Vatican Document Calls Celibacy Non-Negotiable

The San Diego Channel ^ | 6/28/03 | Associated Press

[MVV]

UPDATED: 4:42 p.m. EDT June 28, 2003

VATICAN CITY -- The Catholic Church's celibacy requirement for priests is non-negotiable.

That's the word from the Vatican.

The celibacy rule was reaffirmed in a wide-ranging document issued Saturday.

It acknowledges that fewer and fewer men are signing up for the priesthood. But it says letting priests marry isn't the answer.

Instead, it says current priests should dedicate themselves to attracting more candidates by better explaining the priesthood to lay Catholics, and by encouraging children to consider religious vocations.

The document touched on a host of other issues, including a call for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants.

It also called for the "full participation" of women in the life of the church. But the Vatican says that doesn't mean as priests, since only men can be ordained.

Copyright 2003 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[DallasMike]

Where did you get the idea that I denied that Peter or any of the other Apostles had a wife.

Sorry, I thought that issue was still open. Realize, of course, that admitting this is going to make you the sworn enemy of saradippity, SMEDLEYBUTLER, ninenot, and others. They can't handle this truth.

As to the Bible passages. Do they gave church officers a "right" to invoke against Church authority?

I would argue that they do. Jesus warned the religious leaders of his day against putting burdens on people that they couldn't bear and making them sinners as a result. He also chastised religious leaders for putting their traditions ahead of scripture. By requiring priests to be celibate, the Catholic Church is putting unnecessary burdens on them that some cannot bear, and the result is the sin that we've seen so much of recently.

The early Church fathers had it right when (most of them) proclaimed scripture as the canon -- i.e., the measuring rod by which our theology and traditions must be judged.

[DallasMike]

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.

It may be good for a man not to marry, but it is not required. Note that 1 Timothy 3:2 specifically describes bishops (episkopos) as being able to be married.

You're confusing May with Shall.

[ChicagoGirl]

So, the little mother who struggles with her family of five kids, tying shoes, and getting breakfast, and saying prayers, and herding them off to school is at a disadvantage, spiritually, to the monk who sits on the mountaintop, with no worry but when he will eat, which is provided for him?

Of course, a good holy mother is not at a disadvantage. She simply has a different calling. Some are called to be spiritual leaders, some are called to be celibant priests, some are called to be parents, some are called to be single. Every calling has different requirements and rewards.

[ChicagoGirl]

You don't know the first thing about how countless priests struggle with this very thing; not having a woman for a companion, not being able to physically hold somebody...

Well, I am a single woman, and I also cannot have a man for a companion until I am married. I am also called to be celibate for a time. It's not just priests, we all have sacrifices.

[ChicagoGirl]

Where in the four gospels does it show that any of the Apostles were married when Jesus chose them?I only say when Jesus chose them to save you from giving me the Peter's mother-in-law jazz.

Your argument is obviously based only on scripture when you know that Catholics also believe equally in Tradition. Through Tradition we believe that priests should not be married. How about you prove that we should rely only on scripture? Here are my questions:

1.)If we are to rely only on scripture to find the ONE church that Jesus instituted, why are there over 30,000 protestant sects that believe in sola scriptura?

2.)How are you to find the ONE correct interpretation if you have only the Bible to rely upon.

3.)How do you reconcile the fact that the books in the bible were chosen by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ?

4.) How do you reconcile the fact that most of the Early Christians did not have the New Testament written down?

5.)Where in the Bible does it say that we are to rely on the Bible alone. In fact, doesn’t one of the Gospels say that there was much more to Jesus’ story than could be written in that book.

[RobbyS]

And I would argue that history shows that the burden of celibacy is not unbearable. One can admit that the married clergy of the Greek or the Anglican Churches --just to stick to the episcopal churches--have great good work with denying the extraordinary deeds of monks and friars and nuns. The demoralized corps of Catholic priests of the last 30 years. is not typical. Indeed, it can be pointed out as an example of the occasional periods of decadence. More often than not, these periods were charactized by the usurpation of Church offices by particular families. But the periods of growth in the Church are charactized by the resurgence of monasticism. Europe was converted to Christianity by a relative handful of monks, an event that would not have been possible except for the strength of the institution that sent them forth. Now that is the "relgious." Secular priests were brought under the rule of celibacy, and that gradually and only in the Latin Church, because of the perceived superiority of that state, and because of the advantages of maintaining the independence of the Church.

[saradippity]

Ohmigosh!!!I am a stickler for Scripture,Tradition and the Holy Father and the teaching Magisterium,the old three legged stool.

The point of my posts on this particular subject,"celibacy",a discipline subject to so much ridicule and distain from catholics and nonCatholics alike,is that they can't even prove that Scripture supports it,let alone Tradition or the Pope and teaching Magisterium. I am merely giving them their own preferred method of "discovery" and asking them to show me the passages in the Four Gospels that uphold their position.

At the outset I explain that I will not accept Peter's mother-in-law as proof,since long after my husband died,his mother (my mother-in-law)was still around.I have as much reason to believe Peter's wife predeceased him as they do to contend otherwise. In fact,I would say her absence speaks loudly.Afterall if she were around would she have allowed her mom to hop up,off of her death bed,and begin serving the men?

I noticed your earlier post on the subject,it was very nice!

[ChicagoGirl]

Sorry, and thanks for the compliment. I don't have time to read every post (as I am supposed to be working anyway!)

[DallasMike]

And I would argue that history shows that the burden of celibacy is not unbearable.

I'll stick with what God's Word says -- He had a specific reason for permitting married clergy and we would be unwise to ignore it. Even if only one priest is hurt by imposing the unbiblical doctrine of clergy celibacy, that is one priest too many.

[JohnnyZ]

Well, I am a single woman, and

Those words seem to catch my attention somehow. ;)

-Single Guy

[DallasMike]

...that they can't even prove that Scripture supports it,let alone Tradition or the Pope and teaching Magisterium...

Sara, I gave you specific scripture from the Bible supporting my position. Do you or do you not acknowledge it?

Second, I gave you a document from an early Church Father, Clement of Alexandria, which described Peter as having a wife. Do you or do you not acknowledge this?

Finally, you have not pointed me to any tradition that supports your position, despite me asking you to. Can you provide me support, yes or no?

[DallasMike]

1.)If we are to rely only on scripture to find the ONE church that Jesus instituted, why are there over 30,000 protestant sects that believe in sola scriptura?

There are not over 30,000 protestant sects -- that number grows with every telling! Note also that there are various sects and rites with Catholicism -- the Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. Many of them disagree with each other on certain minor points just as most of the points on which protestants disagree are minor.

2.)How are you to find the ONE correct interpretation if you have only the Bible to rely upon.

You obviously don't know what sola scripture means. Tradition is important, but only to the point that it doesn't contradict scripture. When tradition contradicts scripture, scripture must win out.

Note also that there are still disputes within Catholicism as to certain theological points.

3.)How do you reconcile the fact that the books in the bible were chosen by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ?

They were chosen by God and delivered to the Church. Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for elevating their traditions above the scripture.

4.) How do you reconcile the fact that most of the Early Christians did not have the New Testament written down?

So? It wasn't that long ago that very few people had ever owned a Bible. The letters and Gospels were passed from church to church.

5.)Where in the Bible does it say that we are to rely on the Bible alone. In fact, doesn’t one of the Gospels say that there was much more to Jesus’ story than could be written in that book.

Of course, there was more than could be written. The Gospel of John, to which you refer, says that it was written in order that we might believe.

How do you explain the many quotes of the early Church fathers supporting the idea that we should rely upon written scripture alone to determine matters of faith and morals? I've already posted some but would be happy to provide you many, many more.

 

 

[Blzbba]

" Adam has a penis, therefore God has a penis. "

and God is a white man with a big white beard and he sits on a throne in the clouds above, occasionally looking downward to hurl lightning bolts at his followers who disobey.

</sarcasm>

I think someone has confused "God" with "Zeus".

[RobbyS]

God does not prescribe a married clergy and the Church does not impose celibacy on the individual. . My son is in Bagdhad and in real danger, but he did, after all, sign up. He has decided he will not make a career in the Army. Any priest has the same choice.

[ChicagoGirl]

1.)If we are to rely only on scripture to find the ONE church that Jesus instituted, why are there over 30,000 protestant sects that believe in sola scriptura?

There are not over 30,000 protestant sects -- that number grows with every telling! Note also that there are various sects and rites with Catholicism -- the Jesuits, Dominicans, etc. Many of them disagree with each other on certain minor points just as most of the points on which Protestants disagree are minor. _____________________________

//////Yes, that is true about our disagreements being minor. I do believe that as Christians we should focus more on what keeps us together rather than the things that tear us apart. But the point is that with sola scriptura the possibilities are endless. I’m sure there are some groups which we both would disagree with their interpretations of scripture. Regardless, the rites within Catholicism agree on all the points of faith and morals because they have Rome, Tradition and the Bible holding them together. If they do not agree on all these issues, they should.

2.)How are you to find the ONE correct interpretation if you have only the Bible to rely upon.

You obviously don't know what sola scripture means. Tradition is important, but only to the point that it doesn't contradict scripture. When tradition contradicts scripture, scripture must win out.

Note also that there are still disputes within Catholicism as to certain theological points. ______________________________________

///////First, where do you get the answer when it is not in scripture? Second, what do you do when scripture contradicts itself? As flawed and sinful humans, I believe that we can rely on the Church that Jesus left for us on earth to help us know the Truth. Please tell me which thelogical points that faithful Catholics agree upon. After all, we all know that some Catholics believe that abortion is OK, when the Church teaches the truth that it is not.

3.)How do you reconcile the fact that the books in the bible were chosen by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ?

They were chosen by God and delivered to the Church. Peter refers to Paul's writings as scripture. Jesus condemned the Pharisees for elevating their traditions above the scripture. _______________________________________

////Why do you allow the Catholic Church to choose your Bible, but do not allow it to speak on other matters?

4.) How do you reconcile the fact that most of the Early Christians did not have the New Testament written down?

So? It wasn't that long ago that very few people had ever owned a Bible. The letters and Gospels were passed from church to church. _______________________________

////So you base your religion on a great game of ‘telephone’, where one word could change the whole meaning of everything. I think God, in his perfect knowledge, had a better plan. We need the Church to be a unifying force and spread the unchanging word of God. Do you not understand the importance of holding on to the tradition in the church as the world around us changes with every new trend.

5.)Where in the Bible does it say that we are to rely on the Bible alone. In fact, doesn’’t one of the Gospels say that there was much more to Jesus’’ story than could be written in that book.

Of course, there was more than could be written. The Gospel of John, to which you refer, says that it was written in order that we might believe.

How do you explain the many quotes of the early Church fathers supporting the idea that we should rely upon written scripture alone to determine matters of faith and morals? I've already posted some but would be happy to provide you many, many more. __________________

///////How do we know what was left out of the Bible? I’m sorry I am not familiar with the quotes that you refer to. But I can’t imagine that the early church fathers were insisting that Christians adhere to a book that had not been yet written.

[ChicagoGirl]

Well, I am a single woman, and ... "Those words seem to catch my attention somehow. ;) -Single Guy"

Ha! Maybe you've confused this site with CuteCatholicGirls.com? :)

[RobbyS]

It would be very hard to show that the Church Fathers understood Sola Scriptura in the same sense that Luther did. The Bible is foundational in that it shows that work of God in history, the Christian writings being those documents that show that Jesus is the One promised by the Jewish prophets and sages, One can say that that it demonstrates that the Church is the people of God, however that fits in with the promises to the Jews who do not believe. But the New Testament does not have the look of a closed canon, a finished work. It is open to the future. My wife--a Methodist--has been studying the Bible and one day she remarked to me that so often the Books just... end--and invite the question. Well, what happened next?

[DallasMike]

God does not prescribe a married clergy and the Church does not impose celibacy on the individual.

The Catholic Church does impose celibacy on individuals who feel God's call to the priesthood. Why place an extra burden on them? God is loving enough not to place that burden on the clergy so why does the Catholic Church feel the need to override God on the decision?

My son is in Bagdhad and in real danger, but he did, after all, sign up.

What if the particular unit that your son is a member of forced your son to carry 60 pounds of bricks in his backpack for no reason at all except "tradition." Don't you think it would make it harder for him to fulfill his duties? If Central Command didn't require him to carry the brick but his unit commander did, do you think it would be a problem? Do you think he would have a right to complain even though he signed up?

[CobaltBlue]

Hi DallasMike - the Apostles were all Jewish, so being married was normal for them. My side argument about ordaining women meets with the counter argument that Christ ordained only men, therefore women can't be ordained.

Wouldn't a good corollary to that argument be that Christ ordained married men, therefore married men can be priests?

But as someone pointed out upstream, the Catholic Church relies not only on scripture, but on their tradition -- which is what they say it is.

One of my fantasies is being let loose in the Vatican library - except that I can't read Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, or anything else but English and a little German, unfortunately, so it wouldn't do me any good. But I'd love to read about the early members of the Church from their own point of view.

[CobaltBlue]

I think it's very strange to equate chastity (sex only after marriage) and fidelity (sex with only one person) to celibacy (lack of sex completely).