Celibacy

The Catholic Thing ^ | June 22, 2014 | Kristina Johannes

[NYer]

A common criticism of the Catholic Church’s teachings on sexual morality has to do with the largely unmarried clergy who are charged with preaching the message.  The accepted wisdom is that celibate males have no business telling married couples how to live their lives: “What do they know about the subject?”  

I remember a particularly egregious example. In 1974, Earl Butz, then U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, ridiculed Pope Paul VI’s opposition to contraception, “He no playa the game, he no maka the rules.” He later apologized, but in reality he was only saying publicly what many, including many Catholics, were saying privately.

I’ve never understood this. Jesus, God Incarnate, was a celibate male. Why would any Christian assume that a man striving to emulate Christ in the flesh would have nothing to offer about the nature of love?

Christians agree that God is love.  What they don’t agree on is what should be derived from this fact.

I’ve taught natural family planning for almost twenty years and I consider one of the most important elements of this instruction to be what is conveyed about the nature of love. I always hesitate to use an adjective such as “true” to describe a noun such as “love.” It seems inadvertently to give status to any falsehood parading as truth. 

Love is what it is. Everything else is a pretender and should be described with its own noun. Love is not lust; love is not use; love is not convenience. Love is divine, with all that implies.

St. John Paul II’s pontificate emphasized church teaching about love and its incarnational aspects. From 1981 through 1984, he devoted a whole series of audiences to this subject, which he dubbed “The Theology of the Body.”  These talks were later gathered into a book and became the basis of serious theological reflections

Although continence for the sake of the Kingdom was an important aspect of this teaching, the theology on marriage seemed to get the most focus when it was disseminated and discussed.  Celibacy was initially given short shrift, which is unfortunate, because the fact of the matter is, if you don’t understand or appreciate continence for the sake of the Kingdom, you aren’t going to appreciate or understand the nature of the sacrament of marriage. 

          Pope Paul VI and Cardinal Wojtyla, c.1967

A keystone of St. JPII’s teaching in this matter is found in Gaudium et Spes:

Indeed, the Lord Jesus, when He prayed to the Father, “that all may be one. . . as we are one” (John 17:21-22) opened up vistas closed to human reason, for He implied a certain likeness between the union of the divine Persons, and the unity of God’s sons in truth and charity. This likeness reveals that man, who is the only creature on earth which God willed for itself, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself. [24] 

This section refers the reader (in a footnote) to Luke 17:33, “Whoever seeks to gain his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.”

The essence of love is a willingness to give a sincere gift of self. We only love when we act like God.  God the Son showed us what this means by giving such a complete gift of Self that He emptied Himself, as St. Paul tells us, going all the way to the cross. 

Our life of love is a continuum that starts here on earth and is fulfilled in Heaven.   The crucifixion was completed by the resurrection, when love conquered even death.   Celibacy for the kingdom is the eschatological symbol of love and it has much to teach those of us who are married.

In a 1981 audience, reflecting on Christ’s words about the resurrection of the body found in Mt. 22:30, St. JPII wrote:

The reciprocal gift of oneself to God – a gift in which man will concentrate and express all the energies of his own personal and at the same time psychosomatic subjectivity – will be the response to God’s gift of himself by man, a gift which will become completely and definitively beatifying, as a response worthy of a personal subject to God’s gift of Himself, “virginity,” or rather the virginal state of the body, will be totally manifested as the eschatological fulfillment of the “nuptial” meaning of the body, as the specific sign and the authentic expression of all personal subjectivity.  In this way, therefore, that eschatological situation in which “they neither marry nor are given in marriage” has its solid foundation in the future state of the personal subject, when, as a result of the vision of God “face to face,” there will be born in him a love of such depth and power of concentration on God Himself, as to completely absorb his whole psychosomatic subjectivity.

It is the mutual gift of self that is imaged in conjugal love.  Without denigrating the noble vocation of marriage, it can rightly be said that the couple undertaking marriage can find no better guide to understanding the essential nature of the gift of self than the celibate priest who has emptied himself in imitation of Christ. 

Let’s thank our priests for showing us this most radical example of self-gift.

[BipolarBob]

Well stated.

[Elsie]

Mary; last night you said “no”.

The night before, you said, “No!”

I’d bet tomorrow you’ll say, NO!!!” as well.

You’re a slow learner Joe; but you are finally catching on.

Doncha wish I had a handmaiden??

[metmom]

Please show me where the word BIBLE appears in Scripture?

Who coined the term *Bible* to begin with?

And tell me where THESE words appear in the Bible.

catholic

pope

eucharist

sacraments

annulment

assumption

immaculate conception

mass

purgatory

magisterium

infallible

confirmation

crucifix

rosary

mortal sin

venial sin

perpetual virginity

apostolic succession

indulgences

hyperdulia

catechism

real presence

transubstantiation

liturgy

Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally.

Whoever made that claim?

And that's especially ironic considering that Catholics become Bible literalists when it comes to a passage in John about eating Jesus body even when Jesus Himself said that the flesh profits nothing that the words He spoke were Spirit and life.

[CynicalBear]

You didn’t answer her question. Where are those traditions recorded to be assured they have been handed down accurately other than what is found in scripture?

[Alex Murphy]

Where are those traditions recorded to be assured they have been handed down accurately other than what is found in scripture?

Good question.

[CynicalBear]

>>Another verse Catholics take way out of context to support their doctrine.<<

Springing from a totally corrupted translation of the word “assembly” in Greek to give it a meaning that was never intended.

[daniel1212]

He likely tried this before, but besides the fact that Mt. 18:17 is referring to personal disputes, the fact is that judgment in all cases must rely on something greater than itself, unless it is God.

And the fact is that the church actually established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

Both men and writings of God were recognized and established as being so before Rome, and without an infallible magisterium, and it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And that both the instruments, discerners and stewards of Holy Writ are subject to it, unlike Rome.

And as Scripture testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)

[daniel1212]

The key Greek words in 1 Corinthians 9:5 are adelphaen gunaika. The first means "sister," and the second can be translated as either "woman" or "wife." This means the phrase translates as "sister woman" or "sister wife," with "sister" indicating not a biological but a spiritual relationship. It would make sense for the apostles to be accompanied by "sister women" who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function.

Frankly NYer, that is absurd. Tthe fact is that γυναῖκά (gynaika) is abundantly and usually translated "wife," and there is no reason for arguing contrary to the most natural sense of the text (which is reflected in most every translation, including your NAB) except to to compel the text to conform to Rome..

Paul is not protesting that he gave up leading a women believer around, and which leading of a women (singular, not a group of them) itself is what easily seems to infer impropriety. And having no women was apparently was not a problem for John the Baptist or the disciples walking with Christ. Yet, as with the Lord, Paul did have female workers helping him in the gospel, the very thing, if plural, you have him forsaking! (Phil. 4:3)

As for Jerome, he himself evidences he is not above formulating contrived arguments from Scripture to support his unbalanced in his view of virginity vs marriage.

For he reasons,

The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always. If we are to pray always, it follows that we [priests] must never be in the bondage of wedlock, for as often as I render my wife her due, I cannot pray...Now a priest must always offer sacrifices for the people: he must therefore always pray. And if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage.

Yet the church began with men and women praying together as well as separately, while his reasoning here is contrary to the very apostolic instructions on the qualifications of elders (not "priests") .

Yet in further seeking to use Scripture to support his skewed view of marriage, Jerome next invokes Genesis 2 and 7, arguing,

"This too we must observe, at least if we would faithfully follow the Hebrew, that while Scripture on the first, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth days relates that, having finished the works of each, “God saw that it was good,” on the second day it omitted this altogether, leaving us to understand that two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness. (Against Jovinianus, Book 1, Cps. 7,13,16,33; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html)

Talk about wresting Scripture. So much for sending out disciples by pairs, and the two witnesses of Revelation, which suggests complementarity, while,

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Hebrews 13:4)

So much for Sola Roma.

[boatbums]

The church lifts the truth up and holds it high, but the church is not, itself, the truth. The duty of the church is to hold the truth up before an unbelieving world, to lead some to repentance and confirm others in their damnation. The Apostles did this, and backed up what they preached with the Word of God, because it is God’s Word that is truth. The church is not the truth. God is, and His revelation to man, in the life of Christ in human flesh, the scripture and the lives of believers. The church holds that truth up for all the world to see. The church cannot invent the truth any more than a pillar can create a building. “14 As Moses lifted up the bronze snake on a pole in the desert, in the same way the Son of Man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.” So it is the job of the church to lift up Jesus, in word and deed. Our job is to hold the truth up for all to see, not to replace it with our own thoughts and values. It is Jesus who is exulted, and the church only “in Him”.

Amen! Cannot be stated enough.

[daniel1212]

Same as... ... your traditional source for the authority of adding tradition to Scripture. Oh... Wait... Nevermind...

A sarcastic response to a sincere question

Actually it is not, as Rome herself must have a basis for presuming to be the supreme authority on Truth, on what Divine revelation consists of and assuredly means.

So what is your instrumental basis (the weight of Scripture?) for assurance of Truth, including that Rome is that infallible church?

In fact, there is no scriptural basis for sola scriptura.

In fact there is, as it is indisputable that the fact, as said, Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus what was written provides for additional conflative complimentary writings being added, and a canon of Scripture being recognized.

Meanwhile, the sufficiency aspect is either formal, so that for instance one could read Acts 10:36-43 and be saved, or material, and explicit or implicit, by precept and or in principal, including the principal that what God provides is always sufficient for what He calls man to do, so that (for instance) Adam did not need the Law, but once given, that was the standard pointing to Christ.

Meanwhile, the fact that the Lord first sent the disciples to preach, and some of the NT first was that of oral preaching does not at all militate against SS, since that was a fulfillment of Scripture which provided for it, it was upon Scriptural substantiation that the Truth claims of this preaching were ultimately established.

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures [not tradition], nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures [not tradition], (Luke 24:44-45)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures [not tradition]..) (Romans 1:1-2)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures [not tradition], (Acts 17:2)

And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written [not tradition], (Acts 15:15)

And in which appeal was made to writings which also were not originally commanded to be written, but which complemented that which God did command to be written, which henceforth was the standard for testing Truth claims.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20)

And even the innate morality of the Gentiles is judged by the written word. (Rm. 1,2)

But the oral form of Tradition is inherently inferior to the written as a transcendent standard, as not only does Rome herself hold that the words of Scripture are all Divinely inspired, in contrast to the words which express her tradition, but amorphous oral tradition is supremely susceptible to corruption, and thus its veracity rests upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

Thus while oral providence and transmission of Truth is valid, it depended upon the written word, and but which we know of this oral preaching, but the written word is the standard for Truth, and sufficient in its formal and material senses respectively.

[daniel1212]

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

So is the CCC subject to interpretation as to which parts teach infallible truth, and its meaning?

Now, give me a link to an "authoritative protestant" commentary on abortion, in-vitro fertilization, cloning, gay marriage on which ALL protestants agree.

So all Catholics agree with the CCC, and why should they - upon which basis that is not subject to interpretation?

[metmom]

Are all interpretations of the CCC the same?

If people are considered incapable of correctly interpreting Scripture, how can they correctly interpret the CCC? Do they not need someone to correctly interpret the CCC as they need someone to correctly interpret Scripture?

So who’s going to interpret the CCC for them? And who will correctly interpret the interpretation of the CCC?

And so it goes. Turtles all the way down.

[Elsie]

Turtles all the way down.

Just like the MORMON concept of godS...

[BipolarBob]

Just like the MORMON concept of godS...

Hey, with talk like that you won't be getting to go to Kolob.

[Elsie]

I’m just SURE a little village, in Central America somewhere, will turn up with the name of Kolob.

THEN I can take an LDS tour to see it.

[daniel1212]

Provide me with a commentary on which ALL non-Catholic denominations agree.

And just what does that prove? Rome defines what is Catholic, and can only speak for her church, even to the exclusion of the Orthodox, while the CCC is not a sure guarantee that it is right, and even cults provide extensive teachings, in which the strongest degree of doctrinal unity is found, which effectively operate out of the sola ecclesia model, as Rome does..

The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally.

That is sophistry, as you can only say that by restricting what the Scriptures teaches to what it explicitly states. Or do you actually believe the Scriptures do not teach it is to be taken literally, depending on its genre?

And where does the CCC tell us how we should take each text, and why not look to approved Catholic Bible commentaries on Scripture, as these are the only thing Rome comes close to providing?

Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No...the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture.Therefore, there can only be one Truth. Only the Catholic church traces its origins to the Apostles.

More sophistry. The fact is "the Truth" of Scripture is made up of many truths, like as one nation is made of many people, thus Rome herself refers to "the truths of Scripture," "the truths of sacred Scripture” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1989/march/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19890311_fine-incontro-metropoliti-usa_en.html; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html).

In addition, according to your historical descent logic, which places you in competition with the EOs, being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium.

And which presumes an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. By which logic you invalidate Rome.