How to Refute Arguments Against Priestly Celibacy

CRISIS Magazine - e-Letter | 6/14/02 | Deal Hudson

[sinkspur]

I found this from "Celibacy in the Early Church," by Stefan Heid (Ignatius Press; the original German edition was published in 1997). Following is an extended excerpt from Chapter 1:

The broad outline of the last fifty years of celibacy scholarship shows that something has occurred that not infrequently causes misunderstandings in historical research: a one-sided formulation of the question has produced one-sided answers. Scholars took the present discipline of celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church as their point of departure and searched for a pattern of clerics in the unmarried state in the first centuries. This, however, they did not find -- at any rate, not for all clerics. The question that they should have asked is whether the early Church perhaps knew a different discipline of continence. This was the approach of the older German scholarship in the nineteenth century. But that was though to have been refuted scientifically, and so these contributions were consigned to oblivion. Actually, if this deficit has not become evident already, it ought to when on looks at the Church's legislation. That is to say, according to canon law an exclusively unmarried clergy, as we know it today, existed at all only after the Council of Trent (1521-1545). Even the above-mentioned Second Lateran Council, which is repeatedly cited as the beginning of the history of celibacy, did not intend to exclude married men from holy orders; it merely declared marriages contracted after the reception of orders to be invalid (canon 7). [Emphasis added.]

As I thought, mandatory celibacy has an even shorter history than many here believe.

[Polycarp]

You really need to study your history before you go hullaballoing about some supposed never-changing authority.

Heck, you don't even comprehend the difference between matter of faith and morals (doctrines and dogmas) and matters of discipline.

Christ gave His Church authority to lose and to bind. He gave it the Keys of the kingdom.

This pertains to interpretation of scripture and Tradition (doctrines and dogmas) as well as binding and loosing in matters of discipline (clerical celibacy, meat on Fridays, mass in Latin versus mass in English, etc.)

If the Pope says tomorrow there can be married priests, that is fine by me. Maybe I'll even become one, who knows?

But since it is simply a matter of discipline that can be changed, and Christ granted His Church authority of such matters, I'm certainly not going to get worked up over it.

Celibacy is eminently defendible from scripture, despite your silly protests otherwise, it is historical, despite your revisionist history otherwise, and I'll take the guidance of Christ's Church over your fallible doctrines of man any day, thank you.

[DallasMike]

...I don't understand how getting rid of celibacy is supposed to solve the pedophilia problem.

You're correct in arguing that getting rid of the celibacy rule would not end the pedophilia problem. However, many would argue (I among them) that entering a priesthood where marriage is forbidden and contact with children is encouraged provides a perfect cover for those who would rather not be married anyway. Protestant clergy, by following the scriptural principal of being allowed to marry, are in no way immune from gross immorality. However, it certainly seems that the incident of such practices amongst Protestant clergy is much less than that among Catholic clergy.

This is really a Christian issue, not just a Catholic issue. The American bishops and cardinals have done all Christians a disservice by looking the other way with pedophilic and pederastic priests. If they had fulfilled their duty 20 and 30 years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

Don't confuse me with those who would promote celibacy almost to the level of infallible doctrine. I recognize celibacy for what it is: a discipline. Should our Holy Father change or eliminate this discipline in the near term (though I think that highly unlikely), my faith would be unaffected.

It is a discipline with a long pedigree, to apostolic times. That the Church took centuries to develop mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite doesn't detract from the fact that it is a gift highly-prized from the New Testament Church, by St. Paul himself. That the Church met resistance as it moved toward making this discipline mandatory is unsurprising. I would be careful, however, to assert that the fact that many successfully resisted this discipline for so long means that it wasn't the will of the Church to bring it about. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if historians, 500 years from now, will state, "Well, even as late as the early 21st Century, the Church still hadn't completely enforced mandatory celibacy, because we know that there were many, many priests who nonetheless married."

I haven't asserted that mandatory celibacy is on par with unchanging doctrine, and I haven't asserted that mandatory celibacy will be the right thing for the Church until Jesus comes again.

All I've said is that I believe that now is a time when we really need mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite. Nonetheless, it is only a discipline, and I accept the Church's governance with regard to it.

sitetest

[sitetest]

Dear Mike,

I enjoyed your interpretation, here. However, I have a little difficulty. AppyPappy is quite insistent that clergy MUST be married. He is quite insistent that this is NOT an interpretation, but is the mandatory reading of the verse in question.

You seem pretty insistent that marriage is optional for the clergy.

I believe that you are both sincere and devout Christians, but one of you is clearly in error. Could you enlighten me as to which one of you is in error? Could you also let me know why the other is correct? And could you please cite the authority to which we can all look to be sure that we are not being led into error by one or the other of you?

Your help is appreciated.

Thanks,

sitetest

[DallasMike]

Heck, you don't even comprehend the difference between matter of faith and morals (doctrines and dogmas) and matters of discipline.

So do you consider the selling of indulgences a matter of faith and morals? Yes or no?

In case you don't know, selling indulgences offers the forgiveness of sins in exchange for money! It wasn't just the penalty of sin that was offered for sale, but the actual release of guilt. The church's official documents offered plenissima remissio peccatorum (full remission of sins) in exchange for money.

You should note that the primary reason for Luther's rebellion against Rome was the selling of indulgences, and Pope Leo responded to Luther by issuing a Papal Bull that threatened excommunication to those who failed to preach and believe that the pope had the right to sell indulgences.

If selling indulgences is a matter of faith and morals, then the doctrine of infallibility falls flat on its face, because the Catholic Church now recognizes it as wrong practice. If, however, the selling of indulgences is not considered to be a matter of faith and morals, then something is seriously amiss.

Maybe I comprehend these things more than you think.

[Polycarp]

or the one who now claims that Mary was a perpetual virgin?

Oh, I rely on the protestant reformers on that one ;-)

THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

7. THE PROTESTANT REFORMERS ON MARY

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

Martin Luther:

Mary the Mother of God

Throughout his life Luther maintained without change the historic Christian affirmation that Mary was the Mother of God:

"She is rightly called not only the mother of the man, but also the Mother of God ... It is certain that Mary is the Mother of the real and true God."¹

Perpetual Virginity

Again throughout his life Luther held that Mary's perpetual virginity was an article of faith for all Christians - and interpreted Galatians 4:4 to mean that Christ was "born of a woman" alone.

"It is an article of faith that Mary is Mother of the Lord and still a Virgin."²

The Immaculate Conception

Yet again the Immaculate Conception was a doctrine Luther defended to his death (as confirmed by Lutheran scholars like Arthur Piepkorn). Like Augustine, Luther saw an unbreakable link between Mary's divine maternity, perpetual virginity and Immaculate Conception. Although his formulation of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was not clear-cut, he held that her soul was devoid of sin from the beginning:

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."³

Assumption

Although he did not make it an article of faith, Luther said of the doctrine of the Assumption:

"There can be no doubt that the Virgin Mary is in heaven. How it happened we do not know."⁴

Honor to Mary

Despite his unremitting criticism of the traditional doctrines of Marian mediation and intercession, to the end Luther continued to proclaim that Mary should be honored. He made it a point to preach on her feast days.

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."⁵

"Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent's head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing."⁶ Luther made this statement in his last sermon at Wittenberg in January 1546.

John Calvin: It has been said that John Calvin belonged to the second generation of the Reformers and certainly his theology of double predestination governed his views on Marian and all other Christian doctrine . Although Calvin was not as profuse in his praise of Mary as Martin Luther he did not deny her perpetual virginity. The term he used most commonly in referring to Mary was "Holy Virgin".

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."⁷

"Helvidius has shown himself too ignorant, in saying that Mary had several sons, because mention is made in some passages of the brothers of Christ."⁸ Calvin translated "brothers" in this context to mean cousins or relatives.

"It cannot be denied that God in choosing and destining Mary to be the Mother of his Son, granted her the highest honor."⁹

"To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son."¹⁰

Ulrich Zwingli:

"It was given to her what belongs to no creature, that in the flesh she should bring forth the Son of God."¹¹

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."¹² Zwingli used Exodus 4:22 to defend the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."¹³

"Christ ... was born of a most undefiled Virgin."¹⁴

"It was fitting that such a holy Son should have a holy Mother."¹⁵

"The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow."¹⁶

We might wonder why the Marian affirmations of the Reformers did not survive in the teaching of their heirs - particularly the Fundamentalists. This break with the past did not come through any new discovery or revelation. The Reformers themselves (see above) took a benign even positive view of Marian doctrine - although they did reject Marian mediation because of their rejection of all human mediation. Moreover, while there were some excesses in popular Marian piety, Marian doctrine as taught in the pre-Reformation era drew its inspiration from the witness of Scripture and was rooted in Christology. The real reason for the break with the past must be attributed to the iconoclastic passion of the followers of the Reformation and the consequences of some Reformation principles. Even more influential in the break with Mary was the influence of the Enlightenment Era which essentially questioned or denied the mysteries of faith.

Unfortunately the Marian teachings and preachings of the Reformers have been "covered up" by their most zealous followers - with damaging theological and practical consequences. This "cover-up" can be detected even in Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective, an Evangelical critique of Mariology. One of the contributors admits that "Most remarkable to modern Protestants is the Reformers' almost universal acceptance of Mary's continuing virginity, and their widespread reluctance to declare Mary a sinner". He then asks if it is "a favourable providence" that kept these Marian teachings of the Reformers from being "transmitted to the Protestant churches"!¹⁷

What is interpreted as "Providence" by a Marian critic may legitimately be interpreted as a force of a very different kind by a Christian who has recognized the role of Mary in God’s plan.

NOTES

1 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], volume 24, 107.

2 Martin Luther, op. cit., Volume 11, 319-320.

3 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,

English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.

Louis], Volume 4, 694.

4 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

5 [Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works

(Translation by William J. Cole) 10, III, p.313.

6 Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St. Louis], Volume 51, 128-129.

7 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 35.

8 Bernard Leeming, "Protestants and Our Lady", Marian Library Studies, January 1967, p.9.

9 John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunshweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.

10 John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew's Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

11 Ulrich Zwingli, In Evang. Luc., Opera Completa [Zurich, 1828-42], Volume 6, I, 639

12 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 424.

13 E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid.

16 Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

17 David F. Wright, ed., Chosen by God: Mary in Evangelical Perspective (London: Marshall Pickering, 1989), 180.

                    
For technical questions concerning this website, please contact support at neweve.com

[sinkspur]

All I've said is that I believe that now is a time when we really need mandatory celibacy in the Latin rite.

The Latin Rite may need celibacy, but it has been moving away from the requirement for the better part of thirty years.

The married permanent diaconate was introduced in 1977 (interestingly, the Council of Trent advocated a reintroduction of the married diaconate), and the Anglican dispensation was approved by John Paul II in 1980 (this dispensation now includes Lutherans, Methodists, and one Baptist).

BTW, I'm glad your posting publicly. Your contributions are thoughtful, logical, and appropos.

[DallasMike]

Celibacy is eminently defendible from scripture, despite your silly protests otherwise, it is historical, despite your revisionist history otherwise, and I'll take the guidance of Christ's Church over your fallible doctrines of man any day, thank you.

Yes, celibacy for clergy is defensible on a scriptural basis. But so is marriage for clergy.

Can you be more precise about the "revisionist history" that I'm supposedly writing? Are you saying that Peter wasn't married? Are you saying that other apostles weren't married? Are you saying that celibacy for clergy dates from the early days of the church?

[Polycarp]

Maybe I comprehend these things more than you think

Maybe not. You clearly do not comprehend the issue of indulgences, but put forward an anti-Catholic caricature of same that is full of lies and half truths.

Myths About Indulgences

MYTHS ABOUT INDULGENCES

by James Akin

Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This is a common misunderstanding, one that-anti-Catholic commentators take advantage of, relying on the ignorance of both Catholics and non-Catholics. But the charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God's eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one's eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3: A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina norm 1). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented to money for the Church.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person's case.

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church's seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences.

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal around indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms- indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "[I]t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

This article was taken from the November 1994 issue of "This Rock," published by Catholic Answers, P.O. Box 17490, San Diego, CA 92177, (619) 541-1131, $24.00 per year. Used by Permission.

Copyright (c) 1996 by James Akin. All Rights Reserved.

---

---

Return to main page.

[sitetest]

Dear sinkspur,

I view the married diaconate and the allowances of specific exceptions to the general discipline of mandatory celibacy as actually strengthening the discipline.

As to all that nice stuff that you wrote after that, well... * blush *, thanks. I'm trying.

sitetest

[Polycarp]

Can you be more precise about the "revisionist history" that I'm supposedly writing

You obviously have not even read the article that began this thread...

[DallasMike]

When Fundamentalists study the writings of the Reformers on Mary, the Mother of Jesus, they will find that the Reformers accepted almost every major Marian doctrine and considered these doctrines to be both scriptural and fundamental to the historic Christian Faith.

You are correct in everything you wrote and I think that none but the most casual of scholars would disagree with you. However, Protestants don't have any doctrines claiming infallibility for its leaders. Luther brought back the teaching that selling indulgences was wrong and that salvation is obtained by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Luther was wrong in certain other matters. That's not surprising because the early reformers had a thousand years of accretions to slough off.

One of the cries of the Reformation was semper reformanda (always reforming). Doctrines and practices should be measured against scripture; those not conforming should be tossed out.

[Polycarp]

And thus protestantism is doomed to perpetual splitting, spintering, and protesting ad nauseum until the end of the age (or more likely, until it burns itself out and disappears, as all such heresies eventually do, and mainstream protestantism is indeed doing.)

Not exactly in line with Christ's prayer for Unity before the Last Supper.

[Polycarp]

Protestants don't have any doctrines claiming infallibility for its leaders.

Too bad. Scripture is quite clear about Christ granting keys and authority to lose and bind. Another proof of the anti-scriptural foundation of protestantism.

[Polycarp]

celibacy for clergy is defensible on a scriptural basis. But so is marriage for clergy.

Thank you. You've just explained the need for authority in Christianity, to interpret and define the Truth in such seemingly contradictory proof texts.

What a fool Christ must have been to NOT give such authority to His churches, to interpret scripture by the Holy Spirit with binding authority, if I am to believe protestant notions.

If you convince me Christ did not grant such authority, you prove to me Christ was a fool, not God made man, because we can obviously see the fruit of such rejection of the authority Christ willed for His Church in the thousands of warring splinter groups of protestantism. And thus the natural conclusion is agnosticism at best, atheism at worst.

[Polycarp]

'Peter' (in Greek 'petros' meaning pebble) and rock (in Greek 'petra' meaning solid rock) are confused by the RCC, I believe. In v. 17, Jesus describes how Peter's confession of faith in v. 16 was revealed to him miraculously by His Father in heaven. "On this rock..." does not imply that Peter holds the office of Pope, but it simply means that on this pebble of faith (Peter), Christ will build his church.

IQB: Why the difference between 'petros' and 'petra'

Q: When the Greek version of Matthew's Gospel translates Jesus' Aramaic statement to Peter, "You are kepha (rock) and on this kepha (rock) I will build my church" (Matt. 16:18), why does it use petros to translate the first instance and petra the second? Why doesn't it just use petros twice and say, "You are petros and upon this petros, I will build my church"?

A: There are three possibilities:

1) It is simply an accident of translation from the Aramaic which Jesus spoke, and there is no further explanation.

2) It is a stylistic variation to avoid a redundancy in terms. For example, if I was speaking to a Mr. Stone, it would sound clunky and redundant to say, "I tell you truly, you are Stone, and on this Stone I will build my organization." It would sound better (less redundant) to say, "I tell you truly, you are Mr. Stone, and on this Rock I will build my organization." We regularly use such stylistic variation in English to avoid redundant language (that is the whole reason for pronouns - I, me, my, he, him, his, she, her, hers -- to avoid endlessly repeating the same nouns over and over again), and stylistic variation is used in other languages as well, Greek included. It makes things sound better and smoother.

3) Even if there were, as Fundamentalists often claim, a difference between the meanings of petros and petra, one meaning "small stone" and the other "large rock" (and all the linguistic evidence is against there being this distinction in first century Greek, as even Protestant scholars like D. A. Carson admit; see his commentary on Matthew in the Expositor's Bible Commentary, published by Zondervan Press) then the second would simply be an intensifier of the first. Thus Jesus' statement would be read synthetically (rather than antithetically) to mean, "You may appear to be a small stone, Peter, but on the large rock which you really are, I will build my Church."

Personally, in view of the linguistic evidence showing that petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek, I incline toward the second view, but all three are possible.

Previous Question

Home | About | Search | Questions | Today's Q | Files | Offsite | E-Books | Catechism | Links | E-Mail

All material copyright © 1997 by James Akin unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.

[Polycarp]

The differences between chastity and celibacy are poorly understood by most people. Celibacy is the state of not being married, so a vow of celibacy is a promise not to enter into marriage but instead to consecrate one's life to service (in other words, "married to God"). Chastity, a virtue expected of all Christians, is the state of sexual purity; for a vowed celibate, or for the single person, chastity means the avoidance of sex. For the married person, chastity means the practice of sex only with the spouse.