Vatican event on priesthood to explore topic of celibacy

Crux ^ | April 13, 2021 | Elise Ann Allen

[Marchmain]

ROME – A top Vatican official in charge of organizing a major symposium on the priesthood next year has said the discussion will touch on several controversial hot-button issues such as priestly celibacy, the women’s diaconate, clericalism, and the clerical sexual abuse crisis.

Speaking to journalists during the April 12 presentation of the event, Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet said, “the question of celibacy is important.”

“We have all spoken about it, and it will be discussed, but it will not be the central theme of the symposium,” he said. “It is not a symposium on celibacy, like it needs to be taken up deeply. It’s a broader perspective.”

[Marchmain]

Head of the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, which is helping to organize the symposium, Ouellet when asked whether other hot-button issues such as the priestly ordination of viri probati, or “tested” married men, and the women’s diaconate would be addressed, said yes.

(more at link)

[Telepathic Intruder]

Add homosexuality among the priesthood to it. It’s an elephant that no one wants to admit exists. But what are 90% at least of the pedophile cases involving?

[Marchmain]

Some background on Ouellet’s views from 2020:

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2020/04/seminaries-must-hire-involve-more-women-cardinal-ouellet-says/

[TopDog2]

We’ve seen it over and over. Whenever feelings or wokeness takes the place of the inerrant Word, we end up with abortion and gay marriage. I’m not against pastors being married since marriage is a sacrament, but, what I am against is what comes with it.

[cranked]

Yeah, was thinking along those lines myself. The utterance of celibacy is a near joke given the amount of homosexuality, etc. that takes place.

[O6ret]

This is nothing but window dressing and will not result in any substantial results. It is long overdue that the Church deal with the real 800 pound gorilla: probably 50% (maybe more) of today’s “priests” are homosexual and or pederasts and not celibate. What a disgrace.

[Jan_Sobieski]

1. The first Pope, Peter was married. Case closed

[Verginius Rufus]

The Latin word caelebs means "unmarried" (referring to a man). It doesn't necessarily imply anything about abstaining from sexual activity. An ancient Roman senator who was caelebs probably had slave women to sleep with (or slave boys, if he was so inclined).

[O6ret]

Regardless of the word origin the Catholic Church has ALWAYS taught that celibacy meant abstinence from sexual activity. Period.

[MurphsLaw]

1. The first Pope, Peter was married. Case closed

Its not closed....and you cannot say with certainty we know Peter's wife was as alive at the time of Christ's calling

Besides...we know what THE LORD expected of his Apostles....
27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things,and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have?

28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Matthew 8:14When Jesus came into Peter’s home, He saw his mother-in-law lying sick in bed with a fever. 15He touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she got up and waited on Him.

[Cronos]

Paul was celibate.

Besides which, celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. And a discipline onoy for the latin rite of the Catholic church.
There are 22 other rites. The others all allow married men to become priests.

[circlecity]

Yet Peter remained married until his wife was martyred right before he was.

[MurphsLaw]

..Translation error...aside from St. PAUL'S words on taking a wife... and the Scriptural evidence I gave you of discipleship requirement from the Lips of Christ- your position is too weak to defend.... .
From Catholic Answers:

Those who disagree cite 1 Corinthians 9:5: “Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brethren of the Lord and Cephas?” (RSV-CE). This suggests that in his travels Peter (known as Cephas) journeyed with his wife. The issue is whether the RSV-CE and similar translations are correct. Should the underlying Greek be rendered as “wife” or as something else? I think the stronger case is with the something else. Image of Santa in a swimming pool In this passage Paul defends himself and the other apostles against charges from a few disgruntled people. He says he is giving “my defense to those who would examine me” (1 Cor. 9:3). He talks about a situation that applies to himself, not just to the others, yet he certainly was not accompanied by his wife, since he had no wife. We know from other testimony of his that he was unmarried. He does not speak of a theoretical marriage, one that he might someday have but does not yet have. He responds to complaints concerning whichever women actually did accompany him and his male companions. This indicates to me that “wife” is not the right translation here. 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. This finds support in the Fathers. “Sister woman” is found in Jerome’s Vulgate, and Jerome wrote that “It is clear that [they] must not be seen as wives but, as we have said, as women who assisted [the apostles] with their goods” (Ad. Jovinian I, 26). Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6).

Also:
Whether St. Peter’s wife was alive at the time of Jesus’ ministry is an open question. We know that St. Peter did have a wife, because Jesus cured Peter’s mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15, Luke 4:38-39). What many have found strange is that Peter’s wife is not described as being by her dying mother’s side, and the tradition that Peter was a widower derives from this anomaly. You are correct that Eusebius cites Clement and claims that St. Peter’s wife was martyred shortly before St. Peter was. Due to the fact that Eusebius is citing Clement, we must consider it as one source for this tradition rather than two. Eusebius is also generally criticized for not having great knowledge of the Western Church. Given that no other early Church Father relates any information about St. Peter’s wife, this tradition has not been as well accepted as the tradition that she died prior to the ministry of Jesus.

[MurphsLaw]

And yet no mention of Peter’s wife ...by her side.... and there would have been no need for the mother in law to jump ip and “wait” on him if Peters wife was there...
.
Give me something concrete....

[circlecity]

So you admit, the only evidence we have on the matter is that Peter’s wife was with him up until shortly before he was killed. And there is absolutely no evidence to contradict this. Until I see a reason not to I’ll go with Eusebius.

[Organic Panic]

Paving the way for priests actively engaging in homosexuality.

[circlecity]

I also note that in 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul states that a requirement for elders, deacons and overseers is that they be the husband of one wife.

[Jan_Sobieski]

Did you expect to see love letters between Peter and wife in cannon? What is more concrete than God’s Word?

[MurphsLaw]

I also note that in 1 Timothy and Titus, Paul states that a requirement for elders, deacons and overseers is that they be the husband of one wife.

Thank you for your congenial responses. I enjoy the discussion very much.


I am very curious about your use of Eusebius though... I thought the words of Church Fathers- unscriptural, uninspired - were off limits? For if you validate one Church Father - would that validate another? Or would it be incumbent upon you then to accept the writings of say, The Didache as an early Church (Mass) contextual writing?
I am serious in asking these questions...

Now for a flip side... we do in fact have to look at Eusebius strangely... While he in one place confirms that "Peter was the foundation Christ built this Church on"- he claims elsewhere that St. Paul was in fact married. No doubt Peter's Mother-in-law confirms a wife for Peter- if we are to believe what Eusebius wrote about their Martrydom... Then don't we have to accept that St. Paul was married and possibly a family man? Maybe that is something you would choose to embrace - I am not comfortable with that- as St. Paul clearly wrote enough that his Matrimony should have been more prominent in those letters- more so one would think- than a lack of mention of Peter's wife- a major Apostle- in the Gospels. (Although we do know that St. Paul was miffed at not having female participation in his travels as others did)

But back to Celibacy as being the issue.....
If we are fully embracing Eusebius then... we must also consider....

In Demonstratio Evangelica, however, Eusebius of Caesarea explains the origins of and purpose of clerical celibacy in light of these passages. By the late 3rd century or early 4th century, just before the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius notes that during this time, some tried to argue that as the priests of the Old Testament fathered children, it is appropriate for priests of the New Testament to do likewise. Eusebius explained the error of this reasoning when he wrote:

"And this explanation of the ancient men of God begetting children cannot be said to apply to the Christians [i.e., Christian priests] to-day, when by God’s help through our Saviour’s Gospel teaching we can see with our own eyes many peoples and nations in city and country and field all hastening together, and united in running to learn the godly course of the teaching of the Gospel, for whom I am glad to say we are able to provide teachers and preachers of the word of holiness, free from all ties of life and anxious thoughts. And in our day these men are necessarily devoted to celibacy that they may have leisure for higher things; they have undertaken to bring up not one or two children but a prodigious number, and to educate them in godliness, and to care for their life generally. [i]"

The above is a repost from 1 Peter 5 website... explaining EARLY Church History on pastoral Celibacy...and its necessity.

https://onepeterfive.com/700-years-celibacy/

Let me know your thoughts....