Dear runner,

I'm glad that you clarified the point you
were making. I misunderstand you.

And I'm glad that you agree -
you can't generalize about people.
There are exceptions to every rule.

The argument for celibacy of Roman Catholic clergy is clearly not a Biblical one.

Nothing in the New Testament teaches that priests ought to be celibate. In fact, St Paul taught (1 Timothy 3:2, 12 Titus 1:6) that a bishop or a deacon should be "the husband of one wife". This position lasted down to about the time of the Council of Nicaea.

The earliest enactment on celibacy is from the Council of Elvira (295-302). If bishops, priests and deacons were already married and continued to live with their wives they were sacked. So much for the sanctity of marriage!

At the close of the fourth century, married clergy were still to be found, so new laws were passed. E.g. in 386 Pope Siricus forbade priests and deacons from having sex with their wives. Although by the time of Pope Leo 1 (440-61) the law of celibacy was generally recognised in the Western Church, there were continuing problems in reality e.g. in England down to the 12th century.

In the Eastern Church (Greek/Russian/Armenian etc) the laws of celibacy are complex but in general married men may become priests and retain their wife, but single men must not marry after ordination.

The Church's arguments for celibacy seem to amount to these:

- Unmarried men make better servants of God because, in remaining celibate, they demonstrate their devotion and self-discipline.

- Because marriage is holy, priests might give their first thoughts to their wife and children and not to the service of God. It's a form of sacrifice in the name of a higher duty than even the duty to reproduce God's creatures.

So, since celibacy is not a matter of faith but a matter of utilitarian opinion, therefore it's a matter which can be tested by evidence.

The fact that over 100 Catholic employees have been found guilty of sexual crimes in Australian courts in the last few decades could be evidence that the unintended consequences of the policy of celibacy indicate that the policy is failing and should be reviewed as it was in the 4th Century

Foxy,

I agree with Veronika to a point that continence is the theologically important thing but I support a general disciplinary rule of prohibiting marriage in most cases as there were serious problems enforcing continence prior to the introduction of the current disciplinary rule.

“First was they had to have a single-hearted devotion to Christ and giving themselves entirely to God.”

I believe this issue is fundamental. The Catholic belief is that people are free to marry or not marry but celibacy is a job requirement for being a priest. We believe that some people choose to enter priesthood including taking on the celibacy (which is well publicized in this religion) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven if they can take it. I believe that from the time of making a commitment to enter priesthood (ie. entering seminary) to being ordained takes about 7 years. Those that can take it should know who they are by then. Those who can’t live their life like a eunuch should realize it by then and not get ordained.

Historically there have been difficulties in enforcing continence with married priests and in the 11th century the celibacy thing was introduced as a disciplinary measure after centuries of problems enforcing continence on married men. This was clear as early as 306AD in some places (Elvira wasn’t an ecumenical council). We know that Canon 33 from the Council of Elvira stated:

“We have decreed a general prohibition for married bishops, priests, and deacons or also for all clerics who have been appointed to ministry: they must not come together with their wives and they must not beget children. Whosoever shall do the same shall be expelled from the ranks of clergy.”

Later in the 4th Century documentary evidence demonstrates the problem throughout the Church as Popes Damasus and Siricius needed to teach that higher clerics and their wives must live in perfect continence.

Subsequent to the 11th century it has obviously been hard enough ensuring that priests comply with the current obligation let alone enforcing marital continence.

CONT

Much earlier a Catholic Bishop laid down a number of requirements for qualifying as a Bishop. The standards were high including being temperate, self controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not being a recent convert, gentle etc. This included a prohibition on ordaining men who remarried into that role. Some believe that the reason for this curious prohibition was that remarried men have virtually proven themselves incapable of being continent and thus would have difficulty doing so for the sake of the Kingdom.

“Secondly, Celibate priests had the ability to give themselves completely to parishners.” / ...
a married person had a conflict of interest between religious commitments and familial responsibilities.”

Priests are effectively married to the Church. They do occupy a rather unique role and are continually on call. The sacramental nature of the denomination puts them in that situation. They don’t just say Mass and attend to normal parish duties. They also need to get up at 2am and rush off urgently to administer last rites when required. For example, as a parent I find it hard to imagine rushing out after your babies were awoken by the phone call and your tired partner is complaining about being left in the middle of the night with two screaming babies who will keep each other awake if kept together but both need attention.

We believe that it is better that priests are celibate because unmarried men can focus on the things of the Lord while married men are anxious about pleasing their wife and their focus is thus divided. Accordingly, prohibiting marriage is the default position. However this is not a one size fits all situation as Robert pointed out and exceptions are made if they are clearly warranted. The flip side is the belief that if someone is inclined to burn in lust they are considered to be better off not entering the priesthood as they would be better off married and having sex.

I wasn’t going to bother with posting on this thread, as I believe the question of whether priests be permitted to marry is becoming increasingly rhetorical rather than debatable. Anyone who serves the public should be a part of their community rather than APART from it, and that includes the clergy.

However, MJPB’s justification for a celibate priesthood has not been fully thought through. He claims:

“Priests are effectively married to the Church. They do occupy a rather unique role and are continually on call. The sacramental nature of the denomination puts them in that situation......

…..They also need to get up at 2am and rush off urgently to administer last rites when required. For example, as a parent I find it hard to imagine rushing out after your babies were awoken by the phone call and your tired partner is complaining about being left in the middle of the night with two screaming babies who will keep each other awake if kept together but both need attention.”

Using M’s logic that means the following professions should be celibate:

Doctors
Nurses
Paramedics
Fire Fighters
Police
Military
And any other person who job requires being on-call.

Well, I guess that would take care of over-population

Celibacy does not bestow any particular virtue on a person, nor does it prevent anyone from serving whatever religion they believe in. It is an anachronism from a time where such illusory pretensions fooled most of the people most of the time.

Cheers

"Celibacy does not bestow any particular virtue on a person, nor does it prevent anyone from serving whatever religion they believe in. It is an anachronism from a time where such illusory pretensions fooled most of the people most of the time."

Touche Fractelle