Why Can't (Roman) Catholic Priests Get Married?

Black Cordelias ^

[NYer]

Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?

To answer this question I am posting a discussion I had in the comments section of Priesthood of all Believers.

Peter’s style in the comments section was casual/IM…thus, without punctuation or capitalizations. This is normal in those venues and does NOT mean he doesn’t know how to punctuate or capitalize. I didn’t make all of the corrections needed to make his comments and questions formally correct b/c it would have been a lot of work. I thought he had very good and honest questions, representative of the questions many people have so I decided to put them in a post. So, here is our discussion:

Peter: i think you are dead right about presbyters (being the word translated “priest” in English). that is why some are placed into positions of leadership (like james the just or peter and paul, etc). however, these leadership positions are extensively talked about by paul in timothy and other places. in timothy, paul says that presbyters are to be husbands of but one wife and their kids are to be respectful because if they cant control their family they cant control the church.

so now tell me, how can a claim be made that presbyters are supposed to be celibate? there is no mandate that presbyters are celibate. in fact, the exact opposite. paul says that they should marry if they cant control their passions.

BFHU:

You are absolutely correct. There is no Biblical mandate that Priests are to be celibate. In fact, we know since Peter had a mother-in-law that he must have been married, at some point. The normal discipline of priestly celibacy could be changed to allow priests to marry. Celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is not an unchangeable doctrine or dogma. Eating fish on Fridays, similarly, was a discipline in the Church but it was changed and priestly celibacy might be changed, could be changed, theoretically. But it probably will not be changed any time soon. So disciplines can change but dogma does not change.

There are many good reasons to keep celibacy but the best is because the celibate Priest most closely models Jesus Christ, who was celibate. He also, stands in Persona Christi in most of the sacraments and since in Heaven there will be no marriage, the priest also models life in the age to come. In the Eastern Orthodox churches and even some non Latin rite Catholic Churches married men are ordained to the priesthood. But the married ones cannot become Bishops. And people in these churches prefer the unmarried priests to the married ones for the obvious reason that an unmarried priest can be married to the Church as he is called to be, and a more available father. But they must marry before ordination; they cannot afterwards marry. And in the Latin Rite Catholic Church Deacons can be married but if their wife dies they may not remarry. These are the disciplines of ordination.

Peter: so why should we discount the ministry of a man simply because he has chosen marriage?

BFHU: The ministry of a man who marries is not discounted by the Church. It is his vocation just like priesthood is a vocation. The married man is purified through his marriage and models the loving union of the Trinity-Man/Woman/child. The fruitfulness of their love brings new life. And he fulfills his priesthood of believers by being:

a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

And the priest, also, is purified through the difficulties of his vocation. The fruitfulness of of the Priest’s love of the bride of Christ brings new life, born for eternity in Heaven.

Peter: dont we learn many otherwise impossible lessons through oneness with our wives? isnt that why JB, JC, and paul all spoke of the relationship between man and wife as an allegory for Christ and the church?

BFHU: Absolutely accurate there! Thank you for your polite and excellent questions.

Peter: thanks for the response. i agree with you about your points, minus one problematic thing i have always disagreed with the church on. why if the word presbyter is the only word for “priest” do we think that now a priest SHOULD NOT be married.

BFHU: It is not a matter of “should not” but it is a matter of discipline for those who wish to shepherd the church of God, to give up marriage and family in order to devote all attention to the Bride of Christ. The Church does not forbid marriage to any one. All who feel called to the vocation of marriage are free to marry. Part of the discernment for the priesthood is, Am I willing? Am I able to give up marriage? Most are not called to the priesthood. It is a gift.

I Cor 7:1 It is good for a man not to marry…An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs —how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.”

Peter: i understand there are some whom God calls to live celebate lives, but most of us burn with passion if we arent married.

And as St. Paul said, ” it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

BFHU:Very true and then they should marry but as Jesus said….

Matthew 19:12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

Peter:

besides that we are supposed to follow Tradition as it is passed down to us. the very earliest traditions (not only in the New Testament, but also in church history) there were many priests and bishops who were married.

BFHU: Please read I Cor 7 and realize that the Catholic Church takes Paul’s advice much more literally than most Protestants. The New Testament is the earliest Tradition. And we follow it. The Catholic Church still has married priests and celibate priests. The unmarried more closely follow the example of Christ in this matter.

Peter: so what do you do with the fact that peter (and others seemed to be married)? peter, according to the catholic church, is the first pope. what a precedent to set for popes who have the “discipline” of celebacy. we are to go by tradition, the church just seems to pick and choose which traditions it likes.

BFHU: Have you done any research to understand how and why the Church has made the decisions she has? I have experienced over and over thinking, “OK, now there can’t be a good explanation for this! But, once I looked into it, the explanation was beautiful and absolutely sublime. For instance, when a Jewish Levitcal Priest was chosen to go into the Holy of Holies,as Zecharia father of John the Baptist was, they had to remain celibate for a month. Celibacy was a discipline for entering into the presence of God just one time on one day. But our priests are in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist every day. Therefore, perpetual celibacy is a fitting fulfillment of the OT law. For more information, you might be interested in this article about the History of Celibacy. Additionally, Tradition with a capital “T” refers to the unwritten teaching of the apostles. And the Catholic Church is as bound to follow that teaching as sacred scripture. Tradition with a lower case “t” would apply to the traditions of men, family traditions, ethnic traditions etc. Celibacy is a Church discipline, as it was passed down from the disciples and is what you WILL find today in the Catholic Church to this day.

[Titanites]

I take it you mean the "Catholic Church".

There's another?

And disagreeing with doctrines of any church doesn't necessarily make someone an "enemy" of that church.

Disagreeing with a doctrine is one thing; spreading a lie about the Church is another. If someone spreads a lie about you, they are not your friend.

I find statements like yours to be unnecessarily divisive.

Protestantism isn't about unity.

[incredulous joe]

I haven’t heard of personal examples of this, but I assumed that it might be so?

Personally, I only know of several Anglicans.

We’ve also had an older priest in our parish, who mentioned his “grandchildren”. He was a Catholic widower.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Protestantism isn't about unity.

Protestantism is about the ONLY unity that matters - that with God. It is a reaction and a revelation that institutions of men interfere with our relationship to God. And it manifested itself at a time when unfortunately the Catholic church was one of the largest interferences in the world.

The whole reason Protestantism arose - and continues to this day - is precisely BECAUSE it is about the most sacred unity. Failure to recognize that is a shame.

[fishtank]

There is no Biblical or ecclesiastical reason for RCC priests not to get married.

Yes, there is an old church discipline or tradition, but it should be made optional, and Rome could change this at the drop of a hat, if they wanted to do so.

It would strengthen the RCC, by the way, and it would place a bulwark in front of the femi-nuns who want to “tear it down, Jackson”.

[annalex]

In the hypersexualized world of today, the last thing we need is the celibacy discipline to be dropped. There is simply no other figure of authority in the life of a Catholic teenager who can witness to him that chaste life is a happy life.

[vladimir998]

Until about the year 1000 it was not unusual for priests in the West to have been married. But...

1) Priestly celibacy, however, in the West was always considered the higher standard even in ancient times.

2) You cannot use “Common Law” property inheritance as your reason for priestly celibacy since Common Law is not used by the Church, nor was it applied to the Church by the state. Also, Common Law only existed in England. England was but one part of the West.

3) You need to read Cardinal A. Stickler’s book on the celibate priesthood. Also, read Cochini’s book called Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy.

I think the works of great scholars who know the original languages and have done the detailed research can be relied on.

[Melian]

Priests don’t marry because Christ stated a man cannot serve two masters. A husband should be available to meet his wife’s needs at all times. A priest should be available to meet his parishioners’/Church’s/God’s needs at all times. A married man has distractions, whatever his work is.

Long ago, the Church decided that the writings of the Apostles and Christ’s example made the discipline of celibacy preferable. If someone is already married and wants to become a deacon or priest, there is a way because the Church will not put asunder what God had joined. But once a man has vowed to give his entire life to God, he can’t carve out a place for a wife and family. He belongs to God and God’s Church in his entirety.

In my opinion as a Catholic, marriage might bring a few more men to the priesthood, but they would find it very difficult to be good priests who are totally devoted to God, His Word, His Church, and the parishioners. The Church is right about celibacy. We certainly don’t need more mediocre or lukewarm priests. It’s better to have a few who are really willing to belong to God alone.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“It is a reaction and a revelation that institutions of men interfere with our relationship to God.”

God’s Church doesn’t interfere with our relationship with God - and His Church is the Catholic Church. No one can have much of a relationship with God without the Church God sent into the world to lead men to Him.

[Natural Law]

The Church expects that a priest will give 100% of himself to Christ and his parish. Having a family would diminish that ability.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So there was no reason to send Jesus since God's Church - the Jewish Faith - was inerrant and complete. Right?

To claim the institution of the Catholic Church has always been just and pure and without detriment to the relationship with God is ignorant at best, willful deception at worst.

Were the selling of indulgences beneficial to spiritual health of the believers? Was the multiple murders of popes by their successors, and the selling of bishoprics an aid to growing closer to God? Was involving itself in the wars and politics of nations a blessing to Christians?

ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That includes ALL who have sat, and ALL who currently sit in control of the Church. On this I believe even Pope Benedict XVI would be in complete agreement. We need to be on guard to make sure the Church - Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant denomination notwithstanding - does not become once again an impediment to man's relationship with God. Never think you are above causing your brother to stumble!

When these institutions demand obedience and dogmatic ritual over personal faith then they are in direct contradiction with the words of Jesus Christ, and are in fact interfering with the relationship between man and God.

[Titanites]

I haven’t heard of personal examples of this, but I assumed that it might be so?

Here in Alaska, we have one married priest who was formerly a Methodist pastor.

[Titanites]

Protestantism is about the ONLY unity that matters - that with God.

Scripture disagrees and tells us there are to be no divisions among us and to be of one faith. Failure to recognize that is a shame.

It is a reaction and a revelation that institutions of men interfere with our relationship to God.

Exactly. Protestantism is an instituition of men, not of Christ.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

How is Protestantism a different faith? Unless you consider your doctrine to be your faith? What part of my Free Methodist faith is different than that of my Catholic mother-in-law? I can assure you we both believe in the Trinity, that Jesus was the Son of God and is the ONLY way to salvation, and that we must have a personal relationship and faith in Jesus to receive salvation.

Better yet, please explain which was Saint was wrong - Timothy or Paul. They split over doctrinal issues yet both are considered Founders of the Catholic Church.

Do not confuse doctrine with Christianity! Then you are no better than the Pharisees and Sagisees who put their rituals above their relationship with God.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Why Can’t Catholic Priests Get Married?

Because of the traditions of bigots.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

[narses]

LOL, and why does the Church allow married priests today in certain Rites and useages? Money? Clueless.

[plain talk]

I take it you mean the "Catholic Church". There's another?

You said "Christ's church". The Catholic church is simply A church of many in the Christian faith and is not THE church. My protestant church is ever bit part of Christ's church as the Catholic churches.

Disagreeing with a doctrine is one thing; spreading a lie about the Church is another. If someone spreads a lie about you, they are not your friend.

You don't know it was an intentional lie. Restating what has been written (and which makes no sense to me BTW) does not make him an "enemy". One can believe something incorrectly about a church and be misguided and not necessarily be an "enemy".

[fatima]

It's love.Spiritual.The bride is the Holy Spirit and the Priest is Holy because of this.

[Kolokotronis]

“In the hypersexualized world of today, the last thing we need is the celibacy discipline to be dropped.”

Celibates belong in monasteries, imo. But Rome certainly has the right to establish its own disciplines.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“So there was no reason to send Jesus since God’s Church - the Jewish Faith - was inerrant and complete. Right?”

No, you’re completely wrong. Judaism was incomplete without the Messiah. Christianity is from the Messiah and His Church.

“To claim the institution of the Catholic Church has always been just and pure and without detriment to the relationship with God is ignorant at best, willful deception at worst.”

No, it’s just true. You’re also creating a strawman. I never said people couldn’t get in the way. They do - just as you are now getting in the way of people properly understanding Christ by not properly understanding the Church which is His Body.

“Were the selling of indulgences beneficial to spiritual health of the believers?”

Since the Church never sold indulgences (only individuals violating Church law did so) your question is not only idiotic but pointless. Just as you don’t understand how Christ relates to the Church and vice versa, you clearly don’t understand Church history. Typical.

“Was the multiple murders of popes by their successors, and the selling of bishoprics an aid to growing closer to God?”

Again, that would be the actions of men and not the Church. Show me where in teh catechism it says a man can grow closer to God by doing what you just mentioned? Unless you can do so, then your point is actually pointless.

“Was involving itself in the wars and politics of nations a blessing to Christians?”

Again, the actions of men. I do not confuse the Church with men, nor do I confuse men with the Church. You clearly can’t tell the difference - and hence, you make mistake after mistake.

“ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. That includes ALL who have sat, and ALL who currently sit in control of the Church.”

That’s exactly why God made the Church infallible. Men err. The Church doesn’t in her teachings, however. Again, you can’t tell the difference - and that’s why you can’t get anything right.

“On this I believe even Pope Benedict XVI would be in complete agreement.”

He would do just as I did. He would tell you that men sin. He would also tell you the Church is not a man. The Church is the Body of Christ and is infallible.

“We need to be on guard to make sure the Church - Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant denomination notwithstanding - does not become once again an impediment to man’s relationship with God. Never think you are above causing your brother to stumble!”

I might make my brother stumble, but the Church never could. Now, if someone is poorly educated and can’t tell the difference between a man and the Church, well, then he might make the mistake you’ve made. I don’t make that mistake. I suggest you simply stop making it too. It isn’t hard.

“When these institutions demand obedience and dogmatic ritual over personal faith then they are in direct contradiction with the words of Jesus Christ, and are in fact interfering with the relationship between man and God.”

The Church has never done that. The Church has always INSISTED that each and every Christian have a relationship with God. The Church has also never once demanded “obedience and dogmatic ritual” (whatever that is) over faith. Dogma can never se separated from proper faith. Ever. Without dogma men would not know what to believe.

You live in a dream world. I don’t. The Church is the Body of Christ. She was created by God Himself to lead all Christians. Your fantasies are meaningless. You can create more mythical invisible churches of the air but they are a poor substitute for Christ’s Bride.