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.
Actually, the texts don't conflict with one another at all. The proofs you cite show that celibacy is an option -- even a good thing -- for those who can handle it. However, it is a far leap of logic to deduce that celibacy must be enforced for clergy.
Further, how would you explain the passages which describe marriage for church leaders? How would you explain Peter and the other Popes and clergy who married until the idea of enforced celibacy was dreamed up? Was Peter violating God's will for church leaders?
Your position is inconsistent with scripture and fails on the face of its logic.
2. Again not your point - but, if there are so many men available for the priesthood, why is it that the bishops refuse to release me from civilian parishes to enter the military chaplaincy? There are approx 1100 chaplains in the Army (active duty). Statistically, 1/3rd should be priests. Yet, less than 100 are now on active duty, and most of those are over the age of 55. When I was a chaplain, we had one priest that was over 70, from Poland, and could barely speak English. He was a wonderful, godly man, but he did not belong in the Army!
Re: interpretation of Scripture, and particularly 1 Tim 3 ( Titus 1:6,7 also). There can only be one meaning - God did not write the Scriptures for each group to take its own interpretation. And frankly, I believe the Roman Catholic Church is wrong on the issue of marriage of priests. Paul says to Titus "if any man is above reproach (that leaves out the pedophiles), the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion ( I wonder how many that would exclude)." 1 Tim says the same thing. These are the only places in the New Testament where Paul lays out the qualifications for an elder/presbyter/overseer. This is pretty clear. Paul knew that the priesthood would be demanding, and that men needed to lead a credible life before the people to be heard and followed. In all of the discussion about celibacy, these seem to be the least mentioned passages, and yet the most definitive.
Grace and peace to all
Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,
Note it says "must be the husband of one wife". Note it does not equivocate. It says "must be" the husband of one wife. That means married and only once. It doesn't say "if married, must be the husband of one wife". It doesn't allow for much spin.
I don't think Paul intended to disqualify Jesus from church leadership. Do you?
I Timothy 4:1-3 "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; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 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.
My recollection is that you identify yourself as an "Episcopalian". If by that you mean ECUSA, you are a member of a group which endorses abortion, including partial-birth abortion; which says it has no "core doctrine" prohibiting the ordination of openly practicing homosexuals' and which tolerates an apostate non-Christian who claims to be a "bishop," namely one John Shelby Spong.
Why don't you clean up your own septic tank before complaining about ours?
That means "not the husband of more than one wife". If it excludes celibate men from church leadership, then you're claiming it excludes Jesus. You're also excluding John the Apostle, because there's no evidence that he ever married. There's a dispute about whether Paul was married, but it's clear that, if he was, he lived continently, because in 1 Corinthians he counsels his readers to be unmarried, saying "I wish you to be as I am".
Because some Catholic individuals have decided to be protestant, picking and choosing which doctrines on sexual morality to which to adhere, in this case homosexuality, thus discouraging good orthodox heterosexual Catholic candidates who can and would be celibate from entering the priesthood.
This has nothing, NOTHING to do with priestly celibacy.
If it did, protestants would have no problems with pederasty, because their ministers can marry.
Yet protestants have just as big a problem, if not greater, than the RCC, but it is not on the agenda of the NWO to destroy protestantism. Why? Because Satan knows the right address. Protestantism is not Satan's adversary. Roman Catholicism is. Therefore the media is relatively silent on the equal number of these cases among protestant ministers.
Oh, and the Greek word translated "meats" in the KJV simply means food. And all of the evidence indicates that Paul was talking about Gnostic groups of his own time, who really did forbid all of their members to marry, and who preached a number of odd doctrines concerning food, including salvation by eating cucumbers.
As for "commandments of men," I read the Bible myself. I come up with conclusions which differ from yours. If I were to submit myself to believing in your interpretation of what the Bible says, that would be following the commandments of men.
We did, a few centuries ago...
You mean the modernists who thought that everyone should be able to read the Word of God in their native tongue? The modernists who thought it was ok for the common man to read His Word? The modernists who believe the world is round and that the earth is not the physical center of the universe?
You mean those modernists?
What an odd thing to say. Christianity is satans only adversary. I am a Christian. At my best I am satans adversary.
What an odd thing to say. Christianity is satans only adversary. I am a Christian. At my best I am satans adversary.
Yes, you are interpreting, and against the most natural meaning of the verse.
It doesn't say, "It says 'must be' the husband of one wife."
Now, you're not only misinterpreting, you're misquoting. You got it right just a sentence or two earlier, "the husband of but one wife".
This is a little archaic. It would be easier to understand if translated, "the husband of only one wife."
I own a rental condo in a building where the rule is that each unit must have only two cars. The word "must" doesn't apply to having two cars ("must have two cars"), it applies to having ONLY two cars, no more, that's the limit. I know a lot of folks in the building that only have one car. No one has cited them for breaking the condo rules.
But your interpretation, though it seems strained to me, isn't altogether outrageous. It is your interpretation.
It happens to be an interpretation that the overwhelming number of professed Christians worldwide reject. Catholics reject it. Holy Orthodoxy rejects it. The Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Methodists, most Baptists, etc., etc. reject this interpretation. But, I will grant, for the sake of argument, that it is a rationally defensible interpretation. It is clearly not an interpretation required by the text. The very fact that a relatively small number of professed Christians agrees with you is testament to that.
So, the question remains, by what authority do you assert that your interpretation is superior to the interpretation given to this verse by, say, 80% or 90% of the rest of the Christians in the world?
Just curious.
In charity,
sitetest
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.