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.
James 3:1 "3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
13 For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
14 These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly:
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
=o)
Considering the current state of affairs, Blackie, I'd be a lot more concerned about the extinction of your church if I were in your pew...Homosexual pedo-priests, bishops hiding those priests' criminal acts, a doctrine that bars women from the pulpit, dwindling applicants to RC seminaries--all the makings of a meltdown!
Posting each and every word of Scripture will not make you right. Luther reviled the Epistle of James as unfit for Christians to read presumably because he perceived danger to his curious teachings from James's assertion that faith without works is dead. He also reviled the Apocalypse. He also actually removed several Old Testament books which, surprise, surprise, differed from other curious notions of his. Compared to his successors, of course, Luther is a pillar of orthodoxy, however impudent, and, according to the old American Lutheran Church's film biography of Luther (played by Stacy Keach), he spent his final days, months and years denouncing those Protestants who had the nerve, the nerve, to assert disagreement with the great Reformer and, of course, sucking up to the secular and insubordinate princes and other sources of wealth whose rebellions of a political sort were augmented by his rebellions (protests?) against the Church of Jesus Christ.
There is no possible way of maintaining a rational discussion with someone who is speaking an entirely different language. You do not know what a priest is or a bishop or a deacon or the Holy Eucharist or the sacraments and if you are told you persist in any event in your fantasies. You think that your ability to read and possession of someone's translation of Scripture makes you a qualified arbiter of theology. You are not. In all likelihood, you cannot or do not distinguish between venial and mortal sin.
Noting as I do that your excuse for sticking your uninvited nose into the governance of the Roman Catholic Church to which you do not belong was that we have somehow brought you into disrepute as a Christian or brought Jesus Christ into disrepute because a limited number of our clergy are sinners (we are neither surprised nor amused and much better situated than you to do something about it which we will without your nosy intrusions) by way of lavender perversion with children (and I would add with male teenagers, or adult men), you simply MUST intervene and give to Catholics the dubious benefit of your utterly uninvited and priggish self-righteousness (and opportunistic and bigoted attacks on the Roman Catholic Church in the forlorn silly hope that we will regard you as an authority which it is patently obvious that you are not). Nonetheless, after you promised that your "work" whatever that was had come to an end here, you are now posting from the Epistle of James, not as to the controversy but as some sort of support for your dogmatic disagreements with the Church of Rome.
I am not going to further waste time on you on these subjects. Bray in the wilderness. Build up your Tower of Babel and of babble. Fantasize unto the very end. Finally, mind your own business. Run your own church as you see fit to the extent you are allowed. If you are so offended by Catholicism, do not join with us in defense of moral values in our nation and our world. Watch out lest you be contaminated. So what if they kill 4500 babies per day? Take those who totally agree with you, all four of them and confront the powers that be in society. No one will notice, but who cares, after all your unjustified self-esteem is at stake. So are your fantasies.
Bye-bye, etc.
Hasta la vista.
What is this "right" thing? Is the word of God not right enough for you? Seems to me you are the one using 1,000 words to prop up your unbelief and rebellion against what is plainly written and doesn't take a scholar to understand.
Do you like boxing with God like you do? Rejecting His way because you don't like James? Sorry, but I just don't believe that God is so weak and feeble that He is incapable of imparting His word, meaning and most especially His will to us in this century. It has nothing to do with how smart I am, if you remember, or believe it, God uses the simple to confound the wise, and obviously you seem to have engaged in alot of study that you are very proud of. BTW faith without works is dead. Works are a symptom of faith, like a rash is a symptom of chicken pox...bad analogy I know. I have to assume you believe it also, but I can't be sure, you were talking over my head there a bit about some guy named Luther. I wouldn't know Luther from Calvin, they are not important at all in the scheme of things.
I'm sure I must be speaking a different language than you, I like to keep things simple, I checked around my different translations, five of them, they all say the same thing that the passage I quoted from James says...so...how many translations are required before humble acceptance of what is written becomes required?
"In all likelihood, you cannot or do not distinguish between venial and mortal sin.
Seems to me that sin is sin, and not a smiddgen of it is allowed in the presence of the Father, so venial smeanial, it all needs to be repented of, right? Covered by the blood of Jesus, washed white as snow, presented before the Father, pure, acceptable, a child of God. What a great blessing. And all that is required is repentence from a contrite heart.
"Noting as I do that your excuse for sticking your uninvited nose into the governance of the Roman Catholic Church to which you do not belong was that we have somehow brought you into disrepute as a Christian or brought Jesus Christ into disrepute because a limited number of our clergy are sinners (we are neither surprised nor amused and much better situated than you to do something about it which we will without your nosy intrusions) by way of lavender perversion with children (and I would add with male teenagers, or adult men), you simply MUST intervene and give to Catholics the dubious benefit of your utterly uninvited and priggish self-righteousness (and opportunistic and bigoted attacks on the Roman Catholic Church in the forlorn silly hope that we will regard you as an authority which it is patently obvious that you are not).
Wheew, what a guy, you got all that venom out in one loooong sentence. I kept looking for the period, I'm impressed.
I am of no particular denomination, I feel free to roam about the institutions of my Father, at will. I know He welcomes me where ever I show up. I think your projecting. I didn't say I had anything against the American Catholic Church other than it is in big trouble, by the actions, or inactions of it's trusted leaders that have ruined lives and brought shame to the name of Jesus. That's a biggy. I can say it's a biggy because I am obligated to say it's a biggy. I am also obligated to offer God's word as a way to mend the problem. I have done all that is required of me according to God's will as revealed in His Word.
You should not be so offended with me. But like I said, let God judge it.
Correction. Celibacy in the CATHOLIC church is a sad joke.
And the Authority of the Church to loose and bind is definitely scriptural. Thus, end of debate.
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).
This passage was written to the Corinthians in general, not to a specific group of Corinthians, i.e., pastors and bishops, among others.
The early church truly believed that Jesus' return was to occur very soon.
If one were to take this passage as you prefer to have us understand it, the only people on the earth today would be godless. That is what happens when the church does not have kids.
I am reading a book called "The Idiot's Guide to Jewish History and Culture." I am doing this since I have a heart for the Jewish people and understand the "Jewishness" of the Gospel.
The author, Rabbi Benjamin Blech, says this on the subject of Jewish intelligence (pg 14):
Historians have pointed out a fascinating difference between Jews and Christians. In Christianity, as well as in many other religions, holiness was identified with asceticism, great spirituality with the practice of celibacy. For centuries the finest minds among Christians were urged to become priests. That effectively condemned their genetic pool of intelligence to an untimely end.
Jews, on the other hand, took quite seriously the first commandment to mankind-to be fruitful and multiply. Sex was never seen as sinful, but rather as one of those things created by God that He surely must have had in mind when He declared, in reviewing His work, that "Behold everything was good." Among Jews, the most intelligent were encouraged to become religious leaders. As rabbis, they had to serve as role models for their congregants as procreators and "fathers of their countries." Brains got passed on from generation to generation, and Jews today are still reaping the benefits of the frequent sexual activities of their ancestors.
One must really stretch the letter to the Corinthians to make it a rule made specifically to the pastors (or priests) of the church.
It amazes me that when non-Catholics want to debate catholic tradition with the Bible, we are ridiculed as being in the "Sola Scriptura" crowd. Where does this use of the scripture (as out of context as it may be) place you?
Just certain folks interpretation of the Word of God, not the Word itself.
I read scripture and it tells me Christ gave His Church authority. That's from the plain sense of scripture.
The Church, using that authority has determined as a discipline that its priests shall be celibate.
That practice has scriptural support.
There are opposing scriptures too.
Only that Church whch was granted authority has the promise of the Holy Spirit to bring it "to all Truth" and to lose and bind.
Therefore, the question really is,
Is the word of God not right enough for you?
I leave you a long and thoughtful post, and this is your response?
Do you know how arrogant it is to use the term "Church", instead of "church."
No offense, but I do not leave it to the "Church" to interpret the scripture for me. I do not want to put the Holy Spirit out of a job.
Which? the Church's authority, or celibate priests? I have never read any scripture about celibacy being required, I know Paul thought it was preferable because of the amount of dedication involved that doesn't leave much time for family. I don't get why the Church would use their authority to contridict the way scripture sets up the ministry as described in James, it seems to me to have led to error.
But like Jesus said, there is no way that offenses won't come, they will, even with the ministry set up just like the blue print in James. But in my own life when I find I am in error I go back to the blue print, scriptures, and try to put my feet on the narrow path. Hopefully the Chruch will decide to revist the issue of married priests and give it a try, I think it has a chance of improving things for everyone.
Yes sir. We do not agree. What more can I say.
Do you know how arrogant it is to use the term "Church", instead of "church."
John 6: 61 Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard; and who can hear it? 62 But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
No offense, but I do not leave it to the "Church" to interpret the scripture for me. I do not want to put the Holy Spirit out of a job.
I fail to see any evidence of the guidance of the Holy Spirit among the infighting 20,000 different protestant denominations.
History proves your "personal interp of scripture under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit" to be one of the greatest deceptions in the history of Christianity.
Let's see....Perhaps you could tell me exaclty where we disagree and argue the point? Maybe?
You were the one who started the argument, and you don't seem prepared to have dialogue with me.
I'll give you this: You certainly know how to take a passage out of context and make it mean whatever suits your needs at any given moment.
The first thing I want you to do is give me a scriptural passage that will support you.
Then, give us all a list of historical examples. Be sure to use real Christains, and not someone who went out into left field, using God's name. We are all smart enough to know the difference, I think.
I am a Christian, and am filled with the Holy Spirit. I read the scriptures with the Holy spirit in attendance. One of the purposes of the Holy Spirit is to be my helper, and another is to be my teacher.
I believe that I'll allow him to do both, but if you choose to allow some system to hold you in a place where you are not comfortable holding fellowship with the Holy Spirit, am very sorry for you.
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.