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.

I must admit that I find the demand of the Catholic Church for celibacy to be rather puzzling. The author's main point seems to be summed up in this statement: "A priest's first duty is to his flock, while a husband's first duty is to his wife." Apparently, he doesn't think a married man can be devoted to his flock. Technically, a priest's or pastor's first duty is to God, not his flock. In fact, that is the first duty of any Christian, clergy or layperson, married or single.

Despite his slant toward celibacy, the Apostle Paul recognized marriage as being perfectly in line with the Christian lifestyle. He writes, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her" (Ephesians 5:25). Earthly marriage between a man and a woman has always been looked upon as being representative of Christ's relationship with the church. To say that marriage has absolutely no place in the priesthood is to read something into Scripture that just isn't there.

Nowhere in Scripture will you find that the clergy are commanded to be celibate. That is strictly an invention of the Catholic Church. Members of the clergy are expected to be sexually pure, and I believe that a healthy sexual relationship within the confines of marriage definitely figures into that.

If a man believes that God has called him to a celibate lifestyle, more power to him. But if he believes he is called to a life of wedded companionship in his service for the Lord, it seems unfair that his usefulness as a priest would be so casually dismissed. Those who have been covered by the blood of the Lamb are all priests (1 Peter 2:9) and saints (1 Corinthians 1:2) in the eyes of God, and I believe that a healthy marriage, even among the clergy, is pleasing in God's sight. To say that marriage has no place in the priesthood of the Catholic Church is to say that God was foolish for instituting marriage in the first place.

So, once again, it appears that the Church has to decide which is more important, Catholic tradition or Holy Scripture. Firstly, there is no command for anyone to avoid marriage and live a celibate lifestyle. Secondly, a healthy marriage relationship among the clergy is actually encouraged (1 Timothy 3). Why is that so difficult for some to accept?

"... So which interpretation of these scriptures do we believe?? Yours, based on the doctrines and fancies of fallible men, or mine, based on the teaching of that Church to which Christ Himself granted authority..."

Do you mean the organization that has a "Holy Father" who lives on earth somewhere in Italy in spite of Jesus' plain command to give no mere man the lofty title that belongs only to God?

St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his *obliged*, but his *beloved*, sons, 1 Co. 4:14.

Mat 23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Jesus warned his disciples against the elite class of "professional interpreters" of Scripture and tradition who loved pretentious titles and positions of influence.

Scripture indicates that church officers were chosen by the whole congregation, and that final governing authority in NT churches rests with the whole church.

The reasoning behind that is that [1] accountability to the congregation provides a safeguard against temptations to sin. [2] some degree of control by the entire congregation provides a safeguard against the leadership falling into doctrinal error. [3] government works best with the consent of those governed.

In addition to those, there is another reason for restricting the authority of church officers [4] the doctrine of the clarity of Scripture and the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers (the regenerate).

The NT affirms that all regenerate Christians have access to God's throne in prayer and all share as members in a "royal priesthood".

[1 Pet.2:9; cf. Heb. 10:19-25; 12:22-24] show that all Christians have some ability to interpret Scripture and some responsibility to seek God's wisdom in applying it to situations. All have access directly to God in order to seek to know his will.

The NT allows for no special class of Christians who have greater access to God than others. Therefore it is right to include all believers in some of the crucial decision-making processes of the church. "In an abundance of counselors there is safety." [Prov.11:14]

When one studies the history of New Testament "church government", one can readily see that the bottom-up, checks and balances, Republican form of limited government that America's Framers gave us, is based straight out of the New Testament CHURCH GOVERNMENT example. [Acts 6:3; 1:15, 22, 23, 25; 2Cor.8:19, etc.] And Paul, Barnabus and Titus are shown as installing the elders that were chosen by the congregations [Acts 6:3-6; 14:23 and Titus 1:5].

Paul says to the whole church congregation: "Pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom whom we may appoint to this duty." (of servant aka deacon)

The apostles had the unique authority to found and govern the early church, and they could speak and write the words of God. Many of their written words became the NT Scripture. In order to qualify as an apostle someone had to had seen Christ with his own eyes after he rose from the dead and had to have been specifically installed/appointed by Christ as an apostle.

In place of living apostles present in the church to teach and govern it, we have instead the writings of the apostles in the books of the NT. Those New Testament Scriptures fulfill for the church today the absolute authoritative teaching and governing functions which were fulfilled by the apostles themselves during the early years of the church. Because of that, there is no need for any direct "succession" or "physical descent" from the apostles. In fact it was not the Jerusalem apostles who ordained Paul and Barnabas, but people in the church at Antioch who laid hands on them and sent them out. [Acts 13:3] Ordaining is ultimately from the Lord, himself [Acts 20:28; 1Cor.12:28; Eph.4:11].

Here is more from Matthew Henry's Commentary (on-line) linked from the Blue Letter Bible website [snips]:

"Matt. 8–10. It is repeated twice; Be not called Rabbi, neither be ye called Master or Guide: not that it is unlawful to give civil respect to those that are over us in the Lord, nay, it is an instance of the honour and esteem which it is our duty to show them; but, 1. Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people; it is not agreeable to the simplicity of the gospel, for them to covet or accept the honour which they have that are in kings’ palaces. 2. They must not assume the authority and dominion implied in those names; they must not be magisterial, nor domineer over their brethren, or over God’s heritage, as if they had dominion over the faith of Christians: what they received of the Lord, all must receive from them; but in other things they must not make their opinions and wills a rule and standard to all other people, to be admitted with an implicit obedience. The reasons for this prohibition are,

(1.) One is your Master, even Christ, v. 8, and again, v. 10. Note,

[1.] Christ is our Master, our Teacher, our Guide. Mr. George Herbert, when he named the name of Christ, usually added, My Master.
[2.] Christ only is our Master, ministers are but ushers in the school. Christ only is the Master, the great Prophet, whom we must hear, and be ruled and overruled by; whose word must be an oracle and a law to us; Verily I say unto you, must be enough to us.

And if he only be our Master, then for his ministers to set up for dictators, and to pretend to a supremacy and an infallibility, is a daring usurpation of that honour of Christ which he will not give to another.

(2.) All ye are brethren. Ministers are brethren not only to one another, but to the people; and therefore it ill becomes them to be masters, when there are none for them to master it over but their brethren; yea, and we are all younger brethren, otherwise the eldest might claim an excellency of dignity and power, Gen. 49:3. But, to preclude that, Christ himself is the first-born among many brethren, Rom. 8:29. Ye are brethren, as ye are all disciples of the same Master. School-fellows are brethren, and, as such, should help one another in getting their lesson; but it will by no means be allowed that one of the scholars step into the master’s seat, and give law to the school. If we are all brethren, we must not be many masters. Jam. 3:1.

Secondly, They are forbidden to ascribe such titles to others (v. 9); "Call no man your father upon the earth; constitute no man the father of your religion, that is, the founder, author, director, and governor, of it.’’

The fathers of our flesh must be called fathers, and as such we must give them reverence; but God only must be allowed as the Father of our spirits, Heb. 12:9.

Our religion must not be derived from, or made to depend upon, any man. We are born again to the spiritual and divine life, not of corruptible seed, but by the word of God; not of the will of the flesh, or the will of man, but of God. Now the will of man, not being the rise of our religion, must not be the rule of it. We must not jurare in verba magistri—swear to the dictates of any creature, not the wisest or best, nor pin our faith on any man’s. St. Paul calls himself a Father to those whose conversion he had been an instrument of (1 Co. 4:15; Phil. 10); but he pretends to no dominion over them, and uses that title to denote, not authority, but affection: therefore he calls them not his obliged, but his beloved, sons, 1 Co. 4:14.

The reason given is, One is your Father, who is in heaven. God is our Father, and is All in all in our religion. He is the Fountain of it, and its Founder; the Life of it, and its Lord; from whom alone, as the Original, our spiritual life is derived, and on whom it depends.

He is the Father of all lights (Jam. 1:17), that one Father, from whom are all things, and we in him, Eph. 4:6.

Christ having taught us to say, Our Father, who art in heaven; let us call no man Father upon earth; no man, because man is a worm, and the son of man is a worm, hewn out of the same rock with us; especially not upon earth, for man upon earth is a sinful worm; there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not, and therefore no one is fit to be called Father.~~~~

There is a good book on celibacy (or, more correctly, continence) in the early church written by Fr. Christian Cochini, called Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy. There are solid reasons why celibacy is a requirement of the priesthood, much like marriage is a requirement of parenthood.

No matter what this new book says, the scriptures plainly and emphatically support the idea that clergy may be married if they choose, and early church history supports it as well. If it comes down to believing what a 20th-century priest says or what the Bible says, I'll go for the Bible every time. For example, we know that Peter was married:

And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever. - MATTHEW 8:14

Further, we know that other apostles -- and Jesus's brothers -- were also married. Paul indeed speaks out against clergy being forbidden to marry:

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? - 1 CORINTHIANS 9:5

Finally, Paul says that clergy member holding high office may (not necessarily must) be married:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) - 1 TIMOTHY 3:1-5

The notion of celibacy for clergy was not codified until the 1st Lateran Council in 1123, under Pope Callistus. If celibacy is a requirement of priesthood that is supposedly handed down by apostolic tradition, then why did it take over 1100 to recognize this requirement?

Enforced celibacy for clergy is a 900-year old failed experiment. It's time to quit arguing whether or not zero-tolerance is a good idea and get back to what the scriptures say.

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.