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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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]

Your rather uncivil response prompts me to observe that you, also, were not ordained.

If I were you, I wouldn't complain about others making uncivil responses. You're about the worst offender here and I have yet to see you actually address issues with any degree of rational, intelligent thought.

Truth doesn't seem to be an obstacle either, as shown by your statement that the Catholic church "stopped that stuff [selling indulgences] as soon as She could." Please, give me a break. That's like saying that President Clinton told the country the truth about Monica as soon as he could.

[RobbyS]

The Scripture you quote does not prohibit celibacy. What it does is to limit the authority of the Church by allowing marriage. Thus unlike the doctyrine on divorce the Church can change it.

The early Christians did not look upon sex and marriage the same way as Jews or pagans or 21st century Americans. Virginity was always more highly regarded than marriage in the Church and by the 4th century a celibate clergy became the ideal although the rule operated differently in East and West. It became one of those things that distinguished clergy from laity. Thus at the Reformation its abandonment was intended to break down the line between clergy and laity.

[sinkspur]

Your rather uncivil response prompts me to observe that you, also, were not ordained.

As a priest, no I wasn't. And I was responding to the most uncivil poster on this thread, though, for some strange reason, and completely out of character, tonight you're giving him a run for his money.

You left the Sem under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For the best, eh?

For the best, for me.

[sinkspur]

The early Christians did not look upon sex and marriage the same way as Jews or pagans or 21st century Americans.

You know why, don't you? Because they believed Christ was coming again, very soon. Paul's writings reflect that, intensely.

[RobbyS]

Yes. but in mid-twentieth Century America the Catholic Church had pretty much the same view. It is only in the last fifty years or so that virginity has lost its place of pride. Bertrand Russell worked very hard to overturn Victorian morals because they were basically Christian. He would have been very much in accord with Justice Kennedy's opinion.

[ChicagoGirl]

That's like saying that President Clinton told the country the truth about Monica as soon as he could.

Just because President Clinton lied doesn't mean we should scrap democracy and eliminate the American Presidency.

[DallasMike]

The Scripture you quote does not prohibit celibacy. What it does is to limit the authority of the Church by allowing marriage.

You're correct -- the Bible as a whole does not prohibit celibacy in clergy, though by taking 1 Timothy 3 out of context one could actually make the case that celibacy is prohibited.

What the Bible does do by allowing married clergy though is to prohibit the church from requiring clergy to be celibate. What is permitted should not be permitted.

...by the 4th century a celibate clergy became the ideal ...

Not coincidentally, that also happened to the time when Gnosticism was making its greatest inroads and very nearly took over the church. The ideal of a celibate clergy arose because most Gnostic heresies taught that sex was a part of the material world, as opposed to the world of light, and was therefore bad. Most Gnostic sects required their clergy -- and sometimes their members -- to be celibate.

These sorts of heresies happen often. Some liberal Protestant churches today support abortion because the surrounding society does. Hopefully in 100 years abortion will be viewed in the same light as slavery is today.

[DallasMike]

Just because President Clinton lied doesn't mean we should scrap democracy and eliminate the American Presidency.

No, but ninenot needs to stop making his/her nonsensical claim that the Catholic church was chomping at the bit to eliminate the selling of indulgences.

There's a pretty serious lack of scholarship and logic amongst the Catholics on this thread -- except for Sinkspur, and he's treated badly, too. I own quite a few books by Peter Kreeft and regularly read Fr. John Neuhaus. I have a feeling they wouldn't be welcomed here either.

If a church -- Protestant or Catholic -- is accepting of a heresy, then they need to stop that heresy. Believe me, I have worse things to say about charlatans like Benny Hinn than I do the Catholic church.

[RobbyS]

The language of these passages only limits the authority of the Church. It does not speak to the general question whether the clergy ought to be married or celibate. But Paul's whole career is testimony to the effectiveness of a missionary not tied to a family.

Gnosticism was already on the scene when Christianity burst upon the scene. It later morphed into Manichaenism, which your may be thinking about.

[BenR2]

The Church has beenfited greatly from clerical celibacy. After all, the men who evangelized Europe and then most of America were monks. The Spanish friars and French Jesuits get little respect now days among the PC crowd who want to think that
Christianity was a disaster for America, but the record is quite clear. Were their detractors required to face the Aztecs or the Iroquois AS THEY WERE they might have been less likely to think of them as "noble" savages and to to see the worship of Christ as considerable improvment over their dark gods.

///
Look: NO ONE is saying that celibacy is wrong in itself. (Viz. The LORD Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul -- and very possibly the Prophet Daniel, for starters.)

The examples you cite are good ones.

The point that you simply WILL NOT admit to is that it is NOT good for everyone, and that Rome's benighted policy of enforcing universal celibacy on its clergy is wrongheaded and has MANY bad unintended consequences.

[RobbyS]

What you are overlooking is that revolutions have unintended consequences. What they are proposing to do is to pull down a long-established institution and replace it with an ad hoc creation that suits their own tastes. If one must have a married clergy at all costs, then simply expand the uniate rites with all deliberate speed. They at least have a history of married clergy. A radicalized Latin rite will be a total experiment. We need only look at the Reformation period to see what the possible results will be. One thing is sure: the lines between clergy and laity will be blurred.

[saradippity]

Dealing with people of your intellectual caiber probably makes Sinkspur glad he didn't become a priest.

See Sinkspur,someone who agrees with you about more things than one and also gives you another reason to be happy that you left the seminary.

Dallas Mike,I have expressed my thoughts for at least one and a half years and had chosen to remain a lurker on this one. However, I entered to tell someone,who I thought was a new poster,that Smedley had the patience of Job,after she had commented on his style which she thought prickly. I added that she should read what he wrote because he was the expert on the subject. I myself got tired of giving the same information to the same people who casually drop a non fact and claim it a truth.

Several posts later sinkspur said he had never heard of a priest who had a problem with women who was not booted. In the interest of truth,I gave him information on one that I knew had not been let go. I was not interested in involving myself in the spinning and twisting and weaving that you all do when the subject comes up,at that time.I certainly could care less with what the NAB says and stayed out of it. Lately I content myself with asking something real simple if I do get in the discussion.

As I said,I was not a particularly avid Bible reader before I found Free Republic but some of the discussions,especially with Bible only Christians,led me to study it more seriously. Since I believe that God is a God of order and since I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the center of Christianity,I started studying scripture by trying to determine what Christ said in the Four Gospels first,since they are the Divinely Inspired writings,teachings and observations of those who walked with Christ.

Imagine my surprise to find that the linchpin or even any arguments against celibacy are missing from the Gospels. I even considered that Christ said he did not come to change one iota of the Law:looked at the Moral Law,to which He referred, but there was nothing there either.In fact,what Christ said,did and how He lived seem to argue for celibacy.At first I thought I must have missed something and tried to elicit some responses that clearly showed He said or acted in a way that would lead one to conclude that He did indicate somewhere that it didn't matter.No one came up with anything other than the things you on this thread have strained to cobble together.

I hope this explains why I have not responded to your demands,but if it hasn't,let me be very clear,until you can find me something in the Gospels that show even one apostle was married,I will go not further. Once you can admit that truth,then I might go into Paul but not until then. You seem unable to comprehend that I am not the person who claims that the bible is the only source of the Truth,I look to my Church to maintain and hand down the repository of the Faith.You are the one,who claims in your post #379:

"The argument I use against required celibacy is that it is blatently and plainly unbiblical."

I am merely saying that I think that it is time you all stopped using that old canard "after all the Apostles were all married" and show me that any of them were. I say,you can't do it from the Gospels. Admit it.Or at least admit it is not blatent nor is it plain.

[saradippity]

caiber ='s caliberDarn,it's that ole intellectual deficit,I guess.

[ninenot]

It ought to be obvious that DalMi has a mission, and that he will not be deterred. He now indirectly claims that Kreeft and Neuhaus are his mentors---Neuhaus, the celibate!

[DallasMike]

I am merely saying that I think that it is time you all stopped using that old canard "after all the Apostles were all married" and show me that any of them were. I say,you can't do it from the Gospels. Admit it.

I freely admit that you can't do it from the Gospels, other than the reference to Peter's mother-in-law. It's not me that has a problem admitting the truth. On the other hand, you certainly can't prove that they weren't married from the Gospels either.

Why do you insist upon sticking to the Gospels for proof? I would like an answer. Are the letters of Paul and Peter -- both Apostles -- of lesser spiritual quality? If you believe this, then where did you get this idea?

You haven't addressed either the early Church document from Clement of Alexandria -- a recognized Father of the Church according to the Catholic Encyclopedia -- that talks of Peter being with his wife when she was martyred. If tradition is so important to you, then why do you refuse to address this early written Church tradition by such an esteemed saint?

And why can't you direct me to any tradition that says the apostles were not married? If this is such an important doctrine, then surely you must be able to find a reference to it your catechism.

[ChicagoGirl]

No, but ninenot needs to stop making his/her nonsensical claim that the Catholic church was chomping at the bit to eliminate the selling of indulgences. There's a pretty serious lack of scholarship and logic amongst the Catholics on this thread -

Of course people in the Church have made mistakes. But the Church herself will not. That is the difference. We cannot always defend the bishops and popes, but we can stand by the Word of the Church. I can see how it would be difficult to see the difference. (Maybe it's your lack of scholarship.)

[ChicagoGirl]

On the other hand, you certainly can't prove that they weren't married from the Gospels either.

Wow, if the Bible does not say one way or the other, how will we know what to do? Should we just follow current trends of morality?

[DallasMike]

He now indirectly claims that Kreeft and Neuhaus are his mentors---Neuhaus, the celibate!

I never directly or indirectly claimed that Kreeft and Neuhaus were my mentors, merely that I admire them and their work. I own probably about 5 books by Kreeft and have a whole shelf full of First Things magazine.

Regarding Fr. Neuhaus' celibacy, that's between him and the Lord. I never said that celibacy was a bad thing for everybody, merely that requiring it of all clergy is a mistake not supported by the Bible or early Church history. Paul plainly said that those who have the gift of celibacy should embrace it and that those who don't have the gift of celibacy should get married. He also said that bishops and deacons are allowed to be married.

You know, ninenot, I've noticed that you're pretty good at calling people names but don't actually seem to want to engage in any sort of meaningful discussion. What are your opinions on (1) the scriptures I provided; and (2) the early church document by a recognized Father of the Church that mentions Peter and his wife being together as she was carried off to martyrdom? Do you have anything useful to say or do you just like being a smart-aleck?

[DallasMike]

But the Church herself will not. That is the difference. We cannot always defend the bishops and popes, but we can stand by the Word of the Church. I can see how it would be difficult to see the difference. (Maybe it's your lack of scholarship.)

I don't know what you're talking about. The Church is made up of people, dead and living, with Christ as the head. What is your concept of the Church?

I'm glad that you can be a smart-aleck, too -- it's pretty common on this thread. Do you have anything intelligent to contribute to the discussion? Care to provide your input on (1) the scriptures I provided; and (2) the early church document I provided that talks of Peter being with his wife as she was carried off to martyrdom?

Amazing how you guys will go to great lengths not to address the issues.

[DallasMike]

Wow, if the Bible does not say one way or the other, how will we know what to do? Should we just follow current trends of morality?

Wow, you know, like, the Bible gives us principles to use when we make decisions. And it also tells us to pray to God -- not to St. Bob or St. Brittany -- for guidance.

What a concept, huh?