5 Arguments Against (Catholic) Priestly Celibacy and How to Refute Them

Catholic Education ^

[NYer]

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.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This article originally appeared in the CRISIS Magazine e-Letter.

[A.A. Cunningham]

. The scripture dealing with marraige and church leadership is found in 1 Tim 3, (repeated in Titus) where an elder (church leader) is required to be the husband of one wife. But, since scripture doesn't matter, let them continue in their error.

Another simplistic linguistic literalist. You are fairly ignorant of Scripture. St. Paul's instruction to Timothy was not absolute in that only married men be selected. After all, you conveniently omitted, St. Paul himself was celibate and wrote in Scripture, which you also omitted, that celibacy was the preferred state.

[aimhigh]

After all, you conveniently omitted, St. Paul himself was celibate and wrote in Scripture, which you also omitted, that celibacy was the preferred state.

Paul was an apostle, not a local church leader. There is a difference. Celebacy is never mentioned as the preferred state for a local church leader. 1 Tim 3, in requiring the elder to be a husband is absolute, and it is repeated in Titus. In Timothy, Paul later says, "These things teach and command."

As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "By your traditions, you have nullified the commands of God.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Incorrect. You are a very poor student not only of Scripture but of the history of the discipline of celibacy, lex continentiae, which finds its origins with the Apostles in the Catholic priesthood and with Melchisedech in the Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament. But that is to be expected when one, such as yourself, relies on an abridged, edited copy of Sacred Scripture that didn't exist until 12 centuries after the original as well as the private, erroneous interpretation that St. Peter cautioned against.

In St. Paul's counsel in 1 Timothy 3, there is no absolute qualification that a bishop must be married, despite your claim to the contrary.

"It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2

'ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus'

[aimhigh]

Apostles in the Catholic priesthood and with Melchisedech in the Levitical priesthood in the Old Testament

Since Peter was married, and the Levites were married, you are the one has failed to do the research.

[Ant_biter]

"Since Peter was married, and the Levites were married, you are the one has failed to do the research."

Luke 18: 28 Then Peter said, "We have given up our possessions and followed you." 29 He said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 who will not receive [back] an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come."

Similar quotations can also be found in MATTHEW 19: 27 –29, and MARK 10: 28 – 31. Christ rewards "an overabundant return" to those who give up their wives and families for the sake of the kingdom of God.

Also, in Luke 14: 26 "If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even to his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

It is interesting that both quotations mention the word 'wife' but not 'husband.'

Also in Luke 9: 61 And another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to my family at home." 62 [To him] Jesus said, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God."

As christians, we ought to follow the teaching of Christ. To love someone, you always do the thing that pleases him/her most.

[Ant_biter]

Please read post #25. Thanks

[asformeandformyhouse]

"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).

But why leave out verse 26?

1 Corinthians 7:26  I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

It seems obvious that there was some reason at that time that Paul would recommend celibacy. Celibacy is always an option but not a necessity.

[aimhigh]

Christ rewards "an overabundant return" to those who give up their wives and families for the sake of the kingdom of God.

"Give up" is a poor translation. Jesus spoke of leaving (temporarily) for missions trips, as Peter did. He then returned home to his family. The Lord's commandment in 1 Cor 7 forbids divorce.

[Ant_biter]

‘"Give up" is a poor translation.’

I quoted the verses from the New American Bible. Luke 18, 28 is quoted as ‘Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions ---”’ and verse 29: “--- there is no one who has given up house or wife ---“

“Jesus spoke of leaving (temporarily) for missions trips, as Peter did. He then returned home to his family.”

Is this your interpretation of verses Luke18, 28-30? Or some other biblical verses lead you to this idea? If so, please share the verses with us.

“The Lord's commandment in 1 Cor 7 forbids divorce.”

I honestly do not know exactly how Peter and the other apostles treated their wives. I only know that Peter said “ WE have given up our possessions and followed you” and Jesus responded as described in Luke 18, 28-30; Matthew 19,27–29; and Mark 10,28-31.

[aimhigh]

Is this your interpretation of verses Luke18, 28-30? Or some other biblical verses lead you to this idea? If so, please share the verses with us.

Without quoting the entire four gospels, let me answer your question. If you put the four gospels together, you will find Jesus and his disciples made several missions trips. He did not have one, long 3 to 4 year travel itinerary. Peter "gave up" his wife, each time, to take these trips. He didn't permanently abandon her. For example, after one of the early travels, Jesus and his disciples returned to Peter's house, where Jesus healed Peter's mother in law. Mark 1:17-21.

The concept of permanent abandonment is unscriptural, since we are told in Timothy to care for "our own" widows. Such abandonment would be tatamount to creating abandoned widows.

[Ant_biter]

“He did not have one, long 3 to 4 year travel itinerary. Peter "gave up" his wife, each time, to take these trips. He didn't permanently abandon her. For example, after one of the early travels, Jesus and his disciples returned to Peter's house, where Jesus healed Peter's mother in law. Mark 1:17-21.”

Wow, you know all the facts as if you were there during Jesus’ time.
I am sorry. I do not have your guts to speculate the events as the ways you speculated them. I do not blame you for many Protestants I know speculated or rationalized a lot of strange events, like the end time or the end of the world just to justify their own pre-conceived ideas. Well, going back to our topic, Peter’s wife is never mentioned in the Gospels except his mother-in-law. Could it be possible that Peter’s wife was already dead when Jesus called Peter to be his disciple? Besides, none of the wives of the apostles is mentioned in the Gospels. Could it be that all the apostles are single men like Jesus himself? (Thanks to the thinking of Saradippity) I can only ask these questions but I do not know AS OF NOW the real answers.

The main issue here is regarding to the teaching of Jesus as described in Luke 18, 28-30; Matthew 19, 27-29; Mark 10, 28-31. Whether you accept this teaching fully, partially or not at all is beyond our control. For the apostles to remain unmarried and celibate, the question of abandoning “wives and widows” could not even exist. In fact, Paul reinforced the idea of celibacy in
1 Corinthians 7, 32: I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33: But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34: and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35: I am telling you this for YOUR OWN BENEFIT, NOT TO IMPOSE A RESTRAINT UPON YOU, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PROPRIETY AND ADHERENCE TO THE LORD WITHOUT DISTRACTION.

[aimhigh]

Wow, you know all the facts as if you were there during Jesus’ time.

Try reading your bible. You will see that Jesus and His disciples took several trips. You base your argument on vacuums. You quote Corinthians, but that passage has nothing to do with leadership positions.

[Ant_biter]

"You quote Corinthians, but that passage has nothing to do with leadership positions."

You must be confused. Our topic is about "Priestly Celibacy" and not "leadership position."

[aimhigh]

You must be confused. Our topic is about "Priestly Celibacy" and not "leadership position."

The passage has nothing to do with priests. Isn't a priest a leader?

[Ant_biter]

"The passage has nothing to do with priests. Isn't a priest a leader?"

Next time, read carefully the title of the thread and understand its objective before you get yourself into the discussion, okay? It will save all of us a lot of times and energies.

Well, let me explain it more plainly for the last time. This thread is about the justification of priestly celibacy. My point is that the celibate life styles chosen by priests do conform highly favorably with the scripture as indicated in the passages I sited. You may still not agree with me and I have no intension to convince you either. May Christ lead us to the truths.