Posted on 12/11/2008 6:31:54 AM PST by NYer
One theory for the institution of priestly celibacy was that the early Church experienced a problem with priests handing over Church property two their sons thus fostering a culture nepotism within the Church. I also read that the first 40 or so Popes were married as well. And that the institution of celibacy was formally implemented by the Council of Trent to correct the abuses. In other words, celibacy was used to combat nepotism, abuse, and scandal.
Can you post some linked references? Thank you!
Looked up the Council of Trent in Wikipedia. At this Council preistly celibacy was formally institutionalized in the Canon.
*****************************
I do agree. I also believe that there have been a good number of priests and nuns who have chosen the religious life at or after middle age, when perhaps the commitment to celibacy is less onerous.
There is more than one way to be a religious.
"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach... 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?)" -- I Timothy 3:2, 4-5
"...ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." -- Titus 1:5-6
This, of course, is just my opinion. But I don't think any of what I've said goes against the teachings or Traditions of the Church. I don't have to be “talked into” seeing the value in priestly celibacy. God willing, this is a gift in our Church that will experience a renaissance, BUT, I think it is worthwhile to consider, in the near future, a wider application of the dispensation from the vow of celibacy for some married men who seek ordination. These would hopefully compliment (NOT replace) a celibate priesthood.
Obviously Paul’s wife was not with him in his missionary jorneys. We don’t know if she was alive, maybe she chose to stay behind, perhaps was not a believer (never converted from Judaism)... What I think Paul is saying here is that, without his wife, he’s abstaining from sexual relations and he recommends those unmarried or widowed to do the same. But I don’t see where he’s suggesting that he was not married.
With all due respect, no Catholic disputes that married men CAN be ordained to the priesthood. It happens all the time.
Celibacy is a valued tradition. We’re all very aware of the pastoral letters in the NT and their words on the subject.
That’s just what bothers me. In Matt. 19:12 Jesus talks about eunuchs “born from their mother’s womb”, “made eunuchs of men” and those “which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake”. Then He adds “He who is able to receive it, let him receive it”. It seems to me that Jesus considered celibacy optional, something to which a few are called. But the Catholic church has made it a rule for priesthood. Is the Council of Trent above our Lord and Savior? Certainly not!
We have a similar issue simmering in my Protestant megachurch. About the time we moved from an overcrowded former doughnut factory to a spacious new auditorium, we had a transition in leadership. Most of the elders disappeared, and a cadre of slick young religious professionals suddenly started taking responsibility for the various fragmented aspects of our ministry -- a "children's pastor," a "woman's pastor," a "singles pastor," a "youth pastor," etc.
We went from being an energetic family led and overseen by crazy uncles, colorful, mature, high-achievers in the real world, to a business managed by cloned, interchangeable, young religious professionals.
The miracle of the Incarnation (Merry Christmas, dear Catholic and Protestant freepers!) is, in part, the amazing fact that God works within the context of real life. Everyday life. Christianity is a participatory event, not a spectator sport where "50,000 people who desperately need exercise watch 22 people who desperately need rest."
But he ALSO said, “ Now the overseer (bishop, elder) must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, ...” 1 Timothy 3:2. It goes on to say that his children must respect him, etc, for if a man does not know how to control his family, how can he rule the church.
No where does it say that a man, in order to serve the church in any capacity, MUST be celebate. It does say that if he can remain celebate it is a good thing, but there is no requirement in the Bible that decrees this.
That's because he did not have a wife.
No. She remained a virgin ... yes, a virgin
Here, I think this will give you the scriptural references you need.
Ahhh .. I knew someone would post that verse, and it turned out to be you! So what is Paul actually saying? Paul instructs that bishops must be married only once. This verse refers to bishops that were widowers. Paul is instructing that these widowers could not remarry. The verse also refers to those bishops who were currently married. They also could not remarry (in the Catholic Church's Eastern rite, priests are allowed to be married; celibacy is only a disciplinary rule for the clergy of the Roman rite). Therefore, this text has nothing to do with imposing a marriage requirement on becoming a bishop.
But lest you forget, the tradition of a celibate clergy is one of Apostolic Tradition, not Scriptural mandate. The decision, over time, of the Western Church (remember, the Eastern Catholic - in union with Rome - and Orthodox Churches have always ordained married, as well as celibate, men) to enforce a rule of celibacy among those ordained to the priesthood, is one of practice, not of Dogma. It is a venerable tradition that can be changed, if the Church so chooses.
That being said, the Church has maintained this tradition (celibate clergy) as the norm for ordination for over a thousand years now, though freely-chosen celibacy seems to date back to the Apostolic era. You must remember, that Apostolic traditions carry much weight on the decisions of the Church. The Church came before the Bible and she derives authoritative beliefs as well as venerable traditions from both Scripture and Tradition.
Priestly celibacy is not an unchangeable “big T” Tradition (i.e. from the once-given Deposit of the Faith in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition). But, the Church and her leaders were given authority by our Lord to bind and to loose (i.e. to make binding decisions). For many years now, the decision has been made in the Western Catholic Church to require celibacy of those that she considers for ordination to the priesthood. She may be led, one day, to loosen that restriction, but for now it is the law of the Church.
It is difficult to believe that Paul had always been unmarried because of his background and because of who he was. Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. In Acts 26:10 Paul says, “Which thing I also did in Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them.” How could he give his voice against them? It was by his vote in the Sanhedrin, which means he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Since Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, he must have been a married man because that was one of the conditions of membership.
Also, there was an insistence upon Jewish young men to marry. The Mishna said this should be at the age of eighteen. In the Yebhamoth, in the commentary on Genesis 5:2 it states: “A Jew who has no wife is not a man.”
I believe it is an inescapable conclusion that Paul was a married man.
From McGee, J. V. 1997, c1981. Thru the Bible commentary.
Paul was writting to the believers in Corynth, who were used to having more than one wife. He meant exactly what he said, a deacon, bishop... must be married to ONLY ONE wife!
But the words, the context...
An overseer MUST be a husband of one wife... not should be, may be, could be, it would be nice if...
I really think that there is a need for a man to be with a woman,and not just for the sex. God made Eve for Adam even though Adam was walking day by day with God. God said it is not good for man to be alone, and I have to agree. Countless times my wife has reminded, encouraged, comforted, consoled, and otherwise been there for me when I needed her. She has been a gift from God. To me. Together we make quite a formidable pair, working in the church. I would be a lot less complete without her. Woman is God’s gift to man, and we should all rejoice in that. To deny someone THIS gift in order to do God’s work is, in my not so humble opinion, the wrong thing to do.
Why not ask what would be good for the people of God at a time when there is such a shortage of priests, why not even ask the priests themselves, who have served the church what they think would be best - maybe there is a message in the 40,000 priests who have married and most of whom would still be willing to serve the church. But then maybe the bishops would lose some control - wives being what they are.
Seem to me that those who are not priests ought to stop telling priests how they are to live. They are not children.
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.