Priestly Celibacy: Yes, it is Apostolic [Ecumenical]

Christ came to redeem mankind from slavery to the passions by His life of sacrifice. Everything about Him went against the grain in a most unprecedented, radical manner causing scandal to the Jewish people who were expecting a temporal Messiah. Observe: he loves sinners, and eats with them; adulterers receive mercy; the ill He heals on the Sabbath. Most disturbing of all, He is not married but is a virgin and preaches continence for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

The priesthood of the New Law is not made up of the powerful and intellectual but of men from ordinary walks of life who have renounced everything to live in continence, to follow the Master more closely. There are many in secular circles, and some even within the Church today, who question the validity of this charism in relation to the priesthood, arguing that it no longer suits the modern times in which we live. Others claim that there is no evidence, either scriptural or historical, that supports the apostolic roots of a celibate priesthood. Contrary to all the negativity, in-depth research vindicates priestly celibacy as indeed apostolic.

The proponents of abolishing the celibate priesthood use Scripture, claiming that the Apostles were married based on the passage relating the cure of Saint Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever by Jesus (Matt 8:14-15). The reasoning is as follows: the Apostle has a mother-in-law, therefore he is married. Yes, Saint Peter obviously married at one time, but does that mean that he is married at the time of his apostolic call by Jesus? There are women who pass away before their mothers and before their husbands. In some such cases the mother-in-law moves in with her son-in-law. This possibility cannot be ruled out. Even if the Apostle is married at the time of his calling, the Lord states unequivocally what is required to follow Him: to leave everything, including family and wives (Luke 14:26-27). What of the invitation of Christ to a continent life (Matt19:10-12). Further on in the same text renunciation of possessions is declared a necessity to be a disciple. It is in response to the words of the Prince of the Apostles that we receive confirmation again from Jesus’ own lips as to what they have sacrificed: lands, home, mother brother, sister, wives and children inclusive (Matt19:16-30). It is clear that the desire of the Lord is to have men who are divested of all worldly ties and responsibilities in order to devote themselves unreservedly to His service.

A subsequent argument by the opponents of celibacy is that it is an invention imposed by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Opponents present Scripture and early ecclesial history in a manner that can be misleading for the ordinary lay Catholic unacquainted with all the facts. Major research has been undertaken into this controversy by scholars Cardinal Stickler, Father Cochini S.J., Roman Cholij as well as Stefan Heid. What they all assure us of is that continence is the norm for the priesthood both East and West from the beginning of the Church’s history. Among the aforementioned, Stickler provides the most succinct and easy to understand presentation of the subject. He demonstrates that if a man was married prior to ordination, both he and his spouse took a vow of perpetual continence, this applied from the lower clerical ranks up to Bishop. In the West, the Council of Elvira in the fourth century makes direct reference in Canon 33 to this renunciation of the martial rights and notes that this meant no begetting of children. The penalty for violating this vow is removal from the clerical ranks. If a priest violated this solemn promise and begot a child it was considered adultery. As Stickler points out, Saint Jerome — who knew many Bishops, Fathers and monks throughout the East — testifies in his writings that continence is the norm in the Eastern Church and that married men who were ordained would separate from their wives. The same Council Elvira, in Canon 27, as well as Nicea, in Canon 3, gives even further specifications: that a Bishop and priest is only permitted to have a blood sister, mother, aunt, or a daughter who is a consecrated virgin dwelling under the same roof. This excludes a wife.

Probably the favorite of all opponents arguments centers upon a Saint Paphnutius of Egypt called “a Bishop and hermit.” It is asserted that at the Council of Nicea this holy man pleads with the Fathers to not impose continence on priests saying that it is too heavy a burden to place upon them. He proposes to allow the particular Churches to decide on their own practice. Up until recently, this was believed to be a justification for the current married practice among the clergy of the East. Stickler, Cochini, Cholij and Heid all masterfully tackle this long-standing. The veil was lifted from this mystery by study into the Council documents, in which accurate records were kept of every Bishop present. Examination of the oldest texts revealed that among the names of Fathers in attendance, there was no such Bishop by that name. Stickler acknowledges that his name does appear in later copies of the Council’s proceedings but it is a contradiction because he was honored at the time of Nicea as a Confessor, not a Father. It is concluded that his bishopric was of the nature of a legend, a creation of hagiographers’ pious devotion.

The perplexing question then arises: If priestly celibacy dates from the Apostles, why is it that only in the fourth century do we begin to see actual Church law enforcing celibacy? A principle which must be understood is the following: the absence of a formal ecclesial declaration up to a certain period does not imply that the dogma, doctrine or discipline is not universally believed by the Body of Christ. In other words, controversy begets definitive pronouncements by the Church. The Divinity of Jesus Christ, his being fully God, was not formally declared until the fourth century at Nicea but the Church always professed this belief. The denial of this truth by the heresiarch Arius demanded a concrete defense. The same can be applied to Mary’s title as Mother of God. It was not formally declared until the fifth century at the Council of Ephesus, yet she was venerated as such from the very beginnings. Again, it is the refusal of Nestorius to render Mary her rightful veneration that prompted a concrete response. In this case, as Stickler notes, the Church made specific laws regarding celibacy among the clergy because of widespread abuses where the vow of continence was not being faithfully lived out. It is at this point that we begin to see one of the first rifts between East and West.

Eventually, due to these increasing difficulties and abuses, the Latin West began gradually selecting more and more candidates to the priesthood and Bishopric from among the monastics. Over a period of time, especially with the establishment of seminaries by the Council of Trent, the phenomenon of married clergy completely disappeared. As for the Eastern Church we have a very different response conditioned both by geography and politics. While the Latin Church had the great advantage of the central authority of the Pope, the East had problems attaining any kind of conformity in discipline due to myriads of regional Councils all making decisions in dealing with abuses and there was no one to give a definitive judgment. Added to these issues is the close relationship between the Byzantine Empire and the Church. This had benefits in allowing for religious freedom but often it led to the government interfering with the hierarchy’s efforts to properly exercise governing authority. Despite these influences, there is today within the Eastern Churches a large number of celibate priests, but, if the circumstances of history had been more favorable, the clergy of the East would be entirely celibate as well.

Ultimately, continence - celibacy — receives its supreme value from the fact that Jesus chose it for Himself and for His Mother Mary. This should not be brushed away as a mere coincidence nor should this way of life be viewed just as a “discipline.” This is missing the point. Priests share in the eternal priesthood of Christ and are Persona Christi, to be mirrors of His very Person not just in word and act but their very mode of being. The Lord came not to be served but to serve and to pour Himself out as a ransom for souls. By this charism of continence - expressed most completely and perfectly by virginity — the priest is poured out and consumed like Christ, not for a physical family but for the souls of the faithful. Of course, the debate on the celibate priesthood will always exist but for Catholics the best answer will be found by kneeling before Jesus crucified where virginity’s lasting value is silently conveyed in two words: love and sacrifice.

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.

"On the other hand," he said, "celibacy is the most precious jewel in the treasury of the Catholic Church"

*****************************

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.

The final word:

"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

I hope I didn't come off as combative on this subject. I completely agree that priestly celibacy is a wonderful gift and that it should be maintained and encouraged. But I can envision a Catholic Church which values and encourages the celibate priesthood while still allowing married men to be ordained. In other words, as I believe the celibate priesthood is holy and apostolic and should be perpetuated as the “norm”, I think that married men should be admitted in greater numbers than they are now. Perhaps with different age requirements (at least 50yo or something).

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.

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!

But I can envision a Catholic Church which values and encourages the celibate priesthood while still allowing married men to be ordained.

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.

I'll have to reread the parts of scripture with an eye to how they are commenting on "brothers" and "sisters" of Christ and see what other theologians say about it.

Here, I think this will give you the scriptural references you need.

Brothers and Sisters of Jesus

Timothy 3:2, 4-5

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.

I completely agree. Let me state clearly, along with you, “nowhere in Scripture does it say that a man MUST be celibate to serve the Church.” This is indisputable.

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.

he did not have a wife

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.

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.

This seems to me a rather strange discussion. I think it is commonly accepted that most of the Apostles were likely married, that thirty nine popes were married, that many good priests historically and currently have been and are married, etc. etc.
Many of these comments seem to come from those who want to “control” the lives of others. who want to “decide for them - the priests - what is right and what is wrong”

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.