The Case for Priestly Celibacy

ic ^ | September 15, 2009 | George Sim Johnston

[NYer]

Each month, when I face an auditorium full of engaged couples preparing for a Catholic marriage, there is a Q-and-A session. It is the interesting, unrehearsed part of the evening. The couples write their queries on a piece of paper, and the anonymity guarantees at least a few hardball questions about the Church and its practices. "What about Galileo?" is among my favorites, along with inquisitive notes about Torquemada. But the majority of these "zingers" turn out to be protests about the Church's rule of clerical celibacy. "You've told us how wonderful marriage is, that it's a great good for the human person, that the body has a nuptial meaning, and so forth. Well, then: Why can't priests marry?"

 

It is a question that comes up among even devout Catholics at coffee hour after Mass and at cocktail parties. A married clergy is seen as the obvious solution to a number of problems that confront the Church, ranging from the shortage of priests to the recent sex scandals. Moreover, both the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Rite Catholic churches allow married clergy. So do Protestants; and, in fact, the rejection of clerical celibacy was a much larger issue for the leaders of the Reformation than the fuss over indulgences. Luther, Zwingli, Carlstadt, Bucer, and many other rebellious priests soon took wives (often former nuns), while Thomas Cranmer already had one hidden in Germany. During the Council of Trent, powerful rulers like the Emperor Ferdinand put enormous pressure on the Church to abolish the law of celibacy, but the popes resolutely declined, and have done so ever since.

 

The agitation for a married priesthood has sharpened in recent decades. There is a drumbeat in the media, often from ex-priests who write copiously for the op-ed pages. Probably a majority of American Catholics also favor the change. So, it's not surprising that my engaged couples think that Rome should "get with the times" and allow priests to marry. Isn't the rule of celibacy simply another example of a retrograde Church sitting on somebody's rights?

 

Wedded To The Church?

 

I surprise my audience by first telling them that clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is a discipline, and so can be changed. The pope could wake up tomorrow and allow priests to marry. Moreover, in the early centuries there were married priests, starting with some of the apostles. We know that Peter was married, because we're told that Jesus cured his mother-in-law. The immediate successors to the apostles were also allowed to marry. Paul writes to Timothy that a bishop should be "married but once." Clearly, by not permitting married clergy, the Church since the early Middle Ages has departed from the more commodious practice of the early hierarchy.

 

But—a further surprise for my audience—there are, in fact, married priests in the Latin Church today. There aren't many, because a priest may have a wife only in one circumstance: A Lutheran or Episcopalian minister who is already married and wishes to convert to Catholicism is allowed the option of becoming a Catholic priest, on condition that his wife gives full consent. You don't usually see these married priests, because they're generally not given parish assignments; they teach in seminaries or work in the chancery.

 

But this one exception to the general rule is the occasion of a story that I tell my audience. It is about a friend of mine who is now a prominent Catholic moral theologian. Years ago, he was an Episcopalian priest who decided to convert to Catholicism. He was married with children and was given the option of becoming a Catholic priest. He agonized over the decision. He was already an ordained minister (although the Church does not recognize the validity of Episcopalian orders) and was deeply attracted to the Catholic priesthood. But at the same time, he recognized that there must be serious reasons why the Church insists on a discipline that is such a sign of contradiction to the modern world.

 

The debate went on, until finally there came the moment of clarification. He was up all night with one of his children who was seriously ill. Feeling drained and haggard, he went to Mass the next morning, and the priest celebrating Mass came out looking equally drawn. During the brief homily, the priest mentioned in passing that he had been up all night with a parishioner's child who was dying of meningitis. A light bulb went off over my friend's head: You can't do both. If you fully understand the vocations to marriage and to the priesthood—the total availability and self-emptying that each demands—you would not choose to do both. And so he became a lay theologian and, apart from raising a large family, has served the Church in ways that he probably could not have as a member of the clergy.

 

As my bleary-eyed friend discovered at that early morning Mass, the sacraments of Holy Orders and matrimony are too consuming to allow for both. A married priest can't help giving his first thoughts to his wife and children. To the extent he does so, he may be forgoing his priestly role as "father," and people who call a married priest "father" would rightly get the idea that they are second in line as spiritual children. Paul understood this perfectly well when he wrote to the Corinthians, "For he who is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of this world, how he may please his wife; and he is divided" (1 Cor 7:32-34).

 

Tracing the History

 

There are many reasons, both practical and theological, why the Church insists on clerical celibacy. It is a wise practice that was gradually codified in light of centuries of accumulated knowledge and experience. Early on, it became obvious to many bishops that a married priesthood doesn't work and that the Church needs men who are willing to embrace a higher spiritual state. Starting with the Spanish Council of Elvira in 305, regional churches began to ask of the clergy what many priests had already spontaneously chosen. The early Church Fathers—Tertullian, Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome, and Hilary—wrote in favor of clerical celibacy, and at the end of the Dark Ages, great reforming popes like Leo IX and Gregory VII insisted that henceforth the priesthood would be celibate. This decision greatly strengthened the Church and still does so today.

 

Admittedly, there's no hint in the New Testament of celibacy being mandatory either among the apostles or those they ordained. But we have ample warrant in the words of Christ and the writings of Paul that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. Christ Himself was celibate, and the Incarnation took place, so to speak, in the context of Mary and Joseph's abstention from sexual relations. Pope Benedict XVI has written eloquently about how Mary's virginity is really a condition of spiritual fruitfulness. At one point, the disciples ask Christ if it is "expedient not to marry?" He replies that "not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born so...and there are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can" (Mt 19:10-12).

 

As Christopher West points out, Christ's use of the word "eunuch" must have profoundly shocked his Jewish listeners. Under the Old Covenant, priests were enjoined to marry and have children who would become priests. Childlessness was seen as a curse, and the idea of a descendant of Abraham opting to be a "eunuch" was unthinkable. But the celibate lives of Mary and Joseph, who brought the Old Covenant to perfection, speak of a new dimension of self-giving. West writes that their celibacy, in effect, brings about "the most fruitful union in the cosmos—the union of the human and divine natures in the person of Christ. All those who live an authentic celibate vocation participate in some way in this new super-abounding spiritual fruitfulness."

 

There has always been a deep human intuition that celibacy brings great spiritual gifts, a heightened sensitivity to divine things. Even under the Old Covenant, a married priest had to observe continence while he served in the Temple—in other words, when he was acting as priest. Moses asked that the Jews abstain from conjugal sex while he ascended Mount Sinai, and the prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by God to take a wife in order that he might fulfill his ministry. And although the apostles and their successors had freedom of choice in this matter—at least until the fourth century—a large number of the clergy during this period did choose celibacy. There is a tradition that after their calling by Christ, those apostles who were married lived as though they were not. St. Jerome speaks of a general custom in the late fourth century when he declares that clerics, "even though they may have wives, cease to be husbands." This is not so exotic as it sounds; in the 20th century the great French theologian Jacques Maritain and his wife Raissa, a Jewish convert, had a marriage blanc for the sake of their spiritual apostleship.

 

The exaltation of celibacy does not in any way denigrate marriage. Nobody can outdo Pope John Paul II in praising conjugal love. And yet, as he points out in his famous talks on the theology of the body, marriage "is only a tentative solution to the problem of a union of persons through love." The final solution lies only in heaven, where, as Christ explained to the Sadducees, there is no marriage. Those who live celibately are, in effect, "skipping" the sacrament in anticipation of the ultimate reality, the "Marriage of the Lamb." They are an "eschatological sign" for the rest of us; their total gift of self, which includes their sexuality, to God anticipates the eternal union for which we were all created. The celibate vocation, West writes, "is 'superior' only in its more direct orientation toward man's superior heavenly destiny."

 

The Practical Problems

 

A married clergy would certainly dilute the Catholic priesthood as an eschatological sign. But it would also involve practical problems. One of the great strengths of an unmarried clergy is their availability. During World War I, there were many converts to Catholicism among British soldiers fighting in the trenches. This was because the Catholic priests were right up there in the danger zone, hearing confessions and giving spiritual counsel, while many Anglican ministers held back, understandably thinking about their wives and children at home. Recently, a priest I know expressed delight at being assigned to an impoverished area of New York. "I want to work among the poor," he told me. Would this be his attitude if he were married with small children? His wife's probable reaction would be, "I'm not going to raise the kids in that neighborhood."

 

Clerical marriages, moreover, are not easy. I am told that the wives of the handful of Catholic clergy who have the dispensation from celibacy are the first to support the Church's general position. Preachers' wives and preachers' kids do not have an easy time. Just read the novels of Trollope or Samuel Butler's much underrated The Way of All Flesh, whose narrator complains about being the son of a clergyman:

 

I have often thought that the Church of Rome does wisely in not allowing her priests to marry. Certainly it is a matter of common observation in England that the sons of clergymen are frequently unsatisfactory. The explanation is very simple.... The clergyman is expected to be a kind of human Sunday. He is paid for this business of leading a stricter life than other people. It is his raison d'etre. If his parishioners feel that he does this, they approve of him, for they look upon him as their own contribution towards what they deem a holy life.... But his home is his castle as much as that of any other Englishman, and with him, as with others, unnatural tension in public is followed by exhaustion when tension is no longer necessary. His children are the most defenseless things he can reach, and it is on them that nine cases out of ten that he will relieve his mind.

 

Obviously, not all married clergymen are like this, but clerical marriages have their special difficulties, and, unlike 130 years ago, when Butler wrote his novel, there is now the possibility of divorce. This is already a serious problem in the Anglican Church. It is inevitable that after a decade or so of a married Catholic priesthood, there would be a fair number of divorced priests, some clamoring for remarriage. And as for those priests who still chose not to marry: Might there not be a corresponding diminishment of their public image, so that they would tend to be regarded more as pious bachelors than a special sign among us? Their freedom to get romantically involved with female parishioners gives such questions even more point.

 

Another practical consideration is the financial cost of allowing priests to marry. The average salary of a diocesan priest is $20,000, and living arrangements in a parish rectory allow for many economies. Married priests would most likely want to live outside the rectory, would need much higher salaries to support a family, and there would be an exponential increase in insurance costs. Where would the money come from? As it is, many parishes can barely pay their bills. Will Catholics in the pews be willing to significantly increase their weekly contributions? The answer is that some will, but many will not, and too many parishes would find themselves in an even deeper financial hole.

 

The most insistent argument for a married clergy is that it would cure the shortage of priests. The reasons for the decline in the number of clergy are too numerous to go into here. Almost every Catholic shares some of the blame. On the institutional side, there's the past situation in many seminaries and the refusal of some diocesan vocation directors to present the priesthood in its full spiritual dimension, which includes the challenge of celibacy. If you look around today, it is striking which dioceses (for example, Denver) have plentiful vocations. They raise the bar very high and, taking a page from John Paul II, present celibacy as a great spiritual gift. In contrast, some dioceses, until recently, held out to seminarians the possibility of a reversal of the rule of celibacy; they certainly did not present celibacy in a positive light. Those dioceses with near-empty seminaries might want to look at those that are doing it right. They will find—among other things—a vibrant orthodoxy and a theologically rich understanding of the call to celibacy.

 

As for the Catholic laity: Along with the widespread use of the Pill, there has been a corresponding diminution of generosity in family size, which means fewer vocations. (One could make the case, by the way, that natural family planning allows a couple to participate in the spiritual benefits of celibacy; the periodic abstinence is part of the "gift" of themselves to one another and to God.) But the point is that there will be many more vocations if both the clergy and the laity fully live their Christian vocations, which include prayer, sacrifice, and generosity. Although it may be tempting in the short term, the solution is not to define the priesthood down in order to attract men who will only take a lightened version of Holy Orders.

 

Freud's Unwelcome Appearance

 

The other argument against celibacy is that the Church's requirement of continence is a primary cause of the sex scandals. Plying their Freud, "experts" like Richard Sipe argue that a lack of sexual outlets drives priests into pedophilia. But the recent scandals have little to do with pedophilia, a clinical disorder whose incidence among Catholic priests is no greater than among the general population. Rather, the majority of episodes involves homosexual acts with teenagers or young men, and it may be wondered how marriage would solve this particular problem. It is clear that not a few homosexual men have entered the priesthood partly as a "cover" for their condition. Arguably, it would only make matters worse if they had to take on a wife as additional camouflage. In any event, it wouldn't stop some of them from going after teenage boys, as has been amply demonstrated in other clerical milieu.

 

It should also be pointed out that Freud was wrong about the nature and effects of "sexual repression"—in other words, abstinence. He considered it the taproot of all neuroses, and the sexual revolution has been driven by his idea that such "repression" is a very bad thing. But we all know celibate priests—and laity, for that matter—who are adjusted and well-balanced. We also meet promiscuous individuals who are not. Freud nonetheless taught that the libido is a pressure that builds relentlessly to the point where it demands release, as in a steam engine; and if you don't find a sexual outlet, you become neurotic, or even worse.

 

But, in fact, our sex drives don't work that way. There is no build-up of pressure in the central nervous system, and the libido doesn't plot revenge if for whatever reason one is continent for a period of time. It largely depends on what "messages" one allows to get through to it, which is why the Church has always taught the necessity of guarding one's eyes and imagination. This is not Puritanism, but self-possession; and all Christians, not just Catholic priests, are called to this heroic struggle. The more likely neurotics are those who separate sex from married love and, in the process, compulsively turn people into objects, into a means to an end. The sexual revolution, which amounted to a willful misreading of human nature, has failed on its own terms, but there are still those who want the Church to buy into it.

 

In a world that has absolutized sex, a celibate priesthood is a necessary sign of higher things. It's tough, but then so is Christianity. Those who wish to abolish celibacy generally favor other dilutions of Catholic doctrine and discipline. They are pursuing an essentially bourgeois project. They think that Christianity is fine so long as it makes no demands and, as a corollary, that the Church should turn itself into yet another liberal Protestant denomination. But these leftover modernists are no longer in the ascendancy, if they ever were, and it is not surprising that the recent synod of bishops in Rome overwhelmingly endorsed the Church's ancient discipline of celibacy.

[NYer]

Related Thread

Married Priests Back Celibacy (Part 1 of 2)

[Dilbert San Diego]

Somebody will correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that most other religions allow and actually prefer married clergy. I’ve heard that some faiths want clergy to be married, so that they have similar life experiences in family life to their congregations. This is supposed to make it easier to identify with, and help their congregants through life and family problems.

[wombtotomb]

As the mother of a future priest, and a son who is this coming weekend going through marriage preperation with his betrothed, I can say, each is preparing for their vocation as it is meant to be. They are so different, yet the same. Each is preparing to totally commit their lives to their vocation, and in so doing, to Christ and His Church.

There is no way one can have 2 vocations, and as I watch each of my boys enter theirs, I can thank God for his wisdom on this and every issue.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

"...clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine."

Church doctrine is meaningless, unless it is BIBLICAL doctrine, and celibacy for church leaders is not.

1 Tim. 3:2--Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach...

It is Scrpture that COMMANDS marriage for church leaders. There's no two ways about it.

[nevergore]

Thump away......your not a theologian....

[Longhair_and_Leather]

It doesn’t take a theologian to read.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[lurk]

Celibacy for priests is not scriptural, but elders are not COMMANDED to marry. If they are married, they need to be one-woman men.

There’s no such thing as a priest standing in between God and man in the New Testament, except for Jesus. See 1 Tim. 2:5.

[Jacquerie]

Great post.

Thank you very much.

[choirboy]

That is YOUR interpretation of Scripture. MY interpretation of “...the husband of one wife...” is that he cannot have more than one wife, but can no wife. That phrase is a statement against polygamy.

And you are no more infallible than I am.

[nevergore]

Only one to interpret correctly.....

[Longhair_and_Leather]

Wrong. I do not interpret Scripture. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Any theologian who does is in error.

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

[Salvation]

To read later.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

I understand that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. That's not the question. It's about priests marrying. But as far as your statement regarding the elders:

1 Tim. 3:12--"Let deacons be husbands of one wife...". It's clear they are to be married as well.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

I understand that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man. That's not the question. It's about priests marrying. But as far as your statement regarding the elders:

1 Tim. 3:12--"Let deacons be husbands of one wife...". It's clear they are to be married as well.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

Wrong. I do not interpret Scripture. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. Any theologian who does is in error.

2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." It is you who is privately interpreting. I gave you Scripture, now show me in Scripture where it is a choice given to church leader not to marry, and I will recant. In the case of the Catholic church it is even worse. They forbid it. That is the practice of the pagans.

[Tax-chick]

I think that anyone who is married or has been married would agree that a holy life in the married vocation is no more difficult than a holy life in the celibate vocation, assuming one has properly discerned the appropriate vocation. Dying to self *hurts*, no matter what the context is.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening.

I disagree. From both a Talmud and a New Testament perspective. Read today's reading from Timothy, just as one example, or Numbers and Deuteronomy.

What was it, 600 AD and Pope Gregory?

No, the Bible is pretty clear that priest (Bishops, Deacons) should marry.

Although, it doesn't change my perspective on the Church, nor cause me to leave. I will follow dogma, and canon law, because the Catholic church is the Christ's bride.

5.56mm

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Church doctrine is meaningless, unless it is BIBLICAL doctrine, and celibacy for church leaders is not.”

So Jesus was married? St. Paul was married?

“It is Scrpture that COMMANDS marriage for church leaders. There’s no two ways about it.”

So Jesus and St. Paul went against the Bible?

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“No, the Bible is pretty clear that priest (Bishops, Deacons) should marry.”

Christ was called a bishop...and he was celibate.

St. Paul was a bishop (an Apostle really)...and he was celibate.

There goes your theory.

[M Kehoe]

There goes your theory.

I like you, so this will be easy: you offer a very poor excuse for a rebuttal. Get your story straight before wading into the intellectual pond. Else wise, you might jump a shark.

5.56mm

[Judges Gone Wild]

A Catholic priest told me many years ago that celibacy was ordered on priests in order to keep land in the church.

[Originalist]

1 Corinthians 7

1Now concerning the matters about which you wrote:(A) "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman." 2But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

In an attempt to correct both my Catholic and Protestant brothers, I point you to 1 Corinthians chapter 7. In it, the Apostle Paul tells us that celibacy is good, but so is marriage. In fact, he says "EACH (emphasis mine) man should have his own wife". This verse alone should make it clear that he saying that marriage is good for any and all men. The only men allowed to not marry are those who are capable of not "burn(ing) with passion" (vv9). Finally, to the person stating Paul was not married, where did you get that idea? If it is from this same passage, I submit that you are incorrect. When Paul says "I wish that all were as I myself am." (vv7), he is talking to the "unmarried". The Greek term translated here as "unmarried" is only used a handful of times in the NT. Each other instance it is referring to someone widowed. Based on the inerrancy of the Bible, that would indicate the same translation would be in effect in this passage.

I hope this helps...

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I like you, so this will be easy: you offer a very poor excuse for a rebuttal. Get your story straight before wading into the intellectual pond. Else wise, you might jump a shark.”

You can’t refute that Christ (the founder of the Church), and St. Paul (the greatest of the ancient evangelists who founded churches in city after city - and who wrote the letter you’re relying on) were both celibate men, so you TRY to insult me?

You’ve been refuted. Deal with it. In this intellectual pond, I don’t have to worry about jumping the shark. I AM THE SHARK. And you’re just chum scattered on the waves.

When you can refute the fact that the founder of the Church was celibate and that His greatest evangelizing Apostle was also celibate, come back in the water. Until then, stay on the boat in your bucket where you belong.

(All said tongue in cheek, of course!) :)

[M Kehoe]

I eat shark for breakfast, so here I am.

When you can refute the fact that the founder of the Church was celibate and that His greatest evangelizing Apostle was also celibate, come back in the water.

True, Jesus was celibate, but you have no idea about Saul/the Apostle Paul. You are guessing. Plus, you have only referenced one Apostle, as you know there were at least 12.

Come back in, the water's fine.

5.56mm

[marshmallow]

The Case for Priestly Celibacy: ‘cos it’s in da Bible!!!!!

[A.A. Cunningham]

celibacy for church leaders is not.

"Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ." St. Jerome

"For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:12

"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting." Matthew 19:27-29

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided." 1 Corinthians 7:32-33

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." 2 Peter 3:16

[A.A. Cunningham]

Celibacy for priests is not scriptural

A statement which proves that you haven't read Scripture.

[A.A. Cunningham]

No, the Bible is pretty clear that priest (Bishops, Deacons) should marry.

Incorrect.

[A.A. Cunningham]

He was ignorant of the history of the discipline and did nothing but perpetuate said ignorance.

[A.A. Cunningham]

but you have no idea about Saul/the Apostle Paul.

Suggest you actually read 1 Corinthians before you attempt to comment authoritatively on that which you know not.

[NYer]

1 Tim. 3:12--"Let deacons be husbands of one wife...". It's clear they are to be married as well.

Deacons? Deacons are allowed to marry in the Catholic Church.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

And what ignorance you display. This is about marriage for OVERSEERS. The Scripture you cite makes no reference to leaders of the church. By the way, Peter, supposedly the first Pope, was married! Did he leave his wife? No! We see in Matthew 8:14 that he was with Jesus in his mother-in-law’s house. Maybe I should leave my wife and child now to serve God—after all, reading the Scripture you cite, I will be more blessed in Heaven! Of course, I would be violating 1 Timothy 5:8, making worse than an unbeliever. So which is it? That’s your box of cereal; go eat it.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I eat shark for breakfast, so here I am.”

At breakfast time you were still in the bucket, remember?

“True, Jesus was celibate, but you have no idea about Saul/the Apostle Paul. You are guessing.”

I am? You might want to read 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 in context.

“Plus, you have only referenced one Apostle, as you know there were at least 12.”

And how many wrote about the married life or celibacy in any detail? None...except St. Peter (1 Peter 3) and he only touches on how spouses should treat one another. Hence, I cited St. Paul. If you know of an Apostle who contradicts St. Paul, please, by all means, cite him!

“Come back in, the water’s fine.”

I know. I’ve been swimming in it all morning while you’ve been in that bucket.

Still unrefuted: Christ and St. Paul were celibate.

[Longhair_and_Leather]

Jesus and Paul were not leading the body of Christ. They were not leading an assembly of believers. They evangelized and ministered, but were not pastors. It is in that context we see the meaning of 1 Cor. 7:8, where Paul says it is good not to marry so that those particular people can serve God without the divided loyalty that comes through marriage.

[toothfairy86]

In Eastern Orthodoxy, you can be married and THEN get ordained, but you cannot get married once you are ordained. There are celibate monks in Orthodoxy too.

[M Kehoe]

Good evening vlad, I see you are still grasping at straws.

Yesterday's reading was Timothy, go back and read it again. Check out Mathews' teaching again, that may enlighten you. Paul wrote as Paul, not Saul, and you still haven't addressed the Talmud. If you are a Catholic, that's part of your heritage.

I'm not going to convince you of my point, and you sure aren't going to convince me of yours. I stand by my perspective, and the facts I presented. This thread is out there for all to see. FReepers will judge accordingly.

5.56mm

[M Kehoe]

Good evening A.A.

I see you want into the fray. Read my last post to vlad. Methinks you and vlad are blinded by dogma, and doctrine. Don't get me wrong, I think the celibacy of priest may draw them closer to the Lord. All I'm saying is that, if you look at both the Talmud and the New Testament, priest were not barred from marriage...until the 6th century.

5.56mm

[M Kehoe]

Bad netiquette, I mentioned you in the post below, vlad.

You two should team up, then I might have some competition.

5.56mm

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Yesterday’s reading was Timothy, go back and read it again.”

No. Since it doesn’t claim that Jesus and St. Paul were married it is useless for our conversation. You are still refuted.

“Check out Mathews’ teaching again, that may enlighten you.”

Matthew never claims that Jesus or St. Paul were married. You are still refuted. Also, in St. Matthew, Jesus praises those who choose celibacy in order to serve God. Again, you’re refuted.

“Paul wrote as Paul, not Saul, and you still haven’t addressed the Talmud.”

I don’t have to. The Talmud is not an inspired text, is not Christian and is not historically reliable in its treatment of Christians. Thus, it is irrelevant.

“If you are a Catholic, that’s part of your heritage.”

Nope. If I were a Jew it would be part of my heritage. As an unispired text containing statements that attack Christ it is NOT part of my heritage: Read Peter schafer’s Jesus in the Talmud.

“I’m not going to convince you of my point, and you sure aren’t going to convince me of yours.”

That’s not the issue. Your point is erroneous. Jesus founded the Church, and called a bishop. St. Paul was a great Church leader, an Apostle, a bishop. And they were both celibate. That means your original point was factually incorrect. You also claimed I was guessing on St. Paul’s celibacy when in reality he wrote about it in scripture. Again, you were factually incorrect. It isn’t just that we disagree. It is that you are factually incorrect. Period. And what is the worth of an opinion based on errors? I’m not trying to harp on you. You’re a big boy. You can handle this just as well as anyone else.

“I stand by my perspective, and the facts I presented.”

Your perspective is skewed because it was based on ERRORS, not facts. See, now, you’re claiming you presented facts, when you actually presented ERRORS.

“This thread is out there for all to see. FReepers will judge accordingly.”

Right. They will judge that you claimed we couldn’t know that St. Paul was celibate when the scriptures say otherwise. They will judge that Jesus (who was called a bishop and was the founder of the Church) and St. Paul (who was an apostle, a bishop) were celibate...which means your theory was erroneous and goes down in flames.

My points stand unrefuted. They cannot be refuted.

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“I see you want into the fray. Read my last post to vlad. Methinks you and vlad are blinded by dogma, and doctrine.”

Celibacy is a discipline. It is not a dogma nor a doctrine. How can we be blinded by a dogma or doctrine that is neither a dogma nor a doctrine? I just think you’re in over your head. You do not seem to even know what the standing of celibacy is in the Church. It is a discipline.

“All I’m saying is that, if you look at both the Talmud and the New Testament, priest were not barred from marriage...until the 6th century.”

That’s not all you’re saying. And you’ve been refuted.

[M Kehoe]

You argue like a 10 year old...

Celibacy is a discipline. It is not a dogma nor a doctrine.

Dogma and doctrine create and enforce a discipline. I guess you have never been in the military, as one example.

Then you bring a straw man in, again, and try to save your argument by claiming I stated the Lord and Paul weren't celibate. I never made that statement. All I said was that you have no clue (seemingly about anything) what St. Paul was like before he became St. Paul.

I don't state errors child, I only state facts. Priests were allowed to marry before the sixth century. Period, you can't refute that. You also can't refute what was written about the Levites in the Old Testament. I see you didn't do your homework, and go back two days ago, and read Timothy again. You get an "F."

Please, don't come to a war of intellect without ammunition.

5.56mm

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You argue like a 10 year old...”

Since any 10 year old could beat you in an argument, that’s not saying much.

“Dogma and doctrine create and enforce a discipline. I guess you have never been in the military, as one example.”

We’re not talking about the military (and you shouldn’t assume anything on that point either). Also, since you have utterly failed to show what doctrine or dogma “creat(ed) and enforce(d)” this discipline, your point is no more useful than the bleeting of sheep.

“Then you bring a straw man in, again, and try to save your argument by claiming I stated the Lord and Paul weren’t celibate. I never made that statement.”

I never said you said that. You are now creating a straw man by claiming I made that straw man. Remember, your original, and false, claim was the follwing: “No, the Bible is pretty clear that priest (Bishops, Deacons) should marry.”

And yet anyone who has ever actually studied the scriptures knows that both Christ and Paul were celibate and yet they were both called bishop or apostle. Thus, the only way you could make a valid argument at this point would be to show that Jesus and Paul were married men. You have, of course, failed to do so.

Also, another straw man you’re making is about St. Paul. You now say that I falsely claimed, that you said St. Paul was NOT celibate. But it was you who, in fact, insisted I was just guessing that St. Paul was celibate. Why would you suggest I was just guessing that he was celibate if you too believe he was celibate?

“All I said was that you have no clue (seemingly about anything) what St. Paul was like before he became St. Paul.”

Which is an entirely irrelevant point. No matter what St. Paul was like before or after his conversion, he was celibate as a Christian. Period. End of story. You lose.

“I don’t state errors child, I only state facts.”

Nope.

1) You were wrong in your original claim about bishops not being celibate - as I showed.

2) You were wrong about St. Paul’s celiabcy being only guessed at - as shown in the scriptures and related by me here.

3) You were wrong about the straw man nonsense and in fact made straw men of your own in the process.

Your errors continue.

“Priests were allowed to marry before the sixth century.”

Seminarians were allowed to marry (for lack of a better word I’ll use seminarians). Once ordained a priest, men were expected not to marry. There were always some celibate priests. Many of the early great saints - including deacons, priests and bishops - were celibate, for instance.

“Period, you can’t refute that.”

Well, I just did. You are wrong to claim that priests were allowed to marry because they were expected to be married before ordination. Once ordained they did not marry. Second, many great saints we know of were in fact celibate. Also, the development of monasticism was a clear witness to the idea of widespread celibacy accepted in the Christian Church.

“You also can’t refute what was written about the Levites in the Old Testament.”

Why would I bother when that has no bearing on what we’re discussing? We’re talking about Christians, not Jews.

“I see you didn’t do your homework, and go back two days ago, and read Timothy again. You get an “F.””

Nothing in Timothy refutes anything I have said. You’re the one failing here. If you really believed something in Timothy proved me wrong, you would simply post it and show how it does prove me wrong, wouldn’t you? You can’t do that because no such thing is possible.

“Please, don’t come to a war of intellect without ammunition.”

Between the two of us, I’m the only one here with an ammo cache while you’ve only got duds and blanks.

Keep floating belly up in your bucket, chum. Keep floating.

[M Kehoe]

You are a child. You have no conscience stream of thought, no logical presentation, and you constantly contradict your own points. What is worst, you apparently don't know your history (religious or otherwise), the scriptures or simple word definitions.

Oh, and from what you have posted, I am sure you have never been in the military.

I will look for you on the forum from now on. Take from that what you may.

5.56mm

[M Kehoe]

Well, you don't seem to be a troll, just a bit ignorant. That can be cured with some education. I see that you don't have a very disciplined mind. Do you have any higher education? Hopefully not in the Eastern block.

Like I said, I will be watching you.

5.56mm

[M Kehoe]

I'm continuing to read your relatively short posting history. Most of it innocuous, not much in the way of intellectual thought, and I can still see you have an undisciplined mind.

Hey vald, I post with my real name, with a Florida location. I'm very easy to find. What is your real name, and where do you hail from?

5.56mm

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“You are a child. You have no conscience stream of thought,...”

You poor man. That would be a “stream of consciousness” not “conscience stream of thought”. Apparently you do not know the difference between conscience and conscious - which would not surprise me - and you also don’t realize that all thought by its very definition is conscious.

“...no logical presentation, and you constantly contradict your own points.”

I have not contradicted myself anywhere in this thread. And everything I have posted has been logical. That’s exactly why you have failed to refute any of it.

“What is worst, you apparently don’t know your history (religious or otherwise), the scriptures or simple word definitions.”

(sigh) I was the one who knew that St. Paul pointed out his own celibacy whereas you essentially denied there was any such proof by claiming I was merely guessing. You also are apparently completely unfamiliar with the early history or impact of monasticism, or the fact that priests traditionally did not marry (but only men BEFORE ordination). You also have confused or conflated Judaism (Talmud, Levitical priesthood) with Christianity as if they were the same. Clearly they are not.

“Oh, and from what you have posted, I am sure you have never been in the military.”

Fine. I am pretty sure - based on what you’ve posted - that you’re embarrassed about your own failures here. And if you aren’t, you should be.

“I will look for you on the forum from now on. Take from that what you may.”

I’ll take it that I was right - and I was.

Oh, and you still have refuted the FACTS that Jesus (called a bishop in scripture) and St. Paul (an Apostle, a bishop) were both celibate.

[M Kehoe]

I'm here little it. I post exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say (vald). I'm looking forward to your response.

5.56mm

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“Well, you don’t seem to be a troll, just a bit ignorant.”

No, I think you’ve cornered the market on that for all of us, chum.

“That can be cured with some education. I see that you don’t have a very disciplined mind. Do you have any higher education? Hopefully not in the Eastern block.
Like I said, I will be watching you.”

Watch away. Odds are I am far better educated than you could ever hope to be. But chum in a bucket can’t expect much in the way of schooling now can it?