The Perils of Celibacy: Clerical Celibacy and Marriage in Early Protestant Perspective

Social Science Research Network ^ | John Witte Jr

[the_conscience]

I simply noted that your argument cannot withstand scrutiny given the higher incidence of sexual sin among non-celibate protestant clergy.

Another assertion without evidence.

[Petronski]

Which rules are those?

The ones which Catholic priests have, by their own vow, voluntarily accepted?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I often wonder how much of the “debate” between denominations is really about what the denominations truly preach.

Unfortunately, I rarely find the answers to that wonderment in these threads, as I rarely find the proclaimed members of a denomination in agreement on the point, so as to judge which argument is in keeping with the true beliefs of their denomination.

So while I can presume you are at least partly correct that this article has misrepresented some element of the Catholic faith, I have little hope that when this thread is done, I’ll have any idea which parts are truly wrong as expressed by the adherents.

[the_conscience]

Doubtful.

[RobbyS]

“Pagan” notion? No, it is a construct of the author, premised on a rejection of the spiritual hierarchy of the Church. And historically it replaces the clergy not with some “priesthood of all believers” but the heads of family. In practical terms, the purpose of requiring a celibate clergy was to prevent them from becoming a social caste in a feudal society, and spirtually on the same level as barbarous warlords.

[chuckles]

As Paul wrote to Timothy about the structure of the Church, he described officials of the church to have one wife. That would be deacons and bishops. One could extrapolate that other officials would be covered with the one wife concept. (priests, cardinals, nuns, and popes) That makes the celibate option a "tradition of man" invented by church leaders and not any Biblical principle.

One of the principle reasons Jesus came to Earth was to teach "His Church" what they should do in His name. The traditions of men were way up there on the "no no" scale.

As I read this article, it is noticeable that these Bible verses were left out. My beliefs come from the Bible, as I believe, and trust, that they are correct, and men, can and will be led astray much of the time.

[Petronski]

That said, it must also be said that there seems to be something gravely amiss with the American Catholic Church’s insistence on maintaining mandatory clerical celibacy -- despite the mounting evidence of homosexual and heterosexual abuses among its clergy, and despite the rapid dwindling of eligible novates within its seminaries.

The incidence of these abuses has both risen and then fallen with celibacy vows in place.

It is interesting to note how the author implies a correlation between celibacy and "dwindling of eligible novates " [sic] without providing any data to support such a correlation.

[the_conscience]

In practical terms, the purpose of requiring a celibate clergy was to prevent them from [a]... spirtually on the same level as barbarous warlords.

I think you just affirmed his argument.

[marshmallow]

But, unlike their Catholic brethren, the reformers rejected the subordination of marriage to celibacy. We are all sinful creatures, Luther and his followers argued.

We are indeed.

Lust has pervaded the conscience of everyone.

Everyone, eh? No exceptions.

Sez who?

Marriage is not just an option, it is a necessity for sinful humanity. For without it, a person's distorted sexuality becomes a force capable of overthrowing the most devout conscience.

Wrong. Marriage is not a cure for lust.

A person is enticed by nature to concubinage, prostitution, masturbation, voyeurism, and sundry other sinful acts. “You cannot be without a [spouse] and remain without sin,” Luther thundered from his Wittenberg pulpit.

Luther was wrong.

This article presents to case of Johann Apel which is simply anecdotal evidence. However, if this is the standard, then I can present numerous similar anecdotal cases of men and women who have remained chaste and pure in the celibate state and conversely, I can also present numerous cases of those who have married yet still indulged in the vices against which Luther rails. There's a famous one in the news right now.

You will “test your neighbor’s bed” unless your own bed is happily occupied and used.

Wrong again.

You will test your neighbor's bed if you are not upheld by God's grace, irrespective of whether you are married or single.

It sounds as if Luther was simply assuming his own issues and problems were shared by everyone. Have some tried and failed to live out the discipline of celibacy? Of course! Does this invalidate it? Not at all.

Who cares what Luther says? Who cares what the author of this piece says? Who cares what you say?

I don't.

We have centuries of heroic and saintly example to guide us. Not just talk but example.

[CharlesWayneCT]

OK, I looked up "sexual continence", and I'm not sure why Christians (or anybody else) should be expected to practice it:

Sexual continence involves a total awareness and control of the sexual energy during lovemaking. This means that the couple can experience complete union with the possibility of reaching many orgasms. This kind of love fusion does not end with ejaculation for men nor an explosive discharge of sexual fluids for women.

This seems to be a Tantric thing.

THere was another definition I found: "Sexual continence is abstaining from sexual actions until married, and remaining strictly faithful within marriage."

But nothing in the article suggested that all humanity is expected to practice Sexual continence. In fact, the point seemed to be that marriage was God's gift to fallen man to practice sexual continence.

I do believe that man should be able to resist sex until and unless he is in a marriage. But God does not cause us to be tempted above that which we are able, but also with the temptation makes a way to escape, that we may be able to bear it. Marriage is our way to escape the sexual temptation, which appears to be near-universal in men.

It seems to me that requiring the entire population of church leaders to avoid this way of escape is something akin to the guy on the roof turning down the boat ride and then wondering why God wouldn't save him from drowning.

Not that marriage by itself is a cure for men's sexual proclivities. But it helps.

[the_conscience]

This article is a short historical review and by no means is meant as a full theological treatise. I’m sure if you looked hard enough you could find the theological treatises from the Reformers on this topic.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Moreso, if you believe that they were required by God to be celibate, married to the Church, and that therefore any other marriage is in fact adultery.

But it would be a shame if our goal he was to see which side can smear the other side’s spiritual leaders more.

[RobbyS]

He says no more than one wife. Furthermore, one has to look at the life that Paul himself lived. He felt a great sense of urgency. Christ was coming again; get the word out.

[CharlesWayneCT]

higher incidence of sexual sin among non-celibate protestant clergy.

I suppose there's a citation for that?

[RobbyS]

You are talking about an ideal that is not more/less practical than celibacy. And it is an ideal that is shared by fewer and fewer people today.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Doubtful.

As you wrote to another poster, are you going to give an argument or just make an assertion? What do you think these early reformers would have thought about the fact that the vast majority of their Lutheran theological descendants now belong to synods that permit women and active homosexuals to be clergy? It is hypocritical to attack the discipline of Catholic clergy without acknowledging the utter apostasy of the disciplines applied to most Lutheran clergy.

[CharlesWayneCT]

To avoid the class of “men who marry unhappily when they are really homosexuals or pedophiles”.

I don’t believe that a man who is simply unhappy with the particular marriage he is in would be inclined to have pedophile gay sex. They might well go for adultery, or for divorce/remarriage.

So I was simply trying to find a shorthand to preclude from my question those who are naturally disposed to homosexual and/or gay pedophilic relationships, but have gotten married anyway because it is the “proper” thing to do, maybe to hide their homosexual or pedophilic tendencies.

[Petronski]

To avoid the class of “men who marry unhappily when they are really homosexuals or pedophiles”.

But what you have done is to cleave ALL men unhappily married.

[Just mythoughts]

One is the image of the other, according to Scripture.

Not quite so. There is a different out come IF one falls in 'love' and commits idolatry to a different Jesus when the 'fake' shows up first. Remember Jesus tells some to get away He never knew them. But all focus remains upon a flesh act between flesh and the Spiritual act of adultery is rarely ever discussed.

[CharlesWayneCT]

If that is the rules he meant, then I would suggest that taking vows that are not biblical is a bad practice, and the Bible has several passages which explain that ‘rock and a hard place’ you end up in when those vows commit you to things that you cannot be expected to fulfil.

However, I am completely on board with the idea that if a person takes a vow of celibacy to be a pastor, they should fulfil that vow. And when they cannot, they should resign their commission.

The reason I’m not sure your interpretion of the term “rules” as used by the other poster is that this article isn’t calling for that rule to be “bent”, it is saying that rule should be abolished.

So if that is “bending the rules”, that would be like saying that if a road has a 25 mph speed limit, but it is built for 50, everybody goes 50, and there is no reason not to allow 50, that petitioning to change the speed limit to “50” would be saying “people can’t behave, so let’s bend the rules”.

“bending the rules” would be to keep the speed limit, but ignore people who break it, or force people who break it to pay some small fee as “penance”.

The article provides examples (which I have no idea whether they are true or not) alleging that the Church was in fact bending the rules by selling rights to have concubines to their “celibate” priests, and only balked at someone openly flouting the rules.

As I said, I’m not agreeing that this really happened, I don’t know and there’s no newspaper reports about it. I’m just saying that of the two sides in the hypothetical debate in the post, it was the celibate side of the argument where ‘bending the rules’ was found, while the “marriage” side was arguing that the rule should be abolished, to prevent greater sin.