that I do know the Truth. You are refusing to back up your claim, as a sola Scriptura Christian that the apostles were married. I have given you the opportunity to provide those who believe as I do with what you regard as the truth, from an unimpeachable source, Holy Scripture. You can be as clever as you like or not, but the fact remains that you cannot back up your claim. Admit that or back up your claim on the terms presented or withdraw from the argument on this issue which is, after all, none of your business in any event since you do not belong to the Roman Catholic Church.

However, if you want to dip in and out of Catholic issues discussions without belonging to the Church, doing the equivalent of opportunistic drive-by shootings, you are going to have to expect that Catholics will defend themselves since we have no particular duty to be instructed by those in error especially when they cannot back up their claims from the Scriptures they claim to rely on exclusively. If you think I am being somehow unfair to you in holding you accountable for your statements on your own sola Scriptura terms, that speaks volumes.

OK, look at Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38. This was about Peter. The rest of the Apostles? I am not sure of. Many were problaby married, maybe some were not. The Apostle Paul was at one time a member of the Sanhedrin, was he not? What was one of the requirements for being in the Sanhedrin? When you get down to brass tacks, all this really doesn't matter a hill of beans. I am only interested in one thing. What is your plan of salvation? After all, when all is said and done, that is the only thing that matters, because eternity is an extremely long time, and no one wants to screw it up do they? Also, you have to keep in mind, the Bible is not intended to be a blow by blow description of history, but was written to point people to Jesus of Nazerath. BTW, down with Blackhawks management, those worthless bums.

I have read all of your posts (DallasMike) and i believe they are very well conceived and well written, and backed with Biblical evidence (as opposed to just some Catholic Canons and church bulls written by some Papal decree in the past claiming to be 'infallible').

However it is my experience that when it comes to visceral subjects like faith and religion it is virtually impossible to convince a person otherwise! For example i remember a post you sent to PolyCarp, where you quoted certain verses in the bible that supported your view...and yet PolyCarp said he would rather adhere to church teaching than the bible because, and i quote, I'll take the guidance of Christ's Church over your fallible doctrines of man any day, thank you, when in fact what PolyCarp calls the 'fallible doctrines of man' are lifted straight from the bible, and if he looked at his bible he would see the same posts (assuming it is a 'normal' bible...who knows?). And what he calls the 'guidance of christ's church' is actually Catholic Canon enacted through what is known as Papal Bulls in century's past. Thus to him Papal bulls are greater in importance than the Bible!

However i am not here to discredit a church...nope, that is not my intention. I just wanted to say it s my experience that when it comes to matters of the spirit and faith it is hard to convince someone of something it is not parallel to what he believes in. no matter what evidence you may have on the contrary.

And on the subject of celibacy these are my thoughts (this is for you PolyCarp). I think Celibacy is a nice idea since it allows the priest or pastor or whatever to dedicate all of his energy to the service of God and man! However if you study ALL of the writings of the apostle Paul you will notice that he says that although it is nice for someone to be celibate it should not be forced because it can cause someone to 'burn up with desire' and end up commiting sin! Thus in the whole celibacy thing priests who think they can handle it should go ahead and be celibate...but the church should not make it OBLIGATORY to be celibate in order to be a priest. And thing of it, such statements make certain verses like 1 Timothy 4:1-3 get added significance inr espect to the Catholic church (read it for yourself PolyCarp and come to your own conclusions based on what the biblical verses say). Also have a look for yourself at 1 Corinthians chapter 7:6-9.

Well, i somewhat feel i have not done even changed your views PolyCarp even an iota, and i did not meant o actually. I onyl wanted to re-emphasize the points of Dallas Mike with the hope that some Freeper with a more open mind (and willing to look at the biblical and historical facts with an objective eye) will see them and make their own decisions on the pertinent material.

Thanks.

There's no reason for Mark17 to do that as he wrote that "many" of the rest of the apostles were married. That's a fact. Do some research and you'll find that, according to Catholic tradition, 11 of the apostles were married.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 9:5 that "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Peter and at least several other apostles were bringing their wives with them on their travels! Pope Clement I wrote that Peter's wife was named Perpetua.

Regarding the notion that the apostles somehow became celibate after attaining their apostleship, that's a rather bizarre idea for you to prove, not for us to disprove. There's no indication that they did turn to a celibate life and the scriptures make clear that the sexual relationship is an integral part of marriage. As I noted in the last paragraphs, Peter and other apostles -- and the physical half-brothers of Jesus -- took their wives with them on their journeys.

Check your books about St. Petronilla, who until fairly recently in the scheme of things was universally considered to be one of the physical daughters of Peter (Augustine described her as such). Recently, the trend is to consider her just a "spiritual daughter" of Peter because it's inconvenient to acknowledge that the first pope was married. Anyway, tradition has it that she was martyred somewhere near the end of the first century. When you consider how close her name is to Petros, and if you acknowledge the early church tradition that she was Peter's daughter, you have to at least consider the possibility of her being born to Peter after he became an apostle.

Below is a common subject of 16th and 17th century art, a painting of the burial of Petronilla. Early church history says that she was martyred as a young woman about the same time that her parents were martyred -- around AD 66. Given that timeline, it's apparent that the early church was comfortable with the idea that she was born after Peter became an apostle. The painting is by the Italian painter Guercino and is titled "Seppellimento di Santa Petronilla." It hangs in the Vatican.

(110034 byte)

There is no point in arguing over whether or not "clergy" "may", "might" or "must" marry when there is no agreement in the first place as to the definition of clergy.

Well, Peter himself wrote (I'm quoting the Catholic Bible) to "let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." Hence, all believers are priests.

However, it really doesn't matter whether we agree on the definition of clergy. The Bible clearly states that deacons and bishops can be married, plus we know that more than one apostle and many, if not most, early priests and popes were married. Whether you look at scriptures or tradition, that's an inescapable fact.

Do your own research. You'll find that we know positively that Peter was married, as was Pope Felix III (483-492), Pope Hormidas (514-523), Pope Silverius (536-537), Pope Hadrian II (867-872), and others. Many others are thought to have been married as well. In fact, the Catholic Encylcopedia admits that Pope Silverius was the son of Pope Hormidas!

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.