2018-08-06T11:24:16-04:00

“Grubb” is a friendly Baptist who frequents my blog. His words will be in blue. My older cited words will be in green.
* * * * *

Now, if an institution simply states that “we want our priests to be drawn almost exclusively from that class of men who are called by God to be single, so that they can give undistracted devotion to the Lord [1 Cor 7:35],” then your objection is irrelevant, as the Church is not forcing anyone to do anything, but simply holding that its priests are required to be from this class of those already called in such a manner by God.

In doing this, the RCC is presuming that only celibate people (except for .001%) are called to be priests. 

I don’t believe that the Eastern Catholic portion of Catholicism makes up a mere .001% of the whole. Moreover, since we accept the legitimate ordination of Orthodox priests, we clearly acknowledge that there is such a thing as a married priest (and that celibacy is not absolutely fundamental to the definition of priest). But the prevailing tradition in Catholicism is that, ideally, priests ought to be celibate, for the sake of a more undistracted devotion to the Lord and their flocks.

Either that, or they’re intentionally preventing some who have been called by God to the priesthood from fulfilling their calling. 

Not at all. Like I’ve always said: such a person is free to become a priest in the eastern Rites of Catholicism, or to become Orthodox.

The first option isn’t Biblical as Ken [Temple] has pointed out and you seemed to agree; 

We’re not preventing anyone from doing anything. It’s as if you are arguing that the military “prevents” 80-year-old women from serving in military combat, or that Major League baseball “discriminates” against myopic individuals who wish to become umpires. The fallacy here lies in your thinking, because you can’t prove that our position on this is contrary to any biblical teaching.

and the second option goes against a God-given calling. Neither of these options seems desirable.

When you fallaciously present the options in these terms, of course it is “undesirable.” But the fallacy lies in your false premises.

Every institution has a right to determine its internal rules of discipline and requirements for admission to its offices. This is self-evident.

God has given us all kinds of freedoms, but that doesn’t mean we should exercise every one of them. 

That’s correct. Sex is a wonderful freedom within the moral bounds of marriage, and there is nothing wrong with it there, but some men can willingly choose to sacrifice that freedom for the love of God, to be married to Him (Matthew 19:12).

God has given us the freedom to sin, but to embrace that freedom is unwise and hurtful. We have the freedom to make rules contrary to scripture and say the right to do so is “self-evident”, but exercising this freedom is both unwise and hurtful to the RCC.

You haven’t shown to the slightest degree that our rule of celibacy is contrary to Scripture. But we have repeatedly shown that it perfectly squares with Scripture.

As for pastors having rebellious children, my pastor has five and none of them are rebellious (the oldest is 19, the youngest is 7). 

This “PK” and “MK” thing will always necessarily be based on anecdotal evidence. But there can be trends observed. One can always produce exceptions to the rule, as with (I am presuming) your pastor. But one thing we can all agree on, I think, is that if a pastor’s job requires him to often be out of his home in hours beyond the usual daytime work hours, this will almost certainly have an adverse effect on his family, because everyone knows that less time with wives and children is not a good thing, if it is ongoing. We need not argue that.

Jethro showed leaders how to balance church life with family life when he saw Moses wearing himself out being judge over everything. 

This doesn’t support your case. Moses was doing everything, so Jethro counseled him to divide the labor up a bit. But this usually doesn’t happen with pastors. Sure they have assistants and so forth, but if they are unpaid, they do relatively little and the lion’s share of the work falls back on the pastor. If the assistant pastors or elders are paid, that is only possible if the congregation is quite large, so that funds are available, in which case the labor remains almost what it was, with each one having to deal with so many congregants. It remains, therefore, difficult for the pastor to juggle family responsibilities with pastoral ones.

The same principle applies (analogously) to much of modern-day working conditions. More and more, workers are required to either relocate (which disrupts extended family and friendship ties) or to take frequent business trips (which disrupt nuclear family life and places an undue burden on both spouses). Modern labor and working and business practices run contrary to traditional family solidarity, just as the excessive burdens and responsibilities of a married priest or pastor could and usually does.

Traditionally, families worked together (as on a farm), or the father was at least near the home, working on some trade or craft. After the Industrial Revolution, men started traveling away from home to their jobs, and the trends have continued to be almost consistently hostile to healthy, thriving marriages and family life. I think this has some part in the breakdown of family life we see today (along with many other factors; especially the Sexual Revolution).

Excessive materialism or economic mismanagement (of the larger societies and/or of individual families) have now led, oftentimes, to both parents working away from home, with infants being raised by relatively emotionally unattached daycare workers rather than their own parents, for much of the day. All of these things (including married pastors) mitigate against the ideal, most healthy family life.

He taught Moses to set up a hierarchy, and Paul confirmed that when teaching Timothy. My pastor has excellent elders who have excellent deacons, and this all makes the pastor’s job so much easier. 

If indeed they allow the pastor to be less busy after “working hours,” then this is a good solution which could work in some cases. But that still wouldn’t by any means “prove” that celibacy of the clergy is not also a worthwhile or preferable option to solve the same problems of time management and divided allegiance between flock and family.

In other words, I could argue that this is one solution to the problem, and the Catholic celibate clergy is another, and that you have no grounds to say that the Catholic Church must choose either your solution, or to combine both methods, rather than to concentrate on one (with an allowance of or preference towards the other in portions of the Church). If 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19 were not in the Bible, your case would be far stronger, but since they are, you are unable to rule out our approach and discipline, let alone deem it “unbiblical.”

Yes, the stereotype of rebellious pastor’s kids exists for a reason, but I believe the reason is that many pastors try to do too much rather than allow capable elders and deacons to do their jobs.

One of the reasons for that is that Protestantism (and Catholicism also; it’s a general human tendency) tends to place too much burden on the pastor or priest and make him the guy who does all the “spiritual” work while the congregants and laypeople just sit there and benefit from that, rather than go out and participate in evangelism and charity and other necessary and worthy Christian endeavors.

Since pastors and priests are paid to do what they do, the ones who are unpaid tend to think that they don’t have to do anything, or very little of “Christian” work. This is part and parcel of the mentality of western culture that the only worthwhile work is that which is remunerated (hence, the looking down upon of, for example, housewives or home-schooling mothers, because they don’t get paid; one often hears women say, “I’m just a housewife . . .”, as if they should be ashamed of the most important work in the world: raising and discipling children). All this being the case, the “PK” phenomenon will continue to manifest itself, whereas all that is eliminated with a celibate priest or pastor.

I agree with Ken’s final comments. Celibacy is preferable if one is called to remain celibate, 

Then you concede virtually all of the argument to us. We want our clergy to come mostly from the group of people who are called by God to be celibate.

but I also believe God calls many who are married to the “priesthood” (He certainly did in the Old Testament). 

And he certainly does today: in the Eastern Catholic rites and in Orthodoxy. The question as to what ordination itself means is a different topic that I won’t dive into at this juncture.

That’s as biblical as celibacy, but to choose celibacy as the only way to the priesthood (with almost no exceptions) is unbiblical. 

I don’t see how. Neither you nor your friend Ken (or anyone else) has given any biblical verse which precludes a celibate priesthood. All you can do is rail against abuses of the system, as if that proves that the system itself is intrinsically null and void and “unbiblical.” This is standard Protestant polemical practice, but that doesn’t make it valid or legitimate as an argument, either biblically or logically.

Paul didn’t do it, 

Paul made no argument forbidding a celibate clergy. On the contrary, he wrote, “I wish that all were as I myself am” (1 Cor 7:7) and “It is well for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Cor 7:1) and “it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Cor 7:8) and “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage” (1 Cor 7:27; cf. 1 Cor 7:28-29,32-35,40). The overall thrust of his teaching favors the superiority of singleness as a state to wholeheartedly serve God without having the stress of “worldly troubles” (7:28) or “worldly affairs” (7:33) or “anxieties” (7:32) and “interests” which are “divided” (7:34).

So the Catholic Church (western, Latin rites) adopts this teaching of Paul as the ideal for its priests. Nothing “unbiblical” in that in the slightest . . . Paul also writes many times that we ought to “imitate” him. So how is it “unbiblical” (let alone “forbidden” in some mythical Bible passage) for the Catholic Church to hold that most of its priests should imitate the Apostle Paul and follow his advice for the ideal, highest, most self-sacrificing level of service to the Lord and others?

Jesus didn’t do it, 

Jesus said, “there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Matthew 19:12). Obviously, many Protestants cannot “receive” this inspired biblical teaching. We Catholics simply decided to select most of our priests from this class that was called by God to celibacy, and who, therefore, willingly renounced (for the sake of the kingdom and undistracted devotion) otherwise good married sexuality.

Peter didn’t do it, John didn’t do it, and none of the other Bible writers (who were writing God’s words) did it. If they didn’t, why would the RCC presume it knows better?

Peter and John taught neither that all priests should be married or that all should be single. Therefore, it is permissible to take a position that priests should be a class of men particularly devoted to the Lord and their flocks, to such a sublime degree that marriage is precluded, because it would divide that devotion, as Paul taught.

The Apostle Paul said, “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” (I Tim 4:1-3)

Dave said the RCC simply draws its priests from the pool of people who have the calling of celibacy. That point is definitely contendable; how many priests would have gotten married if it was acceptable? 

This is an excellent, indeed quintessential example of the fallacies and lousy reasoning under consideration. I’m delighted that you wrote this. Here is how the above reasoning fails:

1. The RCC simply draws its priests from the pool of people who have the calling of celibacy.

2. How many priests would have gotten married if it was acceptable?

3. Hidden premise of #2: “many priests who became priests with the understanding that celibacy was a requirement and that they were called by God to celibacy were not in fact so called, because they would have gotten married if they could have.”

4. Therefore, there should be no celibate clergy.

The fallacy lies precisely in the gap between #2 (with its underlying premise #3) and #4: #1 cannot be contended against on consistently logical, biblical grounds. So what you do is try to chip away at its legitimacy by using the standard contra-Catholic Protestant polemical technique of railing against abuses and “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”:

1. Catholic priests are supposed to be from the class of people called by God to be celibate (self-understanding and institutional understanding of the ideal, most heroic nature of the priesthood).

2. But some priests entered into the celibate priesthood without this calling to celibacy.

3. Therefore, #1 is null and void.


Of course, #3 doesn’t follow as a “conclusion” at all. #2 does not cast any doubt on #1: not in the slightest. The fact that there exist some persons who abuse the understood system for their own ends, does not invalidate either the system or the biblical and spiritual rationale behind it. All it shows is that there are such unscrupulous or confused persons, or that there has been corruption in the screening process (as indeed there has been in many instances). No one claimed that either people or the Catholic promulgation of its teachings were perfect. But that casts no doubt on the principle itself; thoroughly grounded in the Bible, Tradition, and practical spiritual wisdom of 2000 years of Christianity.

Maybe not all, but definitely some would have. We know this is true, because some have left the priesthood in order to get married.

Sure, but that is irrelevant as a factor in critiquing the system, as just shown. By this “reasoning,” I could just as well argue that Protestantism is disproven because thousands (like myself) have connverted to Catholicism. That proves nothing in and of itself; one has to make the case against Protestantism (or Catholicism, on the flip side) on other grounds besides simply stating that “thousands have found it wanting and have left.”

Dave also said that the RCC doesn’t forbid anyone to get married, but in a sense they really do. If a RC priest wants to get married, he must choose between the priesthood and marriage. 

That’s not true. He can become ordained as a married man in the Eastern Rites. At best, you could only say that he must choose between different liturgies. But since they are all fully Catholic, he doesn’t have to choose between the priesthood and marriage.

And if he chooses to remain a priest, he’s forbidden to get married even though he may want to.

If he wants to get married, then he obviously didn’t belong to a class of men who are supposed to be called to celibacy by God (or is in a temporary struggle of accepting his call, etc.). Again, that casts into doubt either his own discernment or the screening process by which he became a (celibate) priest, not priestly celibacy itself.

They can play word games and play around with semantics, but the simple truth is men and women are forbidden to get married if they want to be a RC priest or Nun 

But that is not adding anything, because you are saying, “If a person is called by God to be celibate, then they are ‘forbidden’ to marry.” Well, yes, in a sense this is true, but it is a truism: the second clause of the second contains nothing that is not already implied in the first part. Celibacy entails no marriage. If that is deemed as “prohibition” or “forbidding” then so be it. But it forms no objection to the thing itself.

We don’t normally talk that way about anything else. For example, we don’t say that “Michael Jordan was forbidden to be a football player because God gave him the extraordinary talents he had to become the greatest basketball player of all time.” I don’t say that “I was forbidden to be celibate because I got married.” Such statements are non sequiturs. They may work on a polemical, slogan-like, propagandistic level, but not on a logical, real life level. Jordan was “called” to be a basketball player; I was called to be married. Each person is to follow his own calling (1 Cor 7:7b,17,20,24,38 ). If they mess up in this on an individual level, that doesn’t make the callings themselves invalid.

and are forbidden to get married if they’re already a RC priest or Nun.

Yes; if they had not that calling, then they had no business voluntarily entering into such a life. If I want to be a composer, I have to have the ability to understand and compose music. If I cannot do the latter, I have no business claiming to be a “composer.” But just because I can’t do this, doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a composer, or that those who have no ability to compose should enter into that class and be called “composers” alongside the others who truly are called, based on talent from God and their own cooperation in cultivating their gift.

If a woman wants to get married, she is obviously not a nun, in the commonly-understood sense of the word. So, then, if she is a nun, she shouldn’t or wouldn’t want to get married; otherwise she has no business being there (just like Maria von Trapp in The Sound of Music). That’s why these callings have long discerning and “trial” periods so the person can be absolutely sure of their calling. But there are things such as Third-Order Franciscans, where married or lay persons can participate in the monastic life to some extent.

If a man is called to the priesthood and celibacy, the RCC acknowledges he has a calling to the priesthood (I know there are more requirements than that), but if his calling to celibacy was only for a season, the RCC then says his calling to the priesthood was only temporary too. 

That’s correct. The gift of celibacy is a lifelong calling. Temporary celibacy is more or less the single state of one who will eventually be married, or abstentions in times of illness or necessary separation, etc. That’s not a calling’ rather it is a difficult situation which goes against one’s calling; therefore it is heroic to some degree if carried out.

They force him to either give up his calling to the priesthood or to remain celibate. So either they’re forbidding him to get married, or they’re forbidding him from fulfilling his calling to the priesthood. Which is it?

This forms no argument whatsoever against the celibate priesthood. All it shows is that the person was incorrect in his discernment of his calling.

I agree it’s better to stay single for the reasons Jesus and Paul mentioned, but I also agree it’s better to get married than burn with lust as Paul stated.

Of course; if you are called to be married. If you are not, then you are the sort of person whom the Catholic Church will choose to become one of its priests in the western, Latin rites.

***

It’s true, I attend a Southern Baptist church and agree with most of their theology; but I believe when we call ourselves anything but Christian, we’re getting away from Christianity. When I was RC, I called myself a Christian, and when I left the RCC, I still called/call myself a Christian. You may call me Baptist (and I won’t mind too much), but I will always call myself a Christian. Just wanted to state my position on that.

* * * * *

We’re not preventing anyone from doing anything. It’s as if you are arguing that the military “prevents” 80-year-old women from serving in military combat

The military DOES prevent 80 year old women from serving .

Exactly. Every institution has rules for admission into its offices. 80-year old women can’t serve in combat. This is common sense; no one would dispute its wisdom. This was an exaggerated comparison to make a point. The Catholic Church simply says that priests in its Latin Rite must be celibate. That doesn’t amount to preventing anyone from getting married. But one thing excludes another. If one wants to get married, one cannot be a priest in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Life is like that.

The fallacy here lies in your thinking, because you can’t prove that our position on this is contrary to any biblical teaching.

I quoted I Tim 4:1-5, “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.”

But we’re not forbidding anyone to marry! This is what you don’t get. Anyone can get married if they like. The Church has no power (in a legal sense of compulsion) to forbid any individual from getting married if they feel they should get married. But such a person would obviously not be called by God to be celibate. This passage was referring to sects like the Gnostics who didn’t like marriage at all, and so prohibited it. It doesn’t rule out such a thing as a voluntarily celibate priest; so this is irrelevant to the discussion.

For instance, Eerdmans Bible Commentary states, regarding this passage: “The assertions of these verses are significant when studied in relation to the Gnostic and dualistic views that matter is evil and not created by God.” Bingo!

Protestant Bible scholar James D. G. Dunn (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament, London: SCM Press, 2nd edition, 1990, 21-282) asserts that Paul was often contending against “a kind of Jewish Christian gnosis”; a “syncretistic teaching” which incorporated “characteristically gnostic ideas.” He gives a host of passages where Paul was dealing with this false teaching, devoting seven pages to this problem (e.g., in the pastoral epistles alone: 1 Tim 1:3 f., 1:19 f., 4:3,7, 6:20; 2 Tim 2:16 f., 3:5; Titus 1:13 f., 3:9 f.).

You may dislike and reject a lot of things about Catholicism, but to my knowledge you have not criticized us as pseudo-Gnostic anti-materialists. If not, then using this passage completely misses the mark because it attacks a position which is not at all our own.

When you fallaciously present the options in these terms, of course it is “undesirable.” But the fallacy lies in your false premises.

I’m not fallaciously presenting the options. I’m specifically addressing people who would like to remain Roman Catholic and become a married priest. 

That’s as senseless as saying that “I want to remain Orthodox and also believe in the supreme headship of the pope and include the filioque in the creed.” Or it’s like asserting, “I am a good Calvinist but I reject four parts of TULIP.” The two don’t go together. The individual does not determine the rules of the institution. He either accepts those or he does not. But to sit there and say, “I want thus and so and if I don’t get it in this particular community, then I will complain about how unfair and unjust it is!” is nonsense. That’s why I made my misunderstood remark about, “if they insist on getting married, then they can be Orthodox.”

What I was driving at is that there are groups out there who will conform with what such a person insists upon in their own case. It was a protest against individuals who think their views are supreme no matter what the Church they attend think. This is why they stay somewhere and try to change or subvert the teaching of the group, rather than admit that it will not be changed in the near future (priestly celibacy [in the Latin, western Rite] actually could change, unlike dogma – something like papal infallibility — , but it is exceedingly unlikely, because it is an 800-year disciplinary practice).

Such an attitude is almost of the essence of theological liberalism: the insistence upon getting one’s own way, and to Hades with the prevailing traditions and teachings of the group one is trying so vigorously to change (read, “corrupt” in most instances). It stinks to high heaven. So there is a sense in which one wants to exclaim, “if you don’t like what we teach, stop your incessant bellyaching and go somewhere else.” It’s a matter of intellectual honesty. When I no longer believed in the central Protestant distinctives, I was honest enough to convert to Catholicism, rather than stay and try to “Catholicize” Protestantism.

Maybe I didn’t state this clearly up front, but that’s what I’m addressing. And for anyone who fits into this category, the RCC forbids them to get married or to fulfill their calling. Can a man who wants to be a married priest in the RCC do so without exceptional circumstances?

No; unless he is Eastern Catholic. Are you saying that an institution has no inherent right to determine its own rules and qualifications?

That’s correct. Sex is a wonderful freedom within the moral bounds of marriage, and there is nothing wrong with it there, but some men can willingly choose to sacrifice that freedom for the love of God, to be married to Him (Matthew 19:12).

Agreed. But that’s different than forbidding one to be a married priest.

So you’re saying that Catholicism must allow married priests and can’t possibly take a view that they want priests to be from that class of celibates who are devoted to the Lord with far less distractions (as Paul teaches), or those who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom, as our Lord Jesus teaches? It’s absolutely forbidden for us to apply that particular Pauline recommendation? It’s impossible for us to have priests imitate the celibacy of Jesus and Paul and many other disciples? What Bible verse do you suggest to support that contention? We’ve already seen how you have misused one above, which had nothing to do with our topic.

You haven’t shown to the slightest degree that our rule of celibacy is contrary to Scripture. But we have repeatedly shown that it perfectly squares with Scripture.

I’ve shown you I Tim 4:1-5, but you ignored it. 

I did because it had nothing to do with the subject. But I proved above that it didn’t. Now what will you do with it; just claim that the Bible scholars are wrong about it, and you are right?

I’ll show you I Tim 3 below; will you ignore it as well?

No; I’ll show that it doesn’t support your contention, either.

This doesn’t support your case. Moses was doing everything, so Jethro counseled him to divide the labor up a bit. But this usually doesn’t happen with pastors.

But it should; and when it does (as in my church) Pastor’s kids turn out great.

In some cases, yes, if the labor is truly split up so that the pastor isn’t run ragged with work and stress. But that doesn’t disprove the fact that a celibate priest or pastor can devote himself wholly to God and his flock. It is still the ideal.

Sure they have assistants and so forth, but if they are unpaid, they do relatively little and the lion’s share of the work falls back on the pastor. If the assistant pastors or elders are paid, that is only possible if the congregation is quite large, so that funds are available, in which case the labor remains almost what it was, with each one having to deal with so many congregants. It remains, therefore, difficult for the pastor to juggle family responsibilities with pastoral ones.

When my church was very small and only had one paid pastor, the elders and other men of the church stepped up and served so our pastor didn’t get worn out. That’s part of why he’s still there 14 years later even though the average Protestant church’s pastor moves on after three years.

He taught Moses to set up a hierarchy, and Paul confirmed that when teaching Timothy. My pastor has excellent elders who have excellent deacons, and this all makes the pastor’s job so much easier.

This is well and good, but again, it doesn’t prove that unmarried pastors and priests cannot be singularly devoted, as Paul teaches. We want those types of men: the heroic types.

If indeed they allow the pastor to be less busy after “working hours,” then this is a good solution which could work in some cases. But that still wouldn’t by any means “prove” that celibacy of the clergy is not also a worthwhile or preferable option to solve the same problems of time management and divided allegience between flock and family.

I don’t disagree that a celibate pastor can be the better solution, as he can devote more time and energy without taking away from his family.

Case closed then! All you can say is that the Catholic Church has no right to make this the binding rule for all her priests in the Latin Rite. But since you have no Bible verse which teaches this, your case collapses. Nor is there any verse which requires all pastors and priests to be married (which seems to be almost the unspoken rule among Protestants). Failing that, it is perfectly permissible for the Catholic Church to make celibacy a rule.

In other words, I could argue that this is one solution to the problem, and the Catholic celibate clergy is another, and that you have no grounds to say that the Catholic Church must choose either your solution, or to combine both methods, rather than to concentrate on one (with an allowance of or preference towards the other in portions of the Church). If 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 19 were not in the Bible, your case would be far stronger, but since they are, you are unable to rule out our approach and discipline, let alone deem it “unbiblical.”

And if I Tim 4:1-5 and all the references in Timothy to elders and bishops (pastors/priests) being men of but one wife and having their family under control weren’t in the Bible, your case would be much stronger.

These men weren’t required to be married. This is the point. Paul is teaching that if such men were married, they should only have one wife (some think this means that if their wife dies, they shouldn’t remarry), and if such men have a family, it should be controlled. None of that rules out the celibacy requirement. Obviously, if Paul wished that all were like himself, then making this a rule could not be contrary to his teaching or will. He didn’t say, “I wish all priests/pastors were married, unlike myself,” did he? Therefore, there is no one requirement taught in the Bible. Marriage is permissible, and so is celibacy, but the latter is taught as preferable for those engaged in spiritual work, so we follow that strain of thought.

One of the reasons for that is that Protestantism (and Catholicism also; it’s a general human tendency) tends to place too much burden on the pastor or priest and make him the guy who does all the “spiritual” work while the congregants and laypeople just sit there and benefit from that, rather than go out and participate in evangelism and charity and other necessary and worthy Christian endeavors.

Since pastors and priests are paid to do what they do, the ones who are unpaid tend to think that they don’t have to do anything, or very little of “Christian” work. … All this being the case, the “PK” phenomenon will continue to manifest itself, whereas all that is eliminated with a celibate priest or pastor.

I agree completely with you on this (hey, we finally agree ). Pastors and priests who do everything rob the church body of the glory of serving God selflessly. They ruin the patriarchy of the church, because all the men think, “No need to do Bible study with my children, the paid youth pastor or Sunday school teacher will do it”, or “No need for me to cut the grass or clean the toilets at church, the pastor or his wife will do it (or the priest and the nuns will do it).” While celibate priests may avoid having rebellious children, he may actually be increasing the problem of doing too much. Since the celibate priest has more time and does more, he may rob the Body of serving in those areas when he does it all himself; whereas a good pastor will be forced to delegate that work in order to spend time with his family. Paul said, “Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. If the foot should say, ‘Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,’ it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body.” (I Cor 12:14-15) Should the “head” be doing the walking? No, the head should be doing the thinking and leading and let the feet do the walking. But if a celibate priest does a lot of the work the other parts of the Body should do, he’s robbing them of their purpose and glory even though he’s also getting all the “head” stuff done between 9 and 5.

I agree, too, and it is nice for a change. I am involved in lay ministry myself. The trouble is, lots of folks on your side claim that my work is illegitimate, and/or that it is specifically impermissible within a Catholic framework. Of course, that is not true, as I proved recently, by citing popes. So I am trying to do some of the work that tended to be left almost exclusively to priests and nuns in the past, while meeting opposition from some Catholics and Protestants alike. This proves that the severe clergy/laity dichotomy is very much with us (in both camps) and a continuing problem to overcome.

I agree with Ken’s final comments. Celibacy is preferable if one is called to remain celibate,

Then you concede virtually all of the argument to us. We want our clergy to come mostly from the group of people who are called by God to be celibate.

Not so, I believe a married priest is preferable to a celibate priest, IF the priest isn’t called to be celibate. 

But that is a truism, and adds nothing to the discussion whatsoever. Of course one who isn’t called to be celibate should get married, but that is beside the point.

But the RCC’s position (not the EO church’s position) is that if you aren’t called to be celibate, you’re not called to be a priest in our church. You can go to one of the other “branches”, but not here.

Eastern Catholicism is not a “branch” of the Catholic Church, but fully as Catholic as the Latin, Western Rite. That’s why it is better to call us the Catholic Church, rather than Roman Catholic, because you are , in effect, excluding the Eastern Catholics, as if they aren’t part of the Church.

I don’t see how. Neither you nor your friend Ken (or anyone else) has given any biblical verse which precludes a celibate priesthood. All you can do is rail against abuses of the system, as if that proves that the system itself is intrinsically null and void and “unbiblical.” This is standard Protestant polemical practice, but that doesn’t make it valid or legitimate as an argument, either biblically or logically.

I Tim 4:3, 

That’s already been dealt with and disposed of as any kind of support for your argument.

I Tim 3:2a “Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife,” 

As I mentioned with regard to 1 Tim 4:3, this has more to do with not remarrying, or not committing polygamy. Hence, Eerdmans Bible Commentary:

‘Married only once’ seems more likely to be the meaning here than the husband of one wife, i.e., not practising polygamy. Cf. 5:9. It doubtless means a man free, as many converts to the faith were not, from all unsatisfactory sexual history or associations.

So I would argue that Paul is thinking more of what to avoid (sexual sin) rather than what to positively do (marriage as absolute requirement). He is saying, in effect, I believe, “married bishops are permitted, provided that they don’t remarry or have more than one wife.” But note the difference between the following two propositions:

1. Married bishops are permitted.
2. All bishops must be married [or] one is prohibited from requiring celibacy.

It is not by any means certain that this verse or the others you cite are asserting #2. They certainly are allowing #1 (which is why the Catholic Church has acknowledged married priests and bishops in the past and in the Eastern Rites presently). You keep citing Eastern Orthodoxy against our rule. Yet the Orthodox require single bishops. So even they are not following this advice (1 Tim 3:2, regarding bishops) strictly, in the sense of requirement. If it is an absolute thing: “you can never have a rule requiring celibacy,” then they have violated it in the case of bishops, just as we supposedly have for priests and bishops (and popes). An Orthodox expert on About.com [link now defunct] answered a similar question in much the same way I have:

Question

In 1 Timothy 3:1-8 St Paul states that a bishop must be blameless, the HUSBAND of one WIFE. How can the Orthodox faith go against scripture and make a law that bishops cannot be married? I know the reason behind the decision, their children inheriting the land of the Church, but that does not justify going against accepted scripture. Please explain this to me.

Answer

In the first place, the Scriptures to not determine Church law, they record some aspects of it. The Church predates the Christian Canon of Scripture. The authority of the Scriptures rests in the Church – not the other way around.

In the second place, I think the inheritence thing is a red herring. The decision to limit the Episcopacy to celibate men was based more on their position as Target#1 during times of persecution. Read the lives of the early Bishops (2nd-4th cent.) and see how many of them died of natural causes. There were times when accepting election to the Episcopacy was a virtual suicide mission.

Later, when the Church decided to limit the number of Bishops, rather than have a Bishop over every local congregation, the job became too much to impose on a family man. And that’s about where we are today.

My own Bishop is 80 years old, looks after a diocese which covers 13 states across the south and south east U.S., and lives out of a suitcase most of the year.

But we do have an early tradition of a married Episcopacy, and could return to that practice if the Church deemed it wise to do so.

The old, well-known Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary (from 1864) is interesting here. First it claims with the obligatory polemic against Catholicism, that the passage is “confuting the celibacy of Rome’s priesthood.” But it goes on to say that the meaning “must” be that “candidates for the episcopate or presbytery were better to have been married only once.” Thus, Paul is dealing primarily with the issue of remarriage as a disqualifier, rather than marriage as a necessary qualifier for the episcopate.

This verse is compared to 1 Tim 5:9: “wife of one husband” (referring to widows). Then this commentary adds: “Hence the stress that is laid in the context on the repute in which the candidate for orders is held among those over whom he is to preside (Titus 1:16).” It continues a bit later: “It is implied here also, that he who has a wife and virtuous family, is to be preferred to a bachelor . . .”

First of all, note that celibate priests/pastors are not ruled out (they are only said to be less preferred). Yet in any event, one must compare Scripture with Scripture. This is the same Paul writing, who stated in 1 Corinthians 7:7: “I wish that all were as myself am” and “the unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided” (7:32-34). So we prefer priests whose interests aren’t divided. This is straight Pauline teaching. It’s great advice, so we heed it.

He can’t be saying two things at once: 1) marriage is preferable (1 Tim 3:2), and 2) celibacy is preferable (1 Cor 7:7,32-34). It doesn’t make sense for him to be teaching that celibacy is preferable for all men except those who are ordained, in which case marriage is to be preferred. Therefore, the most reasonable way to synthesize these two passages is to hold that he is simply teaching that if a bishop is married, it should be to one wife. He should have a good reputation in sexual and family matters (if he has a family). But of course a celibate can also have a good sexual reputation (which is said to be the emphasis in the passage, according to both of the commentaries above), if he has not engaged in unlawful sex and has remained chaste.

If anything, Paul seemingly teaches that celibacy is to be preferred, but above all, he teaches that all should follow their divine calling, whatever it is (7:7,17,20). We simply choose our priests from the category of people whom God called to celibacy. This is thoroughly biblical, sensible, spiritually-minded, practical, reasonable, and it is not forbidden.

I Tim 3:4 “He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect,” and I Tim 3:12 “A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.” One of these addresses priests/pastors, the other deacons and lay pastors. This is scripture, not railing.

The analysis above applies to these passages, too.

Paul made no argument forbidding a celibate clergy.

But when he gave requirements for the clergy, he listed being the husband of one wife. Why would he do that if he wanted an all celibate priesthood?

I think he was emphasizing that if a married man was admitted, he should have a good moral reputation (one wife, good family, not a bigamist or polygamist). He is not saying that one mustbe married. As soon as you allow that this is the case, then you cannot make a case against celibacy as an allowable and indeed even a preferred option. Both are allowed (i.e., as moral options), but that does not preclude an institution making a celibacy requirement because it prefers that state of affairs, and from choosing among those previously called to celibacy by God.

So the Catholic Church (western, Latin rites) adopts this teaching of Paul as the ideal for its priests. Nothing “unbiblical” in that in the slightest . . . Paul also writes many times that we ought to “imitate” him. So how is it “unbiblical” (let alone “forbidden” in some mythical Bible passage) for the Catholic Church to hold that most of its priests should imitate the Apostle Paul and follow his advice for the ideal, highest, most self-sacrificing level of service to the Lord and others?

Are you saying I Tim 3 and I Tim 4 are mythical?

I gave my explanation for those. Now it would be nice if you would answer my important question, instead of asking a silly one that you already knew my answer to anyway.

Peter and John taught neither that all priests should be married or that all should be single. Therefore, it is permissible to take a position that priests should be a class of men particularly devoted to the Lord and their flocks, to such a sublime degree that marriage is precluded, because it would divide that devotion, as Paul taught.

But this violates I Tim 4:3 (remember, I’m speaking solely to the RCC not EO or any other Orthodox churches)

1 Timothy 4:3 is addressing Gnostics who forbid marriage altogether. You say you aren’t addressing the Orthodox, but they forbid their bishops to marry, which you would say is directly contrary to 1 Timothy 3:2 (Gk., episkopos / “bishop”).

You showed where you believe my logic failed but refused to address the scripture. Your defense said:

1. The RCC simply draws its priests from the pool of people who have the calling of celibacy.

2. How many priests would have gotten married if it was acceptable?

3. Hidden premise of #2: “many priests who became priests with the understanding that celibacy was a requirement and that they were called by God to celibacy were not in fact so called, because they would have gotten married if they could have.”

4. Therefore, there should be no celibate clergy.

The fallacy lies precisely in the gap between #2 (with its underlying premise #3) and #4: #1 cannot be contended against on consistently logical, biblical grounds.

It can if you don’t throw out I Tim 3 & 4. 

I don’t have to throw anything out, as shown. As always, I have sought to interpret all of the relevant scriptural data (both the material about celibacy and that concerning bishops who are married) in a harmonious fashion. Internal consistency doesn’t yet prove truthfulness, yet we know that internal inconsistency definitely contains falsehood.

Do you doubt that many who would like to be RC priests and some who ARE RC priests want to get married? 

No; you can always find people who want to go against the beliefs of the group they are in, or who want to change those teachings according to their own whims and beliefs, rather than accept the authority of a tradition given to them (or who don’t properly discern their own calling). But Catholicism is not an individualistic, sectarian system. It is the Church founded by Jesus Christ, with teachings handed down since His time, and not able to be changed. In this instance, it is a disciplinary teaching, which can change (and has done so in the past), but there is no sign of that happening soon. So Catholics must accept that this is the status quo.

The faithful Catholic accepts the wisdom of the Mind of the Church and its tradition. If someone wants “pick-and-choose” or “cafeteria” Christianity, they can join any number of Protestant denominations which are more than happy to allow them that option (all the way up to practicing homosexual priests, feminism, free divorce, uncontrolled legal abortion, etc.).

If you don’t doubt it (and I don’t see how you could), then #3 is a fact not a hidden premise.

It is a “fact” in the sense above, but it has no bearing on the question at hand. All it is, is an example of what I was disputing: this foolish, wrongheaded notion that corruptions and exceptions to the rule disprove the rule itself. They do not. That’s the fallacy of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. But that is the classic Protestant method, isn’t it? If you don’t like the Church because some or many of its members are corrupt (as in the 16th century), then ditch it and start a new one (as if that is possible; there is only one Church [very explicit in Paul], and it has been continuous since apostolic times). Start from scratch. To Hades with Tradition; we can start right now and reinvent the wheel.

Suppose it was his own poor discernment and not an intentional misleading. Now he’s forbidden to marry, or he’s forced to resign being a priest. This brings us back to the RCC either forbidding a man to be married or denying him his calling.

Anomalies and difficult particular situations do not disprove a rule, either. Every “rule” or legal system (or scientific hypothesis or theory, etc.) has those. This is backwards reasoning (if indeed it can be called “reasoning” at all):

 

“Because some men have poor discernment and incorrectly determine that they are called to celibacy when in fact they were not; therefore, the celibacy requirement is invalid and should be thrown out because it forbids marriage to such people who blew it when the time came to make a choice for their life’s work.”

But that is not adding anything, because you are saying, “If a person is called by God to be celibate, then they are ‘forbidden’ to marry.” Well, yes, in a sense this is true, but it is a truism: the second clause of the second contains nothing that is not already implied in the first part. Celibacy entails no marriage. If that is deemed as “prohibition” or “forbidding” then so be it. But it forms no objection to the thing itself.

And if they’re “forbidding” a man to get married, then they’re violating I Tim 4:3.

Now we’re starting to go round in circles, which so often happens in “large and lumpy” debates like this one . . . if all you can do is repeat yourself (in this instance, using a verse which is irrelevant, as shown), then please just skip over the comment and wait till you do have something new to say.

We don’t normally talk that way about anything else. For example, we don’t say that “Michael Jordan was forbidden to be a football player because God gave him the extraordinary talents he had to become the greatest basketball player of all time.” I don’t say that “I was forbidden to be celibate because I got married.” Such statements are non sequiturs. They may work on a polemical, slogan-like, propagandistic level, but not on a logical, real life level. Jordan was “called” to be a basketball player; I was called to be married. Each person is to follow his own calling (1 Cor 7:7b,17,20,24,38 ). If they mess up in this on an individual level, that doesn’t make the callings themselves invalid.

Suppose one is called to be married AND a priest (one can have more than one calling after all). If each person is to follow his calling(s), he can’t stay in the RCC and fulfill them both. 

That’s not true; he is free to do both in Eastern Catholicism. You can’t equate “Roman Catholicism” with the entire Catholic Church and then deny that Eastern Catholicism is also a portion of that same Church. That’s how you use the term (so that your statement above is plainly false), but there are about 22 rites of the Catholic Church. The Roman, Latin rite is the largest, but not the only one. So here, as so often, we have a diversity within a larger unity, such as in our orders and different liturgical traditions. But we don’t see much of a tradition of clerical celibacy among Protestants, do we? Protestants have to be legalistic on this, so that it is an unspoken rule that pastors have to be married. How many single Baptist pastors do you know?

The RCC is either saying these two callings don’t coexist, or we’re going to forbid someone from fulfilling one of them.

They don’t coexist in the Latin rite, that’s correct.

Why didn’t Jesus, Paul, Peter, or any of the other NT writers forbid the clergy to be married?

Because it is a matter of spiritual discipline, not dogma. Therefore, the matter was left open.

Indeed, Jesus chose the Apostles, and most of them were married. 

How many do you claim were married, and on what basis? But for some of them at least (including Peter), it was said that they left their families and wives to become disciples. This may have been a temporary situation, but there was still that separation between family and ministry, which, it seems, shouldn’t be there at all if you are correct.

Not only so, but Paul makes rules for married pastors. And Peter, the one you claim was the first Pope, was married!!

Wow! I must convert back to Protestantism, then. So what?! See my paper: “Dialogue on Peter’s Marriage, and Why it Doesn’t Disprove Catholicism.”

Does the RCC know better than all of them?

No, the “RCC” uses it’s God-ordained, biblically based authority to apply all of the biblical teaching in the way that it sees fit for the most spiritually-fruitful priesthood.

Obviously the Bible allows for celibate clergy, but it also obviously allows for married clergy. 

Married clergy are permitted. That doesn’t mean that marriage is a necessary precondition for ordination, nor that a church cannot require celibacy if it so chooses.

To deny that violates I Tim 3 and 4. And to disallow it rejects a portion of the Bible.

Sheer nonsense, as I believe I have shown.

Nowhere is a priest/pastor specifically encouraged to remain celibate. 

This is untrue, since Paul says, “I wish all men were as I myself am” and teaches that singleness allows undistracted devotion to the Lord (1 Cor 7). Since priests are part of the category of men, they are included in this great wisdom; in fact, one could argue that the “devotion to the Lord” aspect would particularly apply to priests and other clergymen, since their calling is specifically directed towards spiritual thngs and serving the Lord in a capacity above and beyond what most laity can do.

Paul says he wished ALL men were like him not just members of the clergy. 

Exactly! Thank you. But you have now contradicted yourself, since you just asserted that priests were never encouraged to be celibate, yet now you recognize that the clergy is part of “all men.” This is a direct contradiction. So I ask you again: why are we not allowed to simply apply this wish as our own desire for our priests? Why is that not permitted? We can’t imitate Paul in this regard, when he says repeatedly to imitate him? Now, he talked about married bishops elsewhere, but as I argued, you have to harmonize the two things somehow. I have done my best to do so. You may disagree, but at least I have an internally consistent, (I think) plausible explanation which incorporates both elements of Paul’s teaching.

Does the RCC have the right to make celibacy a condition for being RC? 

No; that would hardly be possible, since it would deny the dcalling of marriage, which is the state of life for the overwhelming majority of people.

It would give everyone the same benefits it gives the clergy. If the RCC can select clergy from the pool of celibates, why not select all its members from the pool of celibates? 

Because of the above reason. Priests are a special, small class of people, set apart for service to the Lord and their flocks. They are called to heroic self-sacrifice.

Do they have that authority? If not, why not?

It’s a ridiculous question in the first place. If this is your idea of a reductio ad absurdum (one of my favorite techniques in argument) it is failing. The Church cannot call someone to celibacy if they are not called to it by God.

If they want a church that can serve God wholeheartedly without the distractions of a family, that’s the way to go.

Singleness does have that advantage, yes. But we are not Gnostics. We don’t denigrate marriage; we only honor the self-sacrifice of a celibate priest, nun, or monk.

Anyplace celibacy is discussed in the NT, it isn’t specifically addressing the clergy. In fact, it’s not even addressing the clergy in a round about way. Jesus and Paul are simply saying, a man can better serve God without the distractions of a family.

Though granting that the passages do not “specifically” address clergy, this is not entirely true, in a larger sense, as already explained: being interested in “the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor 7:32) is quite obviously relevant to the work of the priesthood or of the nun or monk or pastor. A man who can “better serve God” (your words) sounds like exactly the kind of man we need as a clergyman. I’ll take a priest who can “better serve God” any day over one who can “serve God less wholeheartedly.”

You are also wrong (in this larger sense of straightforward indirect application) with regard to Matthew 19:12 where Jesus refers to those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Those who are serving the kingdom of heaven sound a lot like members of the clergy, whose job it is to make known the ways of the Lord and to help people to get to heaven. So to assert that neither passage has anything to do with clergy / priests / pastors is, in my opinion, stretching credulity beyond the breaking point.

* * *

Thanks for the friendly debate. I think we have both presented vigorous defenses for our positions, so that this is a good resource for folks of any persuasion to work through this issue and better understand the rationale given by both schools of thought. That is what I seek to do in every dialogue, so I again thank you, and greatly appreciate your input, as is the case with all my dialogue partners (particularly also Ken Temple, as of late).

***

(originally 7-7-06)

Photo credit: Senlay (4-30-15) [Pixabay / CC0 Creative Commons license]

***

2018-06-30T12:46:41-04:00

In Catholic (and biblical) ascetic spirituality, or what are called “the evangelical counsels,” a person may voluntarily (sometimes heroically) renounce something for the kingdom of God. Some biblical examples are the prophets, John the Baptist, and the disciples.

There are many callings and roles to fill. Not everyone can be a Marine, or a Green Beret, or a Rhodes scholar, or an NBA all-star. Those are things that call for qualifications that not everyone can meet (if you’re five feet tall, chances are you’re not going to take up basketball; if you weigh 125 pounds, you won’t be a linebacker in football, etc.). The priesthood is no different.

Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, made many absurd and outrageous (and slanderous) statements about the Catholic clergy and Catholic rules; for example:

The sum of it all is that pope, devil, and his church hate the estate of matrimony, as Daniel says [17:37]; therefore he wants to bring it into such disgrace that a married man cannot fill a priest’s office. That is as much as to say that marriage is harlotry, sin, impure, and rejected by God; and although they say, at the same time, that it is holy and a sacrament, that is a lie of their false hearts, for if they seriously considered it holy, and a sacrament, they would not forbid the priests to marry. Because they do forbid them, they must consider it unclean, and a sin, as they plainly say . . .

[T]he noises made by monks and nuns and priests are not prayers or praises to God. They do not understand it and learn nothing from it; they do it like hard labor, for the belly’s sake, and seek thereby no improvement of life, no progress in holiness, no doing of God’s will. (On the Councils and the Churches, 1539; in C. M. Jacobs, translator, Works of Martin Luther, Philadelphia: A. J. Holman Co. and the Castle Press, 1930; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, six volumes; from Vol. 5, 284, 286)

Elsewhere, however, when Luther is not in one of his notorious polemical, condemnatory moods, he acknowledges that, indeed, there is a category of men (albeit very small) called to celibacy, referring, in The Estate of Marriage (1522) to the eunuchs referred to by Jesus in Matthew 19:12, and those who are “especially called by God, like Jeremiah”. Like many other of his positions, this one may have become more “anti” and “polemical” over time.

***

(originally 2-21-04)

Photo credit: Martin Luther as Monk. Engraving by Lucas Cranach. 1520. Photograph by Paul T. McCain. June 2006. Eisenach, Germany. [Wikimedia CommonsCreative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license]

***

2018-06-29T14:55:40-04:00

This is a dialogue with an evangelical pastor (5-27-97), followed by clarifying remarks made in response to the questions of a Catholic friend (6-3-97), and further dialogues with several Protestants from late 1998. Words of all those besides myself are in blue.
*****

These verses may form a rationale, but the question is what kind of rationale do they form? Since the author puts the matter on the rational level rather than a strict biblical one it would be proper to answer it using “rationale”. The verses mentioned taken as a whole do not form any rationale for a REQUIREMENT. Paul specifically says that “I wish all were as I am, BUT…”

Though he argues for the excellency of celibacy as a way of living a completely unhindered and practical devotional life, he DOES NOT argue for it as a requirement to such a life.

I think you are straining at gnats. I had no problem whatsoever with the Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests when I was a Protestant. Why do you, I wonder? Here we have a state of life that the Apostle Paul argues is very spiritually beneficial, and so the Catholic Church makes it a requirement for its priests. What I see as biblical and practical wisdom, however, you regard as legalistic and “man-made.”

That truly amazes me. Would you also balk at the requirement of many denominations for four years of seminary training? After all, the Apostles didn’t go to seminary, right? Why make it a requirement? It’s not fair! If a pastor wants to remain theologically undereducated, no man or denomination has a right to force him to learn!!!!!

In fact he purposely stops short and gives a rationale for when such a requirement could and should in fact NOT be carried out.

Exactly. The gift is not given to all, lest the world population would reduce to zero in 100 years or so.

And he specifically puts the whole matter of celibacy into the realm of “gift”.

As do we.

Meaning that while he recognizes its superior condition, he also recognizes it as something that has to be given by God. That is a far cry from a man-pronounced requirement.

Why, then, can’t the Catholic Church (in the Western Latin Rites, that is, not all the Rites) draw its priests from among this pool who have felt so called and so gifted from God? How is that “man-made,” when all we are doing is recognizing prior gifts from God? Every institution has the right to make whatever rules it deems necessary for its flourishing continuance.

Like I said, if someone wants to be a married priest, he can join one of the Eastern Rites (e.g., Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian), or go Orthodox or Anglican. Why moan and groan about the Latin Rites if one can simply go to another within the Catholic Church?

The context of this passage of scripture should also be noted. It is not found in the Pastoral Epistles, neither is it addressed to those who might be termed elders or deacons. It is written to what the Catholic would call laity.

Well, I’m not sure how relevant that is, but Paul does talk about the ministry of the Apostles in 1 Corinthians 4, and the rights of Apostles and Christian workers in 1 Corinthians 9, the Lord’s Supper in ch. 11, spiritual gifts: ch. 12-14. I think these topics apply at least as much to clergy as to laity, if not much more so. But that is beside the point of my argument anyway. The Catholic Church wants its priests to be as single-heartedly devoted to the Lord as they can be.

Since Paul says that singleness is a means to that end (1 Cor 7:32-35), we accept his wise counsel and select our priests from among the pool of those so called. If someone is called to be married (and I thank God I am!!!), they have no business pursuing the priesthood (in the Latin Rites), just as a pacifist has no business being on active military duty.

On the other hand, we often see the havoc of married pastors. In just two churches I attended as a Protestant, two pastors left their wives. Also, two elders left their wives. If my experience is indicative, the record is miserable for such “divided attention” to ministry and to family. Everyone is familiar with the terminology of “PK” and “MK” and all that that conjures up.

Not that married pastors can’t succeed. I wouldn’t say that at all (and it would contradict the Eastern Rites in my own Church). We simply think it the wiser course to require celibacy in order to avoid potential problems, and to allow the priest to be a “father” to his flock in every sense of the word, and to serve God and fellow man to the utmost. 

This is what we call the “evangelical counsels” – above and beyond the ordinary commitment. Besides, Jesus and all the Apostles were single, as far as we know (some were widowers, or perhaps allowed by wives to separate physically and/or sexually for the purposes of ministry). If this is the norm, then, in the biblical accounts, why do you knock it? Don’t you want the Catholic Church to be more biblical?

If we are going to be true to the text and carry through on its implications then the proper rationale would be that the laity ought to be celibate. I doubt whether that would become an acceptable dogma.

Certainly not, because that isn’t what Paul is saying at all. He is saying that each has his own gift, and ought to pursue it, whatever it is. Some (most, of course) are called to marriage, some few to celibacy. We choose our priests from the latter group. Thus, we are not hindering God or any individual in the least, but rather, cooperating with God’s callings and purposes. There ought to be no objection to this whatsoever. You have no case!

It is a false use of this scripture to argue for something that the scripture itself is not specifically addressing, nor which the passage itself is arguing for. A simple reading of I Co. 7 reveals that Paul is arguing for the “allowance of marriage” not vice versa. The authors’ use of this passage also ignores the possible historical context of the situation as well.

I think this is a non sequitur, per my above explanations. As for historical context, the key verses 32-35 (and many others, too, I’m sure) are not written in a style which is historically contingent, but as general, universally-applicable axioms of human nature and the human condition.

The point is not that people doubt God’s power to assist someone in such a choice. The point is that St. Paul DOES NOT teach what is here claimed. He actually teaches the opposite. He says “it is better to marry then to burn”. That is hardly “undeniably teach[ing] the contrary”.

Fine. We have no problem with that. We simply choose not to have priests who are “burning” for the opposite sex. Let such men become Melkites or Orthodox if they feel called to both priesthood and marriage. We offer them that option. What’s wrong with that? We’re supposed to re-write our Tradition because a few people are disgruntled with our requirements? I say to such people: “get a life! Who are you to say what an entire Church with a claimed apostolic succession back to Christ, ought to do?”

It is exactly that one must make a choice for or against the biblical teaching that this issue should be discussed. The author has not demonstrated a biblical rationale for his position from this passage.

We are being most biblical. Where in Protestantism is the calling of celibacy celebrated and honored, since it is strongly recommended by Paul and Jesus, and was the norm among the early Apostles, not to mention the early priests and bishops? We honor both celibacy and marriage (both are sacraments – means to obtain grace). You guys seem to honor only the latter. You are just as legalistic as you claim we are by enforcing the “unwritten rule” that pastors ought always to be married.

There is an unproven assumption here and it is that the ministry is to be celibate. That has yet to be scripturally demonstrated, and it has not. The scripture in use so far does NOT speak to the issue of ministry in the sense of church leadership as distinct from laity.

John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, the Apostles: that’s not enough “demonstration” from Scripture for you? Pretty astonishing! True, married clergy are not ruled out (which is why we don’t do that, either, as a multi-faceted Church, nor do we make this a matter of dogma) but the most honored norm was singleness.

It is good that the author acknowledges a distinction between the call to the priesthood and a call to a celibate life. The two are not automatically the same and so it does not scripturally follow that the one call leads to the other or that the other call depends on the former. This is all extra-biblical rationale up to this point.

They’re not absolutely the same; I agree. We require celibacy in the Latin Rites as a matter of spiritual, disciplinary preference, based on the biblical reasoning I have pointed out, and centuries of practical, pastoral experience. You must also understand the principle of asceticism (which many Protestants do not comprehend). I have a paper on that in my website (written by Louis Bouyer) which might be helpful for you to understand where we are coming from on this topic.

The issue under consideration is not whether sex is good or bad.The issue is whether the tradition agrees with Scripture.

I say it does, unarguably so. What does it take to convince you of that?

The point is, those vows are NOT scriptural.

Prove it! Poverty is not a scriptural principle? Were the Apostles rich men? Obedience is not scriptural? That is too obvious to even argue. Chastity, if ordained by God and given to a man as a calling and gift, is very scriptural, and we have every right to draw our priests from this category of men, just as you have a right to draw your pastors from those men who believe in sola Scriptura and sola fide.

If the Roman Catholic church is The True Church, then there is nowhere within it in which a man may be married and in official ministry in the same sense that the Bible allows for. Therefore the Catholic church DOES in fact compel those who sense a call to the ministry to be celibate. And that compulsion is contradictory to scripture which allows it.

No, you are simply wrong. The “Eastern Rites” is part of the Catholic Church. We have married priests in the Melkite, Maronite, Ukrainian and other Eastern liturgies. The tradition in the east was to allow married priests, but still require bishops to be celibate. We even allow special cases of married priests in the Latin Rites (e.g., Anglican priests who convert). I have personally met a married priest with several children. He is in his 70s and converted from Anglicanism. Since his children are raised, he was allowed to become a Catholic priest, even in the Latin, Western Rites.

However the argument given here seems to be an allowance that the Catholic church is NOT The True Church, but others are also. If that is so then we agree to a point with the argument given. However, having been called a heretic by recent Catholic converts from Protestantism, who now are apologists for that faith, for not being in the Catholic church, I know that is not the intention of the above statement. Within the framework of Catholic thought, this tradition contradicts scripture.

This is a whole ‘nother subject. I have a paper in my website on this which I edited, too, by Karl Adam. Suffice it to say that we regard Protestants as Christians and part of the Church in some sense. “Heretic” means, literally, “pick and choose.” Where Protestants contradict apostolic Tradition, they are heretical, where they agree with it (and there is considerable commonality), they are orthodox.

No institution can create rules that contradict scripture and maintain that they are scriptural. Any institution can do whatever they want, but when they claim the practise is biblical it is incumbent that they prove so.

We (and I in this paper and this letter) have done so. Strange for you as a Protestant to talk about contradicting Scripture, when your formal principle, sola Scriptura, is absolutely unbiblical, and is often contradicted by clear scriptural teaching, and the document upon which this teaching rests is not determined by itself, but rather, by Catholic Church Tradition, which you must incoherently accept in order to maintain the pretense of sola Scriptura in the first place. The whole system is illogical, self-defeating, and circular. It certainly is less “biblical” than our system.

It has yet to be shown where these clear recommendations specifically refering to the ministry are.

The example of Jesus and the Apostles. But they don’t have to be spelled out that specifically, since we are applying a general ascetic principle.

The argument against unrestrained sex belongs to a different discussion. Celibacy is not about unrestrained sex, or even restrained, it is about NO sex. But biblically the issue goes beyond mere sex.

But liberal Catholics and Protestants sure make it an issue about sex, don’t they? And the so-called “Reformers” sure were eager to get married and break their sacred vows, weren’t they? Sorry; I find that far more than coincidental.

IN CONCLUSION: the author has failed to prove the point. His argument is much more with those of his own faith.

How so?

I have been repeatedly challenged to find one tradition that condradicts scripture. This one does. What is the contradiction? The scripture ALLOWS for married ministers, the RC church FORBIDS it. That is contradictory.

If it were true, it would be, but since it isn’t true, it ain’t!

So what is right, the scripture or the tradition?

Both; they are of a piece. This is not a matter of dogma, however, but of discipline, like meat on Fridays.

Two mutually exclusive things cannot both be true.

Correct. We agree on that much!

Either ministers are free to marry or they are not. Or perhaps they could be free to marry but not have sex. The point is that here is a case in which the two collide and tradition carries the weight of authority over the scripture. Sure there is development of scripture, but this development seems to fall under the censure of the Lord who said you make void the Word of God by your tradition.

Your argument fails because you have neglected to make crucial distinctions, and especially since it is based on a gross factual error (that there are no married Catholic priests). The bottom line is that we have every right as a (spiritual) institution to choose amongst those who have already been called to celibacy by God for our priests. There is nothing “forced,” “unnatural,” “unethical,” “illogical” or “unbiblical” about that in the least. And with that, I rest my case.

Thanks for writing. I disagree strongly, but I commend you for your effort, and for taking the time to interact with my viewpoint. 

* * *

It is true that nowhere in the New Testament do we find deacons, priests or bishops who are required to be celibate. I agree with our Protestant friend that in the N.T. one cannot find a requirement of celibacy for anyone.

Technically speaking, yes (to the last sentence), but in terms of being obedient to a calling from God, Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7, 20 come very close to being a “requirement.”

I would not even pretend that Paul had the Latin Rite practice in mind. The only thing one can say is that he saw a great value in celibacy.

Yes, I agree. That’s why I grounded my overall argument in the framework of a general asceticism, not just priestly discipline.

So, is the requirement unbiblical? In one sense the answer is yes. It runs counter to what we find in the Bible.

In a very strict sense (which I would consider too strict). Seminary education isn’t “biblical” either, but that doesn’t stop most brands of Christians from requiring it (which is why I used that example as an analogy).

I think you realize this to some extent because you defend the Latin church practice by citing the Eastern Catholic churches.

Well, if we allow marriage in a portion of our Church, then we do allow it, and much of the force of his argument is therefore neutralized. Remember, he claimed that nowhere in the Catholic Church were there married priests, and he didn’t acknowledge the contrary matter of fact in his reply.

In other words, you seem to be saying, “yes, the Latins do this, but the East does not so the Catholic Church allows married priests like the Bible.” I think this is avoiding the question. The question is can the Church require celibate priests?

I disagree. It is a matter of definition. If we allow an option, then it isn’t a strict requirement after all, on a Church-wide level. Granted, one must go to another Rite to be a married priest, but that’s just how the cookie crumbles. The Trappists don’t talk. So a blabbermouth obviously won’t be called (or feel called) to become a Trappist monk! Any institution (not just a Christian body) can require any discipline which it sees as beneficial to itself (provided, of course, that such a rule is not immoral — and this certainly isn’t).

It does not matter if they make exceptions. The question is the existence of the requirement not the exceptions or variations between East and West.

They can require it because it is a choice to select those men who are able to exercise “undistracted devotion to the Lord.” It is a matter of practical wisdom. As Paul says, marriage is good, but celibacy is better. And that is the rationale behind the Western tradition on this (which the East also accepts, but only requires at the level of bishop – we are just stricter, that’s all).

Could the Church eventually require all priests, East and West to be celibate? Yes, the Church could to this.

Absolutely: it being a matter of discipline.

So, saying that there are married priests in the Catholic Church does not address the issue at all. It does show, however, that celibacy is not intrinsic to the priesthood.

I again disagree with the first sentence and agree with the second.

Now, is the Latin rite wrong in requiring celibacy of priests? Is the East wrong in allowing married men to be priests? The answer is “no” to both of these questions.

That’s right. The difference would be along the lines of pastoral and practical wisdom (perhaps even “custom”), and prudence. Our Church is big enough to contain these different approaches.

I would approach the whole thing this way. First, neither Jesus nor the Apostles set down any specific teaching regarding the question of married/celibate priests.

Except for the “calling” argument made above, and their own example, for whatever that is worth.

Your Protestant friend realizes this, but having a sola Scriptura mentality, he wrongly concludes that the Latin practice is “unbiblical” (i.e. because it is not in the Bible).

Yes.

Second, could Paul or the Apostles have required celibacy? Certainly, because Jesus gave them the authority (i.e. to loose and bind). Like it or not, this authority has been given to their successors.

This is where your argument is very good, and if I had used it in my reply, it would have strengthened my point considerably.

It is as “simple” as this:

1. There is no Biblical teaching concerning married/celibate priests. Jesus left the particular question of married/celibate priests up to the Church.
2. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, and they to their successors gave the same authority.
3. The Catholic Church has among its members the successors to the Apostles.
4. The Church, therefore, can require celibate priests.

Excellent. This cleverly shifts the focus of the dispute from sex to Church authority, and I should have realized that myself. I disagree, however, with one minor point (see below).


I mean really, Jesus never said that we must allow priests to marry or allow married men to be ordained. No one in the Bible talks about it.


No: 1 Corinthians 9:5 refers to married clergy (apostles), as do 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 (bishops and deacons).

The Bible does say that the Apostles have the authority to loose and bind. So, the Church is exercising this authority when it requires a priest to be celibate. The Church’s authority is limited but the requirement of celibacy falls within that limit.

Agreed. But of course a sola scriptura Protestant would refer to the verses I just said and say that the Bible does cite married clergy, but doesn’t require celibacy, and they would say those considerations overrule any power derived from “binding and loosing.” But this is a very good point which I will incorporate into my future discussions on this topic.

* * * 

It appears that Zwingli did indeed have a “fornication problem” from c. 1518 to c. 1524. I would point out that this was the very period when Zwingli was discovering “justification by faith”; was just beginning to serve as a spiritual leader; and was struggling desperately with the celibacy of the priesthood. This is a problem that many Catholic priests have TODAY — principally because their vows are in clear violation of Paul’s teaching in such Scriptures as 1 Cor. 7:2 and 1 Tim. 3:2 (note that the RCC would have to insert “not” after “must”). Thus, I see Zwingli’s sins as having bearing on Roman-Catholic celibacy more than Protestant doctrine – but, hey, I’m biased – I acknowledge this.

This is ridiculous. Your blame is entirely misdirected. If the man couldn’t keep his pants on in the company of women, he didn’t have to ever become a priest. He should have become a President (ok, ok . . . ). That’s pretty stupid — to enter the celibate priesthood, knowing that you have a pronounced desire for women, isn’t it? The desire isn’t necessarily wrong — it is just designed to be fulfilled in marriage, not in the priesthood of the Latin Rites! But you want to blame the ascetic, celibacy principle itself for Zwingli’s sin, which is absurd. Your argument would hold only if Catholicism required celibacy for all its members. But it doesn’t. It decided that celibacy was the best route to go for the priests. No one forced Zwingli to become a priest . . .

Let me answer briefly your two verses. 1 Corinthians 7:2 cannot possibly be taken as an absolute, because if so, it would contradict Paul’s own teaching in the same chapter – even the verse right before it (7:1, 25-26, 27b, 28b, 32). 7:2 is clearly a proverbial statement, which allows for contradiction (therefore, celibacy doesn’t “violate” it). So you are guilty of gross neglect of context and cross-referencing in your use of this verse. Shame on you!

1 Timothy 3:2 is saying that if a bishop is married, it should be once, so as not to violate the Church’s rule of indissoluble matrimony. Celibacy was an honored state of life from the beginning. Jesus, the disciples, and Paul all were single (or left their families in order to serve Christ). This was already a norm for clergy. There were married bishops in the early days, as this is a matter of Church “discipline” as opposed to “dogma.” Discipline can be changed. Later, the Church thought it best to make celibacy a requirement (largely due to historically-scandalous situations). This was a long and noble tradition, and an eminently biblical one.

But even in a Christian tradition like Orthodoxy, where priests are allowed to marry (as they are also in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church), the bishops are required to be celibate. It is only meant for those who feel themselves called to that state by God. You want to knock celibacy. We take the explicitly-stated biblical view that everyone should fulfill their own calling, whether single or married. We simply choose our priests from among the pool of the celibate — as called by God. It’s not forcing anyone to do anything. Rather, it honors and respects God’s own choices. I’ve always regarded this issue as a no-brainer (as a Protestant, too). But it seems that any issue involving sex has to be controversial in our day and age.

People like Zwingli and Luther mock and despise God’s calling, and vows, by breaking them and exercising their own wills over against God’s calling for them. This is grave sin – not to be taken lightly at all. A vow in the Bible and in Christianity is an extremely serious undertaking (and a voluntary one – which is the whole point).

Why does “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.” mean that Jesus is sanctioning celibacy as an ordinance for priests?

He isn’t doing that — not directly. I contend that celibacy is not only possible (contra Luther), but that some are positively called to it. Jesus was acknowledging that the teaching was difficult, but that doesn’t make it any less true. It’s one of His “hard sayings.”

So to me this verse could still be “merely describing this state of affairs”, but not specific only to priests.

I didn’t say it pertained to priests alone. But Jesus obviously accepted the normalcy of celibacy in some cases, as all His disciples were either single or abstaining from marital relations by (presumably) mutual consent (e.g., Peter). I was starting to build my case by anticipating hostile premises, which often affect this particular discussion. The assumption (in our sex-crazed society) is often that celibacy is impossible. Such a view is blatantly, radically unbiblical.

This is a matter of discipline, not doctrine, so both celibacy and marriage are acceptable. It is a question of what we would regard as (like Paul) “good and better” as opposed to “good and bad.” Marriage is very good. Celibacy is even better, especially if one devotes all the attention that would have been diverted to a mate, towards God. There are many days when I wish I was single. But I guess the “grass is always greener,” you know . . . Yet my single days were very difficult for me.

But, if I am correct, and there is a superior quality to celibate priests than these others that are married priest . . .

In Paul’s sense, and a pragmatic sense, which is not implying that marriage is bad. In Catholic ascetic spirituality, or what are called “the evangelical counsels,” a person may voluntarily (sometimes heroically) renounce something for the kingdom of God. That principle is even found in Protestantism to some extent (e.g., giving monetary donations to the point of sacrifice). It is certainly biblical (the prophets, John the Baptist, the disciples, etc.). Jesus called for the rich young ruler to give up his riches. He wasn’t implying that riches per se were bad. He knew such an action was that particular man’s calling in life. Likewise with sex and marriage.

I still have a problem with the possibility that this could squelch the true call of God on a man’s life.

It just means he can’t be a priest in the western, Latin rites. He can be a deacon, or an apologist like I am, or a teacher of some sort. There are many callings and roles to fill. Not everyone can be a Marine, or a Green Beret, or a Rhodes scholar, or an NBA all-star. Those are things that call for qualifications which not everyone can meet (if you’re 5’1″, chances are you ain’t gonna take up basketball). So is the priesthood.

My view of priests is of course prejudiced by my own knowledge of ministers, I equate them as the same.

It is not by any means clear to me that a married clergy is a preferable or superior state of affairs. Most pastors end up forsaking time with their families, and are workaholics (as are many men). Go talk to some pastor’s wives if you doubt this! Take a survey! I used to observe this firsthand all the time when I was an evangelical (e.g., the “PK” phenomena). I even had a phrase for it: “Busy Pastor Syndrome.” I can see in my own life that I have to carefully balance stuff like this, my family life, time alone with my wife, and (once in a blue moon) pure leisure and relaxation for myself. I can’t imagine having this family and shepherding a flock of so many hundred people. Being single in that situation makes all the sense in the world to me.

But the passage in question deals with regular folks: lay persons. No mention of bishops, elders or any church leaders in mentioned in the passage or the surrounding passages. To yank it out of context and apply it to them is a faulty hermeneutical procedure.

No; this is silly, because the passage applies to everyone. It doesn’t have to refer specifically to priests for our argument to be valid. Priests and bishops, being people, therefore part of everyone, “fall under” these injunctions as well. These scriptures form our rationale as to why we deem celibacy a preferable state for priests.

But Scripture does not make celibacy a requirement for those holding leadership positions.

This is true. Otherwise we couldn’t have married priests in our Eastern rites, could we? There are even some married priests in the Western rites, by special dispensation (e.g., some Anglican convert priests). I myself have met a married Catholic priest in the Western rites (he is an Anglican convert). Oftentimes, these are older men, so that they are no longer raising children (also true in his case).

I find that forbidding them to marry is contrary to scripture and for the RCC to continue to force their leaders to do so on a supposedly scriptural basis is inviting them to temptation.

But you have already admitted that as an institution we have the right to enforce our own guidelines. I agree with you that it is not an absolute requirement. So in my opinion your case has collapsed of its own weight. The temptation arises when a person takes a vow of celibacy when in fact God (long before he considers the vocation of the priesthood) has not called him to that state. Of course, anyone could give in to temptation by foolishly placing himself in an occasion of sin, but I would argue that that is the fault of the individual, not the rule of celibacy itself. Let’s be clear as to where the blame should be directed. All we’re doing is following Paul’s spiritual advice with regard to undistracted devotion to the Lord, and adopting it as a principle for our priests (and that only in the Latin rites). There is nothing wrong, improper, unbiblical, or illogical about that in the least.

But it is still a mandatory condition if you feel led to be a priest. Thats what is hard for me to understand, as I think (in my humble opinion) it might keep some from being priest that are actually and truly called to do so. It is tantamount to saying God only allows celibacy when called into His service. If this is based on Biblical foundation, I don’t see it in OT or NT…..

As I said, there are many ways to serve God. In the Catholic Church, married people can be deacons, religious instructors, professors, lay apologists like myself, writers, missionaries, priests in the Eastern Rites, even a monk (e.g., 3rd-Order Franciscans). Paul lists many qualifications for deacons and bishops. I could just as easily argue that he is excluding people from ministry, too, by being so “exclusionary.”

I don’t see why a person who can’t (for whatever reason) be celibate, and in knowing this they get married, are then as a result not able to formally serve God or be called to formally serve God. (formally serve = religious)

So you’re saying that a religious institution doesn’t have the right to set up qualifications and requirements for its pastoral offices? That would be a tough case to make. After all, the homosexuals are clamoring about being excluded from, e.g., marriage. They claim it isn’t fair that society doesn’t accept their beliefs, and doesn’t allow them to marry like everyone else. In this instance even the secular state recognizes that it can set certain moral and legal boundaries for its institutions. Pastors can’t be homosexual in conservative Christian denominations. The homosexual who feels called would argue that he is being unfairly excluded, because the denomination he desires to be ordained in won’t allow him to exercise what he feels to be his call, based on mere sexual issues.

But if you can’t be a priest unless you are celibate, that is a law of the Catholic Church, right?

In the Western, Latin rites.

So is it only church law?

Yep; as a matter of “discipline.” Just as we require the vows of poverty and obedience.

Or does the Catholic Church make it a law because they see it is a law from God?

We see it as a spiritually beneficial state for both priests and parishes, based on Paul’s teaching, already stated.

So it is a Catholic tradition of the western sect for their priests, based on what Jesus and Paul said for everyone. Not a Biblical law / ordinance of God, but a criteria requirement of the Catholic Church itself for its priests. Is that right?

Precisely. Very good. :-)

* * * 
Furthermore, are you suggesting that a Catholic desiring the priesthood should only proceed if celibacy comes “easy” to him???

No, but he has to be called to it. There are ways to try to determine that.

Your comments on 1 Timothy 3:2 demonstrate that in practice Catholic “tradition” in fact sometimes supersedes the Scriptures. I have corrected you with this verse, yet you are in effect telling me that this particular passage is NOT “useful for correction” — because the RCC has decreed otherwise.

No; I am saying that it proves too much (before I even need to get to the Catholic Tradition). A strict application of it would mean that all bishops have to be married, and that would be historically absurd, because the majority view on bishops in the early Church was for them to be celibate. It would mean that a widower would have to cease being a bishop, if he absolutely has to have a wife. But of course that is taking it too far. As soon as the verse admits any exception, your argument against us crumbles. You would be denying all single men the opportunity to serve God as a bishop. And this is precisely the argument made against us – that we are unfairly excluding married men from the call to the priesthood.

The RCC has erected walls where the Scriptures erected none — in fact, where the Scriptures specifically demonstrate there ARE NONE.



I have carefully and painstakingly made my case – from Scripture, as I always attempt to do (especially in a Protestant setting). You can disagree with it, and that’s fine, but I vehemently refuse to accept the characterization that “NO” Scripture can be brought to bear in our favor on this point. That is simply not true. Almost all the disciples, Jesus, and Paul were single men, yet we catch misery for applying the same requirement to our priests. Flat-out amazing . . .

This is why Scripture made provision for those who take a “foolish” vow. In short, the Reformers were tricked. Yes, tricked! But they discovered in Scripture that they were in fact at liberty to marry and that celibacy was an unbiblical requirement for bishops/pastors.

I see. This is the sort of argument you make, yet you vigorously fault mine, when I have provided all sorts of Scripture, and direct deductions from Scripture? C’mon! You are capable of so much more than this . . .

***

(originally 5-27-97, 6-3-97, and late 1998)

Photo credit: Head of a Franciscan Friar (1617), by Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2018-06-28T12:55:49-04:00

Classic examples of how Catholicism is often criticized with a sort of “rapidfire” / “gotcha!” mentality . . .

*****

[Comments of “morganB” will be in blue; those of “Trinidad” in green]

***

morganB provided us with the following rapid-fire questions (as if mere quantity of objections somehow proves the intended target less plausible):

Globally applied man-made rules frequently clash with how God made us… everyone is unique. Everyone has a unique libido.

Yep. That’s why Paul says that men should “lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17). Latin Rite Catholicism chooses its priests from the group of men who are called by God to celibacy (1 Cor 7:32-35). He describes marriage as doing “well” (7:38) and celibacy “better” (7:38). Latin Rite Catholicism prefers the Pauline “better” state for its priests, which is following the advice of the Great Apostle in inspired revelation. Sorry to be so biblical!

Moreover, the celibacy requirement is not “globally applied” in the first place. It’s applied to those (a very tiny number of all humanity or all Catholics) who wish to become priests in the Latin Rite: who are already called to celibacy and the priesthood by God (1 Cor 7:17).

When God made Eve did he look for Adam to be celibate?

No. Non sequitur . . .

It is said that St. Peter had a wife.

Yes he did. And it’s said that St. Paul and Jesus didn’t. This is another non sequitur that I just wrote about.

I feel that celibacy is unnatural.

For you and I it is; not for all men, as Jesus said (Matthew 19:10-12). You err in extrapolating merely your own opinion and feelings to the entire human race. Not everyone has to (or wants to) be like you. You go get married (if you aren’t already). Let priests follow their calling from God.

A priest can’t be married because he is unable to attend to his flock?

It’s not an absolute; simply a matter of practicality and wisdom; no divided interest, as Paul notes.

If that was true how is it explained when the church accepts married clergy as converts?

By the saying, “there’s always an exception to the rule.”

How do other faiths deal with this?

They usually don’t. But because we take all of relevant Scripture into consideration, we do.

A prime example of how difficult it is… if a young priest meets a beautiful woman at a church function and falls madly in love, how does he proceed?

He gets away from her and prays for strength to resist temptations that might lead to what is contrary to morality and his vows.

Psychologically, it may be damaging for him to remain celibate.

In extreme cases, he can be released from his priestly duties and laicized.

One doesn’t construct rules and policies (or decide against them) based on hard cases or extreme cases. The lunacy of that mentality is what eventually brought us abortion on demand, for any reason whatever.

****

If there are married priests in the Catholic church regardless of rite then this entire attempt to prove celibacy is better than marriage for priests is so much “sound and fury signifying nothing.” If the point made in the article is correct then the Eastern Churches are a scandal to the rest of the Church failing to follow the ideal laid down in scripture, tradition, and practice or so the author believes.

This doesn’t follow at all. It’s a discipline, not a dogma, and can change, and did change in the Latin Rite. It simply didn’t change in Eastern Catholicism. We in Western Catholicism believe, following Paul, that sacrificial renunciation of sex and marriage is a heroic sanctity (in our priests) not required of everyone, by God (by calling).

The Eastern Church has simply chosen not to make that a requirement for her priests (just as the West used to not do so). They believe, following Paul (1 Tim 3:2) that priests can be married, like bishops (in Paul’s time) could be. That’s not a “scandal” at all. It’s simply a disciplinary choice that is different from Latin Catholicism. But even in the East, bishops must be celibate, so they have followed that course, but in a more limited fashion. They require celibacy of bishops; the West requires it for bishops and priests.

People are so often hung up on anything to do with sex. They have to think in rigid either/or categories: “if marriage is good, then celibacy must be bad” or “if celibacy is the ideal, then marriage must be bad, and sex wicked and evil.” None of that is the scriptural or Catholic view.

St. Paul describes marriage and singleness as “well” and “better” (1 Cor 7:38): not “bad” and “good” or “good” and “bad.”

Eastern Catholicism also has aspects of renunciation: just in different ways. For example, it has a more rigid requirement of fasting before receiving the Holy Eucharist.

The Catholic Church is big enough to have disciplinary and liturgical diversity without having to play the child’s game of fallaciously assuming that one way must be superior to the other. East and West prefer different liturgies; likewise, they can prefer different disciplines regarding priests’ manner of life. Much ado about nothing . . .

***

(originally 9-18-17 on Facebook)

Photo credit: Two Catholic priests in Siena, Italy. Photograph by Leila Heim 558DC (9-28-11) [Flickr / CC BY-ND 2.0 license]

***

2018-06-20T13:47:21-04:00

This was an exchange (presently expanded) with a critic of my article at National Catholic Register: “Priestly Celibacy: Ancient, Biblical and Pauline” (9-18-17).

*****

“Paul & Timothy” posted:

Celibacy is a beautiful gift, and properly exhorted by St. Paul.

However, there is 1 Timothy 3, 2-5 also pertaining to holy orders that makes me question the requirement that only those who make a promise of celibacy can be ordained to the priesthood and episcopacy:

A bishop must be… married only once… He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the Church of God.

I find it interesting how few Catholics know 1 Timothy 3 … and are shocked when they read it, and how we seem to be “selective” interpreting or “advocating” celibacy as the only norm. Does not understanding Sacred Scripture properly requires reading all of Scripture to interpret it fully?

I replied:

I’m quite familiar with it. It’s no more of a problem for the Catholic position than Peter’s marriage was. Celibacy was not mandated as required in the apostolic Church, but it soon came to be very widely. The Church at first followed Paul’s position expressed in 1 Timothy 3, then (in the West) opted for preferring his position on celibacy for the purpose of singlehearted devotion to the Lord without divided loyalties, as expressed in 1 Corinthians 7 (as part of your recommended “reading all of Scripture”), and his wish that all men would be as he is (celibate).

The latter is a higher, more heroic calling (involving the evangelical counsels), and the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church decided that’s what she wanted for her priests and bishops.

Navarre Bible Commentary states concerning this passage:

“The husband of one wife”: this is also a requirement of”elders” (cf. Tit 1:6) and “deacons” (1 Tim 3:12); it does not mean that the person is under an obligation to marry, but he must not have married more than once. From the context it clearly does not mean that candidates are forbidden to be polygamous (polygamy is forbidden to everyone); the condition that one be married only once ensures that candidates will be very respectable, exemplary people; in the culture of the time second marriages, except in special circumstances, were looked at askance, among Gentiles as well as Jews.

In the apostolic age celibacy was not a requirement for those who presided over the early Christian communities. However, it very soon became customary to require celibacy. “In Christian antiquity the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers testify to the ‘spread through the East and the West of the voluntary practice of celibacy by sacred ministers because of its profound suitability for their total dedication to the service of Christ and his Church. The Church of the West, from the beginning of the fourth century, strengthened, spread, and approved this practice by means of various provincial councils and through the Supreme Pontiffs” (Paul VI, Sacerdotalis caelibatus, 35–36).

From then on all priests of the Latin rite were required to be celibate. Celibacy is appropriate to the priesthood for many reasons: “By preserving virginity or celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of heaven priests are consecrated in a new and excellent way to Christ. They more readily cling to him with undivided heart and dedicate themselves more freely in him and through him to the service of God and of men. They are less encumbered in their service of his kingdom and of the task of heavenly regeneration. In this way they become better fitted for a broader acceptance of fatherhood in Christ” (Vatican II, Presbyterorum ordinis, 16).

Catholic apologist Tim Staples commented upon the same passage as follows:

Even the Evangelical scripture scholar Dr. Ralph Earle, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, says that St. Paul in 1 Timothy 3 is not requiring bishops to be married. In stating his reasons, he first offers the most ancient position—which we know as Catholics to be apostolic in origin and found in written form in the late second century—that would say this text is placing a limitation on the number of marriages a bishop could have in his lifetime. He could only have been married once. This is the position of the Catholic Church today. If a man has been married more than once, even if licitly, he cannot be admitted to the episcopacy. . . .

In that same Bible commentary, this time commenting on Titus 1:6, which makes to both elders and bishops the same prohibition against multiple marriages, another Evangelical scholar, Dr. D. Edmond Hiebert, adds, “If Paul had meant that the elder must be married, the reading would have been ‘a’ not ‘one’ wife.” I would go further and say it would most likely simply say, “The bishop must be married.” The term one indicates that he is limiting the number, not mandating marriage.

Of course, you must know that celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, and thus can change and has changed in history. And you must know that Eastern Catholics are fully as Catholic as Western ones, and that they allow married priests. And you may or may not know that even in the Latin Rite exceptions are made for some priests, such as those received from Anglicanism. Hence, the late Fr. Ray Ryland and Fr. Dwight Longenecker (still with us) were both ordained in the Latin Rite as married men.

That’s why this supposed “zinger” or “gotcha” comment of yours is much ado about nothing; proves nothing whatever of what you seem to think it proves.

Related reading:

Clerical Celibacy: Hostile Protestant Commentary & Catholic Replies [2-21-04]

Clerical Celibacy: Dialogue with John Calvin [9-17-09]

Mandatory Celibacy of Catholic Priests in the Western / Latin Rite: A New (?) Argument [11-16-12]

Forbidding Marriage? Consecrated Virginity & the Catholic “Both / And” [9-13-17]

***

(9-18-17; expanded on 6-20-18)

Photo credit: St. Athanasius (296-373): icon from Sozopol, Bulgaria, end of 17 century [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2017-09-11T15:10:24-04:00

SeeNoEvil

Photograph by Ally Aubrey (4-26-08) [Flickr / CC BY 2.0 license]

* * *

(2-21-04)

* * * * *

The frequent argument of Protestants on this score is that the Catholic Church makes a requirement out of something that Paul merely recommends. Catholics — so we are told — are guilty (once again) of smuggling in their “traditions of men” and (in this instance) their (alleged) “animus against sexuality and marriage, because virginity is so exalted in Catholicism,” etc.

Catholics are being very biblical in this view. Where, I ask, in Protestantism is the calling of celibacy celebrated and honored, since it is strongly recommended by Paul and Jesus, and was the norm among the early apostles, not to mention the early priests and bishops? We honor both celibacy and marriage (both are sacraments — means to obtain grace). Protestants, however, seem to honor only the latter. They are just as legalistic as they claim we are by enforcing the “unwritten rule” that pastors ought always to be married.

It is not by any means clear to me that a married clergy is a preferable or superior state of affairs. Most pastors end up forsaking time with their families, and are workaholics (as are many men). Pastor’s wives will quickly this! I used to observe this firsthand all the time when I was an evangelical (e.g., the “PK” – “preacher’s kid” — phenomenon). I even had a phrase for it: “Busy Pastor Syndrome.”

I can see in my own life (as a full-time Catholic apologist and writer) that I have to carefully balance my vocation, my family life, time alone with my wife, and pure leisure and relaxation for myself. I can’t imagine having this family and shepherding a flock of so many hundred people. Being single in that situation makes all the sense in the world to me.

Matthew 19:12 (RSV) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:32-38 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; 33 but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. 36 If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry-it is no sin. 37 But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. 38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

As with so many doctrines, we observe here the Protestant propensity for “throwing out the baby with the bathwater.” If there was corruption or human failings, the Protestant solution was — too often — to throw out the institution rather than reform it. They claimed to be following the Bible in a special way that the “papists” were not; yet on this issue they couldn’t produce any compelling proof that celibacy of priests ought to be abandoned.

They simply didn’t like the celibacy requirement, and so they got rid of it. But Christian tradition doesn’t work that way. The Church is not at liberty to pick and choose or to discard received traditions at whim. Celibacy was not dogma but it was a very entrenched and successful practice in the Church.

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (in words that are just as relevant to the situation of today’s tragic sexual scandals) compared celibate and married clergy in terms of virtue, and contended that neither state is the cause of sinful behavior:

When, then, we come to the matter of fact, whether celibacy has been and is, in comparison of the marriage vow, so dangerous to a clerical body, I answer that I am very sceptical indeed that in matter of fact a married clergy is adorned, in any special and singular way, with the grace of purity; and this is just the very thing which Protestants take for granted. What is the use of speaking against our discipline, till they have proved their own to be better?Now I deny that they succeed with their rule of matrimony, better than we do with our rule of celibacy; . . . . a Protestant rector or a dissenting preacher is not necessarily kept from the sins I am speaking of, because he happens to be married: and when he offends, whether in a grave way or less seriously, still in all cases he has by matrimony but exchanged a bad sin for a worse, and has become an adulterer instead of being a seducer.

Matrimony only does this for him, that his purity is at once less protected and less suspected. I am very sceptical, then, of the universal correctness of Protestant ministers, whether in the Establishment or in Dissent. I repeat, I know perfectly well, that there are a great number of high-minded men among the married Anglican clergy who would as soon think of murder, as of trespassing by the faintest act of indecorum upon the reverence which is due from them to others; nor am I denying, what, though of course I cannot assert it on any knowledge of mine, yet I wish to assert with all my heart, that the majority of Wesleyan and dissenting ministers lead lives beyond all reproach; but still allowing all this, the terrible instances of human frailty of which one reads and hears in the Protestant clergy, are quite enough to show that the married state is no sort of testimonial for moral correctness, no safeguard whether against scandalous offences, or (much less) against minor forms of the same general sin.

Purity is not a virtue which comes merely as a matter of course to the married any more than to the single, though of course there is a great difference between man and man; and though it is impossible to bring the matter fairly to an issue, yet for that very reason I have as much right to my opinion as another to his, when I state my deliberate conviction that there are, to say the least, as many offences against the marriage vow among Protestant ministers, as there are against the vow of celibacy among Catholic priests . . .

But if matrimony does not prevent cases of immorality among Protestant ministers, it is not celibacy which causes them among Catholic priests. It is not what the Catholic Church imposes, but what human nature prompts, which leads any portion of her ecclesiastics into sin. Human nature will break out, like some wild and raging element, under any system; it bursts out under the Protestant system; it bursts out under the Catholic; passion will carry away the married clergyman as well as the unmarried priest. On the other hand, there are numbers to whom there would be, not greater, but less, trial in the vow of celibacy than in the vow of marriage, as so many persons prefer Teetotalism to the engagement to observe Temperance.

Till, then, you can prove that celibacy causes what matrimony certainly does not prevent, you do nothing at all. This is the language of common sense. It is the world, the flesh, and the devil, not celibacy, which is the ruin of those who fall. (Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in England, Lecture 4, 1851, 134-136)

With regard to 1 Corinthians 7, Methodist commentator Adam Clarke (1760-1832) somehow manages to completely flip the Apostle Paul’s meaning, with an astonishing contempt for the actual text he is supposedly expounding. St. Paul writes in 7:32-33: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife.” But by some unknown, inexplicable process of reasoning from that text, Clarke can make this comment:

The single man is an atom in society; the married man is a small community in himself. The former is the centre of his own existence, and lives for himself alone; the latter is diffused abroad, makes a much more important part of the body social, and provides both for its support and continuance. The single man lives for and does good to himself only; the married man lives both for himself and the public. Both the state and the Church of Christ are dependent on the married man, as from him under God the one has subjects, the other members; while the single man is but an individual in either, and by and by will cease from both, and having no posterity is lost to the public for ever. The married man, therefore, far from being in a state of inferiority to the single man, is beyond him out of the limits of comparison. He can do all the good the other can do, though perhaps sometimes in a different way; and he can do ten thousand goods that the other cannot possibly do. And therefore both himself and his state are to be preferred infinitely before those of the other. (Commentary on the Bible, 1825, six volumes, available online)

All this flows from Clarke’s assumption that Paul is only talking this way because of the “present distress”; otherwise he would prefer marriage to singleness. When he comments on verse 35, where Paul makes his strongest endorsement of the practical and spiritual benefits of celibacy over against marriage, he again utilizes the method of “limited application” in order to evade the clear, straightforward meaning of the text: “Nothing spoken here was ever designed to be of general application; it concerned the Church at Corinth alone, or Churches in similar circumstances.” The famous Presbyterian commentator Matthew Henry (1662-1714) couldn’t refrain from the temptation to bash Catholic priestly vows in an irrational fashion:

Marrying is not in itself a sin, but marrying at that time was likely to bring inconvenience upon them, and add to the calamities of the times; and therefore he thought it advisable and expedient that such as could contain should refrain from it; but adds that he would not lay celibacy on them as a yoke, nor, by seeming to urge it too far, draw them into any snare; and therefore says, But I spare you. Note, How opposite in this are the papist casuists to the apostle Paul! They forbid many to marry, and entangle them with vows of celibacy, whether they can bear the yoke or no.  (Commentary available online)

This is an utterly ridiculous remark. It’s as if one envisions an imaginary Catholic Church (one which seems to be lodged in every anti-Catholic’s mind) where potential priests are dragged screaming and kicking (perhaps drugged up, too, and pulled from the arms of hysterical, grieving girlfriends) and forced to take their vows under gunpoint “whether they can bear the yoke or no.”

Henry speaks nothing of spiritual gifts, vocation, the voluntary nature of a discernment of the calling to the priesthood, or the graces of holy orders. Rather than show how Catholic teaching is wrong from biblical teaching, he takes the opportunity to irrationally rave and present an entirely jaded picture of Catholic belief and practice. What does that have to do, however, with exegesis?

In conclusion, I would like to cite the wise words of G. K. Chesterton, written 14 years before he became a Catholic. The paradox he notes is a marvelously ironic one: the Catholic Church is simultaneously attacked for being too “pro-family” and too “pro-children” but also for supposedly being against marriage and sexuality (as the Church, we are told, stifles marital and sexual happiness in its puritanical views on divorce and contraception), due to its high regard for the celibate life devoted to the Lord in a total giving of self. Chesterton’s point is that one need not choose; it’s a false dilemma from the start:

Thus, the double charges of the secularists, though throwing nothing but darkness and confusion on themselves, throw a real light on the faith. It is true that the historic Church has at once emphasized celibacy and emphasized the family; has at once (if one may put it so) been fiercely for having children and fiercely for not having children. It has kept them side by side like two strong colors, red and white, like the red and white upon the shield of St. George. It has always had a healthy hatred of pink. It hates that combination of two colors which is the feeble expedient of the philosophers. It hates that evolution of black into white which is tantamount to a dirty gray. In fact, the whole theory of the Church on virginity might be symbolized in the statement that white is a color: not merely the absence of a color. All that I am urging here can be expressed by saying that Christianity sought in most of these cases to keep two colors coexistent but pure. It is not a mixture like russet or purple; it is rather like a shot silk, for a shot silk is always at right angles, and is in the pattern of the cross. (Orthodoxy, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1959; originally 1908, 97)

* * * *

 

2017-04-03T17:06:10-04:00

Calvin14

Portrait of John Calvin (1509-1564 ) from the 16th century (unknown) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

* * *

(9-17-09)

* * *

This paper deals with John Calvin’s arguments in  Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, 12:23-28 (using the online public domain version). I’ve abridged his portions in a few portions for the sake of better flow of dialogue. Anyone wishing to read all his words or see the complete context can consult the online version. Calvin’s words will be in blue.

* * * * *

23. Of the celibacy of priests, in which Papists place the whole force of ecclesiastical discipline. This impious tyranny refuted from Scripture. An objection of the Papists disposed of.

In one thing they are more than rigid and inexorable—in not permitting priests to marry. It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity.

***

Sure, there was a lot of corruption in that time. But that calls for reform of the thing (the virtue of celibacy), and spiritual revival, not destruction of a practice good in and of itself, and altogether biblical (1 Corinthians 7).
***

The prohibition, however, clearly shows how pestiferous all traditions are, since this one has not only deprived the Church of fit and honest pastors, but has introduced a fearful sink of iniquity, and plunged many souls into the gulf of despair.

***

Anyone who is not called to celibacy should avoid it, and get married. Is this not utterly obvious? Priests are not pressed into service at gunpoint, or involuntarily castrated. One wearies of the continual nonsense that is spouted by Protestants in their detestation of a wonderfully pious practice.

***

Certainly, when marriage was interdicted to priests, it was done with impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but contrary to all justice.

***

All institutions in life have requirements. Why should the Catholic Church be any different? It’s not required of everyone; only those who wish to be priests, by God’s calling.
***

First, men had no title whatever to forbid what God had left free;

***

Then why did Calvin rule Geneva with such a dictatorial hand, if he was so intensely concerned with personal freedom?

***

secondly, it is too clear to make it necessary to give any lengthened proof that God has expressly provided in his Word that this liberty shall not be infringed. I omit Paul’s injunction, in numerous passages, that a bishop be the husband of one wife;

***

Sure; if a bishop is married at all. He should not be guilty of bigamy or divorce and “remarriage”! That doesn’t mean that the Church has no jurisdiction to require celibacy if she so desires.

***

but what could be stronger than his declaration, that in the latter days there would be impious men “forbidding to marry”? (1 Tim. 4:3

Catholics do not forbid anyone to marry, strictly speaking. The Church simply says that she (and not even in its entirety, as Eastern Catholics allow married priests) wishes to draw for her priests exclusively from that portion of men who are already called by God to celibacy (1 Cor 7:17), in order to secure an undistracted devotion to the Lord (1 Cor 7:32, 35). The Church is not approaching a man who wants to be married and forbidding him to do so (i.e., going against his existing vocation and station in life); rather, she is receiving men who voluntarily follow the divine vocation of celibacy and who are voluntarily following a call by God to be priests.

Why this is the least bit controversial has always been a complete puzzle to me. I can only chalk it up to good old prejudice. It’s a way to lie about and bash the Catholic Church, and it is an emotional subject, so it is used for propaganda, with little regard for reason or biblical rationale. It plays well to the crowds. It’s demagoguery, pure and simple.

***

Such persons he calls not only impostors, but devils. 

Yes, but Calvin simply assumes this is applying to a practice such as that of the Catholic Church, rather than pseudo-ascetic extreme sects like the Manichees and Gnostics and (later) Albigensians and suchlike. The Catholic Church is following the advice of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7. If Calvin doesn’t like that, he needs to attack the Apostle Paul directly. That is his burden. Many Protestant commentaries agree with my assessment of 1 Timothy 4:3, over against Calvin’s anti-Catholic fantasies:
The ascetic tendencies indicated by these prohibitions developed earlier than these Epistles among the Essenes . . . who repudiated marriage except as a necessity for preserving the race, and allowed it only under protest and under stringent regulations . . . The prohibitions above named were imposed by the later Gnosticism of the second century.
(Marvin Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1980 [originally 1887], Vol. IV, 245)
See Col. 2:16, 21f., where Paul condemns the ascetic practices of the Gnostics. The Essenes, Therapeutae and other oriental sects forbade marriage. In 1 Cor. 7 Paul does not condemn marriage.
(A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1931, Vol. IV, 578)
The assertions of these verses are significant when studied in relation to the Gnostic and dualistic views that matter is evil and not created by God.
(The Eerdmans Bible Commentary, edited by D. Guthrie et al, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 3rd edition, 1970, 1173)
***

We have therefore a prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, intended to warn the Church from the outset against perils, and declaring that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils. 


We agree, and we deny that this applies to the Catholic position. Calvin — perhaps because of his rush to condemn Catholicism from top to bottom — doesn’t grasp the fundamental distinctions involved.

***

They think that they get finely off when they wrest this passage, and apply it to Montanus, the Tatians, the Encratites, and other ancient heretics. These (they say) alone condemned marriage; we by no means condemn it, but only deny it to the ecclesiastical order, in whom we think it not befitting. 

Much better. This approaches a position of actually understanding that which he opposes.

***

As if, even granting that this prophecy was primarily fulfilled in those heretics, it is not applicable also to themselves; 

But it’s not, because our position (rightly understood) is also St. Paul’s. If Calvin wants to attack it, he should, to be consistent, go after Paul too. But of course he does not. He’d rather play sophistical games.

***

or, as if one could listen to the childish quibble that they do not forbid marriage, because they do not forbid it to all. This is just as if a tyrant were to contend that a law is not unjust because its injustice presses only on a part of the state.

I repeat: all institutions impose rules and regulations. All organizations have entrance requirements. It is a part of life and reality. The Catholic Church has a perfect right and liberty under God to have this restriction, based on the teachings of St. Paul. I don’t think it is even arguable. This discussion is often conducted on a purely irrational, emotional plane.

***

24. An argument for the celibacy of priests answered.

They object that there ought to be some distinguishing mark between the clergy and the people; as if the Lord had not provided the ornaments in which priests ought to excel. 

St. Paul seemed to think that celibacy was a desired spiritual state, as long as one is called to it. Jesus was single. All of His disciples appear to have been also (Peter seems to have agreed with his wife to separate for the sake of ministry). We treasure celibacy and we treasure marriage (making it a sacrament, whereas Calvin and Luther removed sacramentality from it). This is the biblical, Pauline, both/and. But Calvin has no place for Paul’s extolling of celibacy for the sake of greater service to the Lord, in his system. So which outlook is more biblical and well-rounded? Is it not utterly obvious? What would Calvin do with, for example, the following passage from the lips of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ?:

Luke 18:28-20 And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” [29] And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Why should we Catholics disagree with Jesus? The Catholic Church is not even requiring this much. She doesn’t command a man to leave his wife or children or parents. Rather, she accepts men who have already felt the call or vocation of celibacy. Again, Calvin’s beef is with Jesus Himself, Who sanctioned far more of a “deprivation of liberty” or “imprisoning conscience” than the Catholic Church ever supposedly did.

***

Thus they charge the apostle with having disturbed the ecclesiastical order, and destroyed its ornament, when, in drawing the picture of a perfect bishop, he presumed to set down marriage among the other endowments which he required of them. 

At times there have been married bishops, because this is a disciplinary matter, not a dogmatic one. It’s neither here nor there.

***

I am aware of the mode in which they expound this—viz. that no one was to be appointed a bishop who had a second wife. This interpretation, I admit, is not new; but its unsoundness is plain from the immediate context, which prescribes the kind of wives whom bishops and deacons ought to have. Paul enumerates marriage among the qualities of a bishop; . . .

***

We have married priests today in the Eastern Rites, and there have been married bishops in the past. Both/and. But Calvinism and general Protestantism sure don’t have much of a tradition of single pastors, do they? They accept one-half of Paul’s teaching and not the other, and this is the problem.

***

Let every one consider with himself from what forge these things have come. Christ deigns so to honour marriage as to make it an image of his sacred union with the Church. What greater eulogy could be pronounced on the dignity of marriage? 

None, but it is irrelevant to the point at hand.

***

How, then, dare they have the effrontery to give the name of unclean and polluted to that which furnishes a bright representation of the spiritual grace of Christ?

***

The same way that Jesus Himself (along with Paul) does:

Matthew 19:10-12 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” [11] But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. [12] For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Obviously, then, Calvin and many Protestants are among those who can’t “receive” this plain teaching of Jesus. That’s not our problem, that they are so unwilling to accept certain parts of inspired divine revelation. We show no such reluctance and lack of faith and trust in God’s designs.

***

25. Another argument answered.

Though their prohibition is thus clearly repugnant to the word of God, 

Really? I should think that the truth is clearly quite the opposite, once all the relevant biblical data is examined, and clear thinking brought to bear, rather than irrational emotionalism and a slanderous anti-Catholic motivation.

***

they, however, find something in the Scriptures to defend it. The Levitical priests, as often as their ministerial course returned, behoved to keep apart from their wives, that they might be pure and immaculate in handling sacred things; and it were therefore very indecorous that our sacred things, which are more noble, and are ministered every day, should be handled by those who are married: as if the evangelical ministry were of the same character as the Levitical priesthood. . . . the apostle declares distinctly, without reservation, “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). And the apostles showed, by their own example, that marriage is not unbefitting the holiness of any function, however excellent; for Paul declares, that they not only retained their wives, but led them about with them (1 Cor. 9:5).

***

Why is 1 Corinthians 7 overlooked throughout the entire section of Calvin’s wrongheaded, unbiblical rantings against celibacy? The Levitical priests offer one analogy, but Calvin neglects to see it based on sweeping bigotry [a portion of the deleted portion above]: “ecclesiastical pastors do not sustain this character in the present day.” This is hardly intellectually impressive.

***

26. Another argument answered.

Then how great the effrontery when, in holding forth this ornament of chastity as a matter of necessity, they throw the greatest obloquy on the primitive Church, which, while it abounded in admirable divine erudition, excelled more in holiness. For if they pay no regard to the apostles (they are sometimes wont strenuously to contemn them), 

Who is not paying attention? Calvin has ignored 1 Corinthians 7, and he has ignored the fact of Paul’s and the twelve disciples’ celibacy and separation from wives in some cases, for the sake of ministry.

***

what, I ask, will they make of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not only tolerated marriage in the episcopal order, but also approved it? 

Nothing, as it is irrelevant: celibacy being a matter of discipline, not dogma.

***

They, forsooth, encouraged a foul profanation of sacred things when the mysteries of the Lord were thus irregularly performed by them. In the Council of Nice, indeed, there was some question of proclaiming celibacy: as there are never wanting little men of superstitious minds, who are always devising some novelty as a means of gaining admiration for themselves. 

St. Paul’s express teachings are superstitious novelties? That is an odd (beyond bizarre) thing for a Protestant to imply.

***

What was resolved? The opinion of Paphnutius was adopted, who pronounced legitimate conjugal intercourse to be chastity (Hist. Trip. Lib. 2 c. 14). The marriage of priests, therefore, continued sacred, and was neither regarded as a disgrace, nor thought to cast any stain on their ministry.

***

They were less conformed to the Pauline model in those days, but that doesn’t mean the Pauline model cannot be followed should the Church decide to make it normative.

***

27. An argument drawn from the commendation of virginity as superior to marriage. Answer.

In the times which succeeded, a too superstitious admiration of celibacy prevailed. Hence, ever and anon, unmeasured encomiums were pronounced on virginity, so that it became the vulgar belief that scarcely any virtue was to be compared to it. And although marriage was not condemned as impurity, yet its dignity was lessened, and its sanctity obscured; 

No; only from Calvin’s dichotomous “either/or” mentality does this follow. Catholics think in “both/and” terms.

***

so that he who did not refrain from it was deemed not to have a mind strong enough to aspire to perfection. 

We can strive for perfection in whatever state of life God has called us to.

***

Hence those canons which enacted, first, that those who had attained the priesthood should not contract marriage; and, secondly, that none should be admitted to that order but the unmarried, or those who, with the consent of their wives, renounced the marriage-bed. 

That is, just as Jesus Himself sanctioned (Luke 18:29).

***

These enactments, as they seemed to procure reverence for the priesthood, were, I admit, received even in ancient times with great applause. But if my opponents plead antiquity, my first answer is, that both under the apostles, and for several ages after, bishops were at liberty to have wives: that the apostles themselves, and other pastors of primitive authority who succeeded them, had no difficulty in using this liberty, and that the example of the primitive Church ought justly to have more weight than allow us to think that what was then received and used with commendation is either illicit or unbecoming. 

Scripture itself: the words of our Lord and the Apostle Paul carry as much weight in the scheme of things as the prevailing practices of the early Church (assuming for the sake of argument that it was as Calvin describes).

***

My second answer is, that the age, which, from an immoderate affection for virginity, began to be less favourable to marriage, did not bind a law of celibacy on the priests, as if the thing were necessary in itself, but gave a preference to the unmarried over the married. 

Hence, the Western, Latin Rites in Catholicism take one path, and the Eastern Rites another. Both/and. But Protestantism mostly teaches Only, only. Celibacy is frowned upon, especially in pastors, and this is an unbiblical, un-Pauline attitude.

***

28. The subject of celibacy concluded. This error not favoured by all ancient writers.

Therefore, as often as the defenders of this new tyranny appeal to antiquity in defence of their celibacy, so often should we call upon them to restore the ancient chastity of their priests, to put away adulterers and whoremongers, . . .
***All good Christians desire such a reform in the clergy and in all Christians; indeed all men, if it were possible.

***

. . . the better-hearted may understand the effrontery of our enemies in employing the name of antiquity to defame the holy marriage of priests. In regard to the Fathers, whose writings are extant, none of them, when they spoke their own mind, with the exception of Jerome, thus malignantly detracted from the honour of marriage.

That’s what I have been contending: Catholics think very highly of marriage!

***

We will be contented with a single passage from Chrysostom, because he being a special admirer of virginity, cannot be thought to be more lavish than others in praise of matrimony. Chrysostom thus speaks: “The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the second, faithful marriage. Therefore, a chaste love of matrimony is the second species of virginity” (Chrysost. Hom. de Invent. Crucis.).

Chastity is not confined to the unmarried, because it is ultimately a state of heart and mind.

2019-06-10T19:01:48-04:00

Lemaitre3
Fr. Georges Lemaître (1894–1966), c. 1933: Belgian priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven, and originator of Big Bang cosmology [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

 (11-16-12)

Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandreou) of Adrianoupolis (Eastern Orthodox) stated:

Marriage according to the Lord and celibacy for the Lord’s sake are two different spiritual paths, it is true, but both are incontestably valid for a true living of the content of the faith.

Of these paths, anyone is free to follow either the one or the other in accordance with his own vocation and particular charisms. The Church equally blesses the two manifestations of the Christian’s spiritual combat, and Orthodox Churches show no preference for one at the expense of the other, preferring not to advance theological reasons in justification of one option rather than another. The choice lies with individual Christians, who thus make themselves responsible for the consequences of their own spiritual combat. . . .Thus Orthodox tradition and practice honour and respect the celibacy of priests and praise their service in the body of the Church; at the same time, they honour and respect the married clergy since, they too, serve the same sacrament of the Church and salvation. The Orthodox Church thus accepts these two forms of service equally and leaves the choice of which it is to be to the individual member, in accordance with his own vocation and particular charisms. For pastoral reasons however, the Church has favoured the institution of celibacy for the order of bishops, and these are chosen exclusively from the celibate priesthood.

(Orthodox Research Institute“The Orthodox Churches and Priestly Celibacy”)

I was curious, then, about the approximate percentage of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic priests who are celibate.

The point being, that if celibacy is indeed so valued in “non-Latin” Christianity, as is claimed above, we should expect to see a significant number (maybe one-quarter?, one-third?) of celibate clergy (since they are given the choice). If not, then it seems reasonable to conclude that it is relatively less valued, so that “freedom of choice” becomes in fact, one usual outcome, scarcely distinguishable from the general public.

And that in turn (if true) would be another argument in favor of mandatory celibacy: since if it isn’t required, the norm quickly becomes rare instances of what Paul recommended as a preferred state for clergy. Human nature seems to teach us that what is very difficult usually won’t be chosen unless it is mandatory in some sense. Hence we have the explicitly biblical notion of the evangelical counsels. 

found this statistic:

About 91 percent (575 of 630) of active Greek Orthodox priests in the United States are married.

And this:

Over 90 percent of Greek orthodox priests in America are married.

Okay; so if we are to believe these reports, about one in ten Orthodox priests feel called to a celibate state. Here’s another claim:

Ninety-three percent of the Orthodox priests [in America] were married . . .


Therefore, I would conclude from the actual results (assuming these reports are accurate) that celibacy is greatly undervalued in Orthodoxy among the class of clergy; else there would be more than only 7-10% of all Orthodox clergy. The estate in life that St. Paul taught was preferable in terms of undistracted devotion to the Lord, occurs far less among Eastern Orthodox clergy, because it is not required. The end result becomes like the situation in Protestantism: clergy are allowed to marry so virtually all do, and those who don’t are too often regarded with suspicion. I think this is human nature: if an easier path is allowed, almost all take it, whereas difficult things need to be required.

Latin Rite Catholicism thinks celibacy is so praiseworthy and honorable that it chooses to draw its priests almost exclusively from the class of men who agree with Paul and follow one of the evangelical counsels, as regards their own calling in life. I’ve never for the life of me understood the objection to this (even when I was an evangelical Protestant I understood the reasoning of it): what it could possibly be.

What would be the reply to this line of argumentation? I never thought of this before; it just occurred to me last night. One “solution” or middle course (I don’t advocate it myself; I’m just thinking theoretically) might be to have a clergy that is (deliberately, by requirement) 50% celibate and 50% married, so that both callings are equally valued in practice. Otherwise it seems to be an all-or-nothing situation: 99% celibate clergy (a few exceptions for Anglican clergy converts, etc.) or 90-93% married clergy. If the stats are similar in Eastern Catholic clergy (as I strongly suspect now, will be the case), my point is strengthened.

                                                                           * * * * *

An Orthodox Christian in a Facebook thread denied that there was an innate relationship between celibacy and the priesthood. 
But if this is so, why, then (if there is not at least a strong correlation), were Jesus and all the disciples either not married or married (like Peter) with an agreement to leave their wives for the sake of ministry: with Jesus actually referring to those who have left wives / families for His sake? Between that and St. Paul’s strong teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, do we not see a sort of biblical / apostolic “preference” towards the state of celibacy for clergy?Of course the ones who are celibate for the sake of the kingdom come from a small “pool,” but then priests are extraordinary men, so I would fully expect them to come from a small and very special sub-class of men in the first place.

There are plenty of opportunities for married ministry. I do it myself: full-ti
me apologetics and evangelism for now eleven years, with four children. One can be a deacon or DRE or youth pastor or teacher in a Catholic school. I don’t have an entire parish to look after, which is the point. It’s very difficult to balance that and a family. Just ask children of Protestant pastors how that often works out. Human beings can only do so much.

Of course no one should be a celibate priest if they aren’t called to it. This is self-evident Existing problems do not cast doubt on the principle: only the selection process.

We draw our priests from a smaller group of men than Orthodoxy does. I don’t see why the Latin system of required priestly celibacy should so often be disparaged. Live and let live . . . We have biblical support for it. Catholicism as a whole has both traditions (since Eastern Catholicism allows a married clergy), so once again we are “both/and” in approach, and we value diversity of opinion and practice.

The goal and task is to find holy men who truly are called to the priesthood and/or celibacy. This is of supreme importance, given the sexual scandals and heterodoxy that have occurred. Liberalism and nominalism are universal problems. I’ve been told (lectured on occasion) that Orthodoxy is magically immune from these forces, but it is not. The Orthodox priest has to live in our sewer-society, just as the Catholic priest has to.

It all goes back to the selection process. If we agree that celibate priests and married priests are both  valid, then the Catholic (Latin) Church has to make sure that candidates for the priesthood are called to celibacy, and Orthodoxy has to make sure that a married priest can handle both family and church responsibilities. It’s two very different sets of capabilities and personal needs.

***** 
For a continuation of this argument, see: Further Reflections on Mandatory Priestly Celibacy [8-2-14]
*****
2024-08-17T14:31:57-04:00

Photo credit: dnet (1-11-08) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

*****

Protestant Steve Gregg’s words will be in blue. See his online biography.

*****

This began with a thread on my Facebook page where I posted a meme. It read as follows (numbers added for the sake of reference):

Protestantism:

[1] Where everyone is a priest except priests,

[2] Where everyone can bind and loose except bishops,

[3] Where you can command angels but not ask their help,

[4] Where you can talk to the devil but not to saints,

[5] Where everyone gets a crown except the Virgin Mary,

[6] Where everyone can interpret Scripture except the Church,

[7] Where every Church is a Church except the Church.

Now, posting a meme doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with every particular of it. And this is clearly a proverbial-type of meme, that would allow many exceptions (just as passages in the Book of Proverbs do). Moreover, with Protestantism one has to generalize, since there are so many divisions, but these observations are either broadly true or true of some and sometimes many Protestants, or else I wouldn’t have posted it. There can always be partial exceptions in an individual as well. I will defend this as far as I agree with it and reply to objections that are in the thread. More on this aspect below . . .

All of a sudden this post has received 345 likes or dislikes, 95 comments, and 154 shares in a little less than 24 hours: far more than I usually get on my Facebook page. Readers can see the comments in their original contexts and format by consulting the post (linked at the top). I will be doing my usual back-and-forth (Plato / Socrates / Peter Kreeft) dialogue format. But I have cited all the words of my opponent. No “cynical / hostile” editing here!

I wrote to Steve Gregg on Facebook: “I, too, came out of a Jesus People / Movement background. In the early 80s I wanted to join Keith Green’s ministry, shortly before he was killed. I used to read Cornerstone Magazine, and visited there. I did street witnessing all through the 80s at U of M in Ann Arbor. Etc. I admire all of that. We have much in common because of it.”

I am neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. So I guess I would be called “Protestant”. I prefer the label “believer” or “disciple.” I do not fit your description:
*
Yes, you are a species of Protestant. But I understand that many Protestants deem themselves beyond any traditional or conventional theological / denominational labels and call themselves — as you did — merely a “believer” or “disciple” [of Jesus]” or just “Christians.” That’s fine on a certain level, with limitations, but in any event, one must be aware of their own theological pedigree and traditions. No one is beyond this, whatever they claim. We’re all products of some sort of tradition or influence.
*
In your biography you referred to many authors you have read. I am familiar with just about all of them. I know where you are coming from. It’s a form of Protestantism. I used to believe many of these same things as a non-denominational Baptist-type Arminian, with many Christian influences. Someone said that “everyone has a [theological] tradition; even if it is an unacknowledged one.”
*
You yourself made reference to where your own belief-system came from, historically speaking, in writing in your biography: “I suppose the first new ideas that I developed, from my personal study of the scriptures, were what would best be termed ‘Anabaptist’ convictions.” That’s good. I once angered one of my old evangelical teachers (a converted Jew for whom I had immense respect), by asking him if he were in the Anabaptist tradition. He thought he was above all categories and traditions, which is folly and silliness.
*
You, on the other hand, show that you are aware of at least some pedigree. The Anabaptists, of course, began shortly after Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517 and kicked off the Protestant Revolt. They’re considered to be Protestants who were part of “the radical reformation.” Both Luther and Calvin approved of executing them for heresy and sedition, as you may already know. It’s not just Catholics who killed others for believing what they thought was heresy.
*
1) No, everyone is a priest whom Jesus and the apostles acknowledged to be priests;
*
This part of the meme clearly refers to the Protestant emphasis on the universal priesthood of believers. That sense is scriptural, and we also believe it. But we differ in thinking that there is an additional specific class of clergy called priests, who preside over the Mass and watch over their flocks, as Protestant pastors do. In other words, there are two senses of “priest” in the Bible. I addressed this topic in my 2007 book, The One-Minute Apologist: Essential Catholic Replies to Over Sixty Common Protestant Claims (pp. 48-49; I use RSV for biblical citations):

The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: in the early days of Christianity some things were understood only in a very basic or skeletal sense. This is true even of certain doctrines accepted by all Christians, such as the Holy Trinity or original sin. The canon of biblical books took four centuries to be fully established. . . .

But one can indeed find evidence in the Bible of a Christian priesthood. Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper [(Lk. 22:19: “Do this in remembrance of me”]; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist in Acts 20:11. These same disciples were models of a priestly life: wholly devoted to God, fulfilling a lifelong calling. Jesus had chosen and “appointed” them, and they had become His “friends” [Jn. 15:15-16]. He was their sole master [Mt. 6:24]. There was no turning back in their ministry [Lk. 9:62], and they were called to a radical commitment involving even leaving possessions and their entire families [Mt. 4:22; 19:27; Lk. 14:26]. The priest-disciple must accept hardships and privations and embrace self-denial [Mt. 8:19-20; 10:38; 16:24, etc.], and (if so called) celibacy, for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord [Mt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9]. They served the Body of Christ [1 Cor. 3:5; 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5], and dispensed sacraments [1 Cor. 4:1; Jas. 5:14; Mt. 28:19]. A universal priesthood of “offering” (sacrifice) extending to “every place” in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18, 21 and Malachi 1:11.

Protestants sometimes cite 1 Peter 2:5, 9 (cf. Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) to the effect that all Christians are priests; therefore there is no set-apart priestly ministry. But Peter was citing Exodus 19:6: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This passage couldn’t possibly have meant that there was no priesthood among the ancient Hebrews, since in Leviticus they clearly had a separate class of priests. In fact, this same chapter twice contrasts the “priests” with the “people” [Ex. 19:21-24; cf. Josh. 3:6; 4:9].  Thus, it makes much more sense to interpret “priests” in 1 Peter 2:5 as meaning a chosen, specially holy people. This is fairly clear in context, in both parallel passages. The notion of “spiritual sacrifices” (faith, praise, giving to others) applies to all Christians [Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15-16].

The idea that all Christians are priests to the exclusion of a special class of clergy-priests is traceable to Martin Luther, not the Bible.
*
2) Bishops are not singled out to be excluded from the activity of binding and loosing;
*
The idea in the meme is that most Protestants don’t have bishops at all, despite their being cited as a Church office in the Bible (“bishop” appears four times in the NT in RSV). Technically (where I disagree with the meme), priests — not just bishops — bind and loose as well, in the course of confession, absolution, and penance. But most Protestants don’t have priests, either, so it makes little difference as to the overall point being made. Catholics believe that Jesus’ original disciples represented as a prototype, priests (or pastors, if one “Protestantizes” it).
*
Hence, Jesus told Peter to “Feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” and “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). And the Apostle Paul, speaking to “the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17), said, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Similarly, the Apostle Peter wrote: ” So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . . Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (1 Pet 5:1-2).
*
Now, one might ask what we mean by “binding and loosing.” International Standard Bible Dictionary (“Bind, Bound”) states:
In a figurative sense, to bind heavy and burdensome (extra) so-called religious duties on men (Mt 23:4). This figurative use of the word in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 has given special interest to it. Necessarily certain powers for administration must be conferred on this company of men to carry out the purpose of Christ. That this power was not conferred on Peter alone is evident from the fact that in Mt 18:18 it is conferred on all the apostles. The use of the word in the New Testament is to declare a thing to be binding or obligatory (Joh 20:23).
New Bible Dictionary (“Binding and Loosing”) affirms that this means “the Church’s power to excommunicate and reconcile the sinner.” Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“Binding and Loosing”) likewise defines it as “the authority to to determine the rules for doctrine and life . . .” These are all Protestant sources.
*
3) Most Protestants do not believe in commanding angels. I don’t…nor does anyone I know;
*

Again, it’s a proverbial-type meme. I agree with you that this particular item applies to only a small number of Protestants. Even you assumed that by using the word “most.” If “most” Protestants don’t believe this, then by the same token, “some” do! They exist. You mentioned Kenneth Hagen in your biography. His fellow “Word of Faith” minister Kenneth Copeland teaches this:

2. Command your angels

Can you really do this? In short, yes. Keep in mind, you aren’t commanding them in the same way you are commanding and rebuking the devil. You are releasing them to do the work they’ve been assigned to perform on your behalf.

You have been given the authority of Jesus Christ, as an heir, and you can command your angels to move on your behalf to carry out the Word (Psalm 103:20). Kenneth Copeland advises saying something like this: “In the Name of Jesus, ministering spirits, I assign you according to Hebrews 1:13-14 to see to it that I have protection in this car, in this airplane, in this building. I claim this right as an heir to salvation.” (“5 Ways To Put Your Angels To Work,” Kenneth Copeland Ministries)

Another Protestant site has an article entitled, “You Can Command Angels to Help You!” The Bible passages it cites don’t prove this, in my opinion. A third site states, “Yes, you CAN command angels with your words and your prayers.” There is even a book called Commanding Angels. So this exists. But it would be very difficult to find any Catholic of any note who believes in something this stupid and unbiblical. And this is the point. The error exists in your ranks. It doesn’t in ours. And I think that you have to ask yourself why that is?

It’s important to realize that the meme doesn’t necessarily have to mean that all Protestants believe all these things. That false notion is at the root of many objections in my Facebook thread. It’s implying (at least in my opinion and interpretation) that these beliefs can be or are found among Protestants.
*
To use an analogy, I could put up a meme about “The Democratic Party” and list seven things that some or many Democrats believe (free abortion and widespread illegal immigration and opposition to fossil fuels would be three examples). It wouldn’t follow that every Democrat believes all seven things; as Democrats (the men and women on the street; not just the politicians) are quite diverse as a group, just as Protestants are. But the generalizations would hold. Democrats are absolutely overwhelmingly in favor of legal abortion, etc. The fact that some aren’t doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the generalization. And the same applies to this meme.
*
It’s not our fault that Protestantism includes many weird and false beliefs within itself. You get angry when we merely point some of these out. But every difference of opinion within Protestantism entails at least one false view or two. They can’t both be true. Therefore, Protestantism by nature contains much false doctrine, simply because of the innumerable contradictions. It’s up to you to change that, but the grossly unbiblical spectacle of denominationalism has never been resolved and never will be because your own rule of faith of sola Scriptura precludes the possibility.  We can solve things because we abide by the biblical notions of authority: an authoritative Church and tradition in harmony with and guided by the inspired revelation of Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit.
*
By the way, I , too, opposed and wrote about the “name it claim it” / “all are healed” heresy and nonsense as an evangelical Protestant (and charismatic) in 1982. It was one of my earliest apologetics projects. I was also refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same time-period and defending the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity from Scripture.
*
The other part of this entry is “not ask[ing] their [angels’] help.” The vast majority of Protestants certainly oppose invocation of angels or departed human beings. That is absolutely indisputable. But this action is biblical. There is even a passage in Scripture where prayer petitions are asked of an angel and granted (!):
Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.
That’s asking an angel to help, and prayer to an angel, and the Bible presents it as perfectly fine and dandy. We’re biblical in this respect; probably 99% of Protestants aren’t (some high Anglicans would agree with us).
*
4) I don’t talk to the devil, but he (unlike deceased Christians) is around and might actually hear me;
*
I make numerous biblical arguments for the invocation of saints, which this item in the meme mentioned, as a thing Protestants deny. The best one, I think, is the rich man’s prayer petitions to Abraham (Luke 16). Abraham never rebukes him for petitioning him, but he answers “no”: just as God does when we ask something improper or against His will. So that’s one thing. As for talking to the devil, Jesus did that in the wilderness, so we certainly can (He being our model: 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; Heb 12:2-3).
*
I think James 4:7 (“Resist the devil and he will flee from you”) is consistent with the practice of talking to him when resisting him. Jesus said, “Begone, Satan!” (Mt 4:10), so we could say the same thing, applying James 4:7. So the relevant question here for Protestants, is, why are they reluctant to do a thing (talk to the devil) that Jesus Himself did?
*
5) Who ever suggested that Mary does not get a crown?
*

Again, the meaning behind this is that Protestants resist any mention of Jesus as the Queen of Heaven, etc., as supposed idolatry (“Mariolatry”), even though this is explicitly biblical (Rev 12:1: “on her head a crown of twelve stars”). Why? Several of the points in the meme are criticizing the very common Protestant shortcoming of “either/or” false dichotomies. An entire (brilliant) book was written about this very tendency, called The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, by Louis Bouyer, a Lutheran convert to Catholicism. My very highest recommendation!

6) Everyone who is in Christ actually IS the Church;
*

This point was about interpreting Scripture. Protestants — in the final analysis, or bottom line — essentially give the individual the final say in this, by adopting sola Scriptura, since it removed infallibility for the Church. Therefore, the individual (like Luther, who invented this!) can judge the institutional (Catholic / Orthodox) Church. That’s exactly what Luther did in 1521 at the Diet of Worms. He knew better than the entire unbroken 1500-year tradition of the Catholic Church. I’ll get to what the Church is in my next reply.
*
7) The Church is comprised of all who are in Christ. No church building or organization is “the Church.” That identity is reserved for the disciple community—the whole body of Christ globally. No one local congregation can claim to be the whole body of Christ.
*
This is untrue. The name of the group which is comprised of “all who are in Christ”: at last in terms of all who are actually saved and go to heaven in the end, is “the elect.” And the problem with that is that no one knows for sure who is in the elect, because we don’t perfectly know the future, and Christians can fall away from the faith. In the Bible, there are many instances of folks who are probably fallen away already, being included in the blanket term as members of the local church. So, for example, when Paul wrote to the Galatians, he addressed them as “To the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2). That is, he’s writing to those whom he considers part of the Church.
*
Yet in that group were terrible folks, since Paul wrote, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?. . . Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (Gal 3:1, 3). It’s the same with the seven churches in revelation. In that instance, Jesus is talking to them, commending and rebuking. But he addresses them as [local] churches. The people in those assemblies are part of the Church, in other words. There are bad people in the Church. And we don’ know who the elect are until we get to heaven and literally see who made it.
*
“Church” (ecclesia) is used many times in Scripture in the sense of the entire institutional Church. There are many arguments to be made along these lines, and I have made them. One of my favorites is the Jerusalem Council. This was led by Peter and the bishop of Jerusalem, James, attended by Paul, and consisted of “apostles and elders.” It made a decree that was agreed with by the Holy Spirit (i.e., an infallible or even inspired one) — Acts 15:28 — , which was proclaimed by Paul far and wide as binding on Christians (Acts 16:4).
*
That’s undeniably an institutional Church, and one that produced infallible binding decrees in council: all of which is contrary to the beliefs of most Protestants. Sola Scriptura denies that councils can be infallible, but the Jerusalem Council was. You deny that the Church was an organization. Yet here it was. BIG discussion — and if you hang around, we can get into that in far more depth — , but that is my short, nutshell answer for now.
*
Who told you these falsehoods about your “separated brethren”?
*
I draw these conclusions from my own study as an apologist (over 43 years) and “sociological observer” (I’m a sociology major) and my 13-year history as a zealous evangelical Protestant. I’ve defended them now and have pointed out the broad, general nature of the meme, which is always necessary in any “statement” about Protestantism.
*
I simply responded truthfully, line-by-line to the meme.
*
And now I have extended to you the same “favor” and courtesy.
*
[To someone else] you did not find Christ in a Protestant setting, which tells me you were never actually a “Christian” in Protestantism. . . . you have never known Christ–only religion
*
You don’t know that. You can’t say that about him because you don’t know his heart. Only God knows that. You don’t know enough about him to make such a sweeping judgment, because he didn’t say that much about his personal spiritual life. But here you are judging his soul. And the insult is complete with a Protestant slogan: the pitting of Christ against religious observance, as if that is valid to do. Religion is not a bad thing. It’s not a dirty word. It appears six times in the NT in RSV (and religious also appears three times), in an entirely positive sense. So who are we to make it a term of condescending disdain when the Bible doesn’t?
*
Since neither Christ nor the apostles affirmed any point in this paragraph, I will assume you take these things to be true on the authority of the particular religious establishment in which you have chosen to place your confidence. 
*
All of them are affirmed in the Bible, and I have shown that in many of my articles and books. You make bald statements. I make elaborate biblical and historical, rational arguments. The Mormon comparison is an old tired and boorish saw. Don’t even try that, if I am around.
*
this was also true of many early Christian congregations before the idea of apostolic succession was invented.
*
Apostolic succession is explicitly biblical. See, for example:
*
*
*
*
Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]
*
*
Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 7-25-20]
*
A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 4-23-21]
*
*
*
You may have been around Pentecostals. Most Protestants do not believe in such things.
*
Yeah, I agreed above. I contend that the meme doesn’t require an interpretation that “all Protestants believe everything in the meme.” Wikipedia (“Pentecostalism”) states that “worldwide Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity numbers over 644 million adherents.” I was a charismatic evangelical for ten years and I attend a Catholic charismatic parish now (since 2020). I never believed that I could command an angel, but if even, say, a third of pentecostals believe this (I don’t know how many do), that’s about 215 million people (60 million more than all worldwide Lutherans and Presbyterians combined).
*
That’s more than sufficiently enough to note this as a belief of [some] Protestants. By contrast, there are 80 million Lutherans worldwide, 85 million Anglicans, 80 million Methodists, 170 million Baptists, and 75 million Presbyterians. There is overlap in the categories, but assuming for comparison’s sake that pentecostals are a distinct group, they have 154 million more people than all of these very mainstream denominations combined. That even brings into question the notion that pentecostals are a minority in Protestantism. Sounds like they are a majority and by far the largest single distinct group.
*
I have been in very many different Protestant churches and do not find this to be accepted in the vast majority of cases. No Protestant I know believes in commanding angels.
*
Then you must not have been to many pentecostal churches. I have. As I said, I was a charismatic evangelical, and most of my time was spent there (Assemblies of God, where I got married, and non-denominational congregations).
*
I have been in (probably) about 100 (I have taught in many around the world over the last 55 years), and have never seen such a reaction to the mention of the mother of Jesus. Your experience seems very limited.
*
The mere mention of Mary doesn’t do that (after all, Protestants talk about her quite a bit at Christmas, but not much the rest of the year), but if anyone dares mention “Catholic” views of Mary, even those which all Protestants once believed (like her perpetual virginity) or say she is the “mother of God” there is plenty of scorn.
*
What all of these people, including you, have in common is a blind loyalty to a preferred religious system, which has no support from scripture.
*
If you believe that, then you may have come to the very last place you want to be online: to the person whose career is centered around “biblical Catholicism.” I hope you stick around. You’ll see how biblical Catholicism is. We can discuss whatever you like. I’ve covered all of the major areas of theology in my 4,800+ articles and 55 books. You didn’t even claim we have “less” support than Protestantism does, but rather, “no support. Every Christian group supports their views from Scripture. We are no exception. I can attest to the fact that as a Catholic, I have learned about Scripture in exponentially more depth than I ever did as a Protestant. And I say that as one with deep respect for Protestantism and for my own former teachers during my evangelical experience.
*

If you wish to explore the controversy at a somewhat more thoughtful level, you might be interested in hearing my five debates with Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers—or my five debates with Tim Staples at my own website
*

Good for you. Then perhaps you will be willing to dialogue with me, too. I hope so! You can start by replying to this, or by picking another topic of your choice (but I hope you do that after you respond to this). I’ve done probably over 1,000 written debates.
*

I promise never to complain about any truth. However, you have only repeated controversial and unsupportable Catholic talking points, which I have heard hundreds of times, but which I know to have no scriptural case in their favor.
*

Then you must not have run across me before. I can defend, and have defended virtually every Catholic “distinctive” doctrine from Scripture: most many times. And this has been done for a long time. A book that highly influenced me was James Cardinal Gibbons‘ book, The Faith of Our Fathers (1876). It’s filled with scriptural arguments. So is St. Francis de Sales’ superb book, The Catholic Controversy, which helped convert over 70,000 Calvinists in France (not to mention St. Thomas Aquinas’ work, too).
*
So yeah, Protestants don’t have a monopoly on biblical argumentation, much as you may have deluded yourself is supposedly the case. We all make sincere biblical arguments; we all revere the inspired revelation of Scripture. That’s what we have in common. And that’s why I defend Catholicism from Scripture. We’re by far the most thoroughly biblical communion in Christianity.
*

Sadly, you have done nothing to demonstrate that these statements even have the slightest likelihood of being true.
*
He may not have (I don’t know), but I have. If you want to get into this discussion, then do it with the person who has devoted his life for now 34 years (the last nearly 23 as a professional, full-time, published apologist), to defending Catholicism from Scripture. That’s what Protestants (generalizing! — but in this instance from long personal experience) are so unwilling to do. They’re very reluctant to engage with Catholics who are willing and prepared to engage their arguments (from Scripture or history) point-by-point and in great depth. I was willing to do that as a Protestant, and as a result I am a Catholic. I knew the superior arguments once I finally came into contact with them.
*
No, you are not restricted to one choice, namely, to generalize about Protestants. You admit that Protestants vary broadly from each other, so generalization is simply impossible and irresponsible.
*
That’s simply untrue. We generalize all the time about many things. There is nothing wrong with it. I have defended each point of the meme. If you disagree, now is your chance to counter-reply.
*
If you have known some Protestants who hold the views you listed, you might mention which brand you are referring to, while pointing out that they would represent a tiny minority of those under the diverse Protestant rubric.
*
I have done some of that. I already blew away your insinuation that pentecostals are but a tiny fraction of Protestantism. They are not at all. They are the fastest growing sector, by far.
*
Making irresponsible and false generalizations
*
I vehemently deny that, per my above argumentation and much more that I could provide. You act as if no one can ever make any generalizations about anything, which is patently absurd. Sociology (my major) and many other fields heavily utilize it. See, for example, “Generic Generalizations,” by Sarah-Jane Leslie and Adam Lerner, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It states:
It is clear that generics are not equivalent to universal statements, but rather permit exceptions—that is, generics can be true even if some (or sometimes many) members of the kind lack the property in question. Generics also do not mean “most”; it is false that most mosquitoes carry the West Nile virus and true that most books are paperbacks, but our intuitions about the truth/falsity of the corresponding generics are reversed.
I love the following piece about generalizations that I found in a search:
When someone posts a generalization someone will post an exception.
Why is that?
Exceptions do not mean generalization are not generally true.
Generally does not mean always.

Hypothetical examples:

Someone posts that men are generally stronger than women, so someone will mention a very strong woman they know.
Someone generalizes that hybrid cars are usually driven more slowly than other cars, so someone will mention a hybrid owner that drives fast.
Someone generalizes that cats are more aloof than dogs, so someone will mention a very affectionate cat they know.
Someone generalizes that people with higher education usually make more money, so someone will mention a rich high school drop out they know of, or a person with a master degree working at a low-paying job.

There are a thousand examples here on PS.
I’m sure I’ve done it myself.
Why do we bother post exceptions?
It seems redundant.
Are generalizations somehow upsetting or threatening to people?
Do they think people making generalizations are so stupid that they think there are no exceptions?
Do they think exceptions neutralize what usually holds true?
Is this just PC-ness run amok?
Generalizations are okay.
They are only generalizations, in this article
you are not opposed to misrepresenting those who are not in your camp—giving the profound impression that only such lies make it possible to make your view seem valid.
*
As I have shown, I have not done that. All of the points in the meme have been believed by Protestants; often, by many, and sometimes by very many. These are strong words. You need to counter-reply, since I have expended so much effort to refute your charges, and other similar ones in the same thread, in this article.
*
I don’t think it is right for one group to mischaracterize the other. It only makes points with the ignorant. 
*
I completely agree. Again, I vigorously deny that I have done this, and have now explained why I have done so. You are the one grotesquely misrepresenting, by claiming that Catholics have “no” biblical arguments at all to support our positions. I assume for the sake of charity that you are profoundly ignorant of Catholicism, to say such a silly and outlandish thing. You couldn’t possibly claim this if you had even a rudimentary familiarity with Catholic apologetics and theology.
*
[we also had this exchange about how Christian Catholicism is]
*
I wanted to clarify one thing with you: can someone who believes and practices all that the Catholic Church teaches be saved, be a Christian, a believer, a disciple of Jesus, and heaven-bound? In other words, is Catholicism a species of Christianity alongside all the other groups or denominations? Or are we out of the fold because we’re Catholic?

*

I believe very many Catholics have been true followers of Jesus (St. Francis, Girolamo Savonarola, G.K. Chesterton, and Mother Theresa come immediately to mind).
*
Vatican II, likewise, seems to allow that many Protestant believers are also saved (assuming they don’t understand that the Catholic Church is the true church).
*
I don’t think it is right for one group to mischaracterize the other. It only makes points with the ignorant. No one needs my permission to choose their church assembly according to their conscience. You may notice that I have not said one word of attack about Catholicism. I simply (without rancor) corrected the misrepresentations of Protestantism in the meme.

*

Okay, good, so a Catholic, and a solid Catholic can possibly be saved. St. Francis, St. Teresa of Calcutta, and G. K. Chesterton all accepted all that the Church teaches. So you do believe that Catholicism a species of Christianity alongside all the other groups or denominations?
*
I believe there is only one species of Christianity, but several varieties (as there are 200 varieties of dogs, but all the same species). The one species of Christianity in the Bible is comprised only of true disciples of Jesus (Acts 11:26). In biblical times, there was only one variety.
*
Over the course of history, disciples have developed various worship forms and theological controversies that did not exist in the original movement, but these differences do not all place a person outside the fold under the Shepherd. These varieties are not all equally valid, of course, but nor do they, if believed by a true follower of Christ, necessarily make that person “not a Christian.”
*
So just to be clear, you hold that Catholicism is a “variety” of true Christianity (just as, say, Lutheranism or Calvinism are)? It seems so, by your last sentence, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure. It’s relevant because unless you acknowledge this, you would be dialoguing with me as an outsides, not a brother in Christ, and in a superior-subordinate relationship, not an equal one: as two committed disciples of our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.
*
I do not know you personally, so I hold no theories concerning your salvation. All true disciples of Jesus are saved. They are “Christians” by the only definition of that word found in scripture (Acts 11:26). If you are a disciple of Jesus (I am in no position to have an opinion about that), then you are a Christian. I don’t decide these things about others. You do not need my affirmation about this, if you have God’s.
*
I didn’t ask you if I was saved. I asked you (now for the third time): “do you hold that Catholicism is a ‘variety’ of true Christianity (just as, say, Lutheranism or Calvinism are)?”
*
You are asking about an institution; I am talking about the community of Christ. In the latter, there are Catholics and Protestants. If you wish to reframe this to say “Catholic (Christians) are Christians, and therefore part of Christianity,” I have no objection, but it is hardly different from what I have said previously every time you asked.
*
By the way, why are you so interested in my opinion about this? God’s opinion is the only one that matters. I have never set out to cut any particular group of Christians off from the Christian fold. My point is that Christians are individuals who follow Christ. I don’t care where they sit on Sunday mornings. That is irrelevant to their following of Christ.
*
Thank you for the clarification. This is a specific aspect of the larger determination of whether anti-Catholicism is in play or not (i.e., the denial that Catholics who adhere to all of the Catholic Church’s teachings can be Christians or be saved). With this answer you prove that you are not anti-Catholic, so I’m delighted to hear that.
*
In light of no responses whatever to my counter-reply blog post in over 8 1/2 hours (after scores and scores of rapid-fire criticisms yesterday), perhaps we could add an 8th point to the list in the “controversial” meme:
[8] Where it’s considered proper to go to Catholic sites to preach, troll, and condescend, but not to dialogue or even to read a counter-reply . . .
Note: several commentators flatly refused to even read my reply. They said so. Very open-minded and confident in their views, huh?
*
Oh, pardon me. I didn’t realize that I had signed up for an endless dialogue with you. I actually have a life, and a Facebook page where I am called upon to answer many questions on different subjects.
*
I did not troll you. Your meme showed up in the notifications on my page. I read it, and responded to it without rancor or challenge. Your meme was inaccurate, so I thought a person who cared about truth, like yourself, would welcome correction. You were not discussing doctrine, but seeking to describe Protestant beliefs. As a Protestant myself, I simply pointed out that neither I nor any Protestants that I know hold those beliefs. If I had known that you didn’t like to be informed, I would have refrained from intruding. I am not used to visiting pages where the host wants to maintain an amen club echo chamber.
*
You extended the discussion beyond my first response, so I interacted with you as long as I had time to do so. Then (you must have made the mistake of thinking I am obsessed with conversing with you), you began posting long and irrelevant responses to Protestantism, using me as your example (I don’t object to that).
*
What I do object to is that someone thinks himself so important as to oblige me to take hours of my day to read his essays, and (worse yet) to respond to them. If you want my responses to your familiar talking points, feel free to listen to my responses to Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin (I gave you the website). I am not interested in spending my life making the same points to every Catholic who craves my attention. If Scott Hahn wants to debate, I would give him the time. No offense, but you simply are not that big a priority in my life. In fact, I never heard of you before.
*
I do not troll Catholic (or any other websites). I don’t even know where they are, nor go looking for them, because they are not of particular interest to me (sorry, again, if that makes you feel less important). I spend as little time online as I can manage, since (as I said) actually have a life in the real world.
*
Of course, none of what I wrote applied to you. It was a generalization, as all of this is. That’s what has been so misunderstood. You apparently have a difficulty with understanding statements in context. I referred to “scores and scores of rapid-fire criticisms”: i.e., posts from many commentators. I was contrasting all of that bustling activity to the dead silence today.
*
Then I noted that “several commentators flatly refused to even read my reply. They said so.” That wasn’t you. You never said that (though now you do). I was clearly referring to the general tenor of discussion in a very lively thread with many participants. So what do you do? You casually assume that I am referring only to you. And you call me self-important?
*
You had shown arrogance in the thread already, particularly in reply to other people: judging their hearts, as if you can read minds. Now your pharisaical, judgmental attitude comes out again, directed towards me. I have less than no desire to interact with an arrogant pompous ass. You argued well, but your attitude stinks to high heaven. And now you won’t have to reply at all to my reply. How convenient!
*
Yes. Very convenient. I like convenience. I also like to dialogue with people whose skin is a bit thicker than that of tissue paper. I will leave you to your unoffending audience.
*
After this idiotic childish outburst you now accuse me of having a thin skin and wanting to have an echo chamber? You are too much! You’re blind as a bat to your own faults: at least in this instance, as all can see.
*
I have no secrets. I am glad that all can see.
*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: dnet (1-11-08) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

Summary: I reply to & interact with well-known Protestant apologist Steve Gregg, who didn’t like a meme I put up which generalized about certain errors in various sectors of Protestantism.

2024-05-20T18:05:21-04:00

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 4,600+ articles, please follow this blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

I am critiquing Lecture X (pp. 235-255) in the book, Errors and Persecutions of the Roman Catholic Church, published in 1881 by J. H. Chambers & Co. (St. Louis), which is entitled, “Celibacy of the Clergy.” It was written by Rev. Thomas O. Summers, S.T.D. (Doctor of Sacred Theology, 1812-1882), an American Methodist clergymen and theologian. In 1875, he was Professor of Systematic Theology at Vanderbilt University in Nashville and in 1878, he became Dean of the Biblical Department at Vanderbilt University, later known as the Vanderbilt University Divinity School. He was known as one of the foremost Methodist theologians of the nineteenth century, and authored many books. His words will be in blue.

***

According to the discipline of the Church of Rome, the clergy are forced to remain in a state of celibacy.

I love how this is always framed by Catholic critics as an issue of folks being “forced.” It’s an abuse of language.  But Dr. Summers sort of contradicts himself by noting that it is a “discipline.” I could just as well say, substituting the synonym, “rule,” that “the NBA has a rule that one must be able to shoot baskets in order to be in the league,” or “it’s a rule that a chemist must obtain a degree in chemistry,” or “an accountant must be good with numbers.”

No one describes those things in terms of being “forced.” How ridiculous would it be to say, “the NBA forces all of its players to shoot baskets well,” or, “chemists are forced to master the periodic table of elements,” or “accountants are forced to be good at arithmetic”? No one ever talks like that. Any task or job requiring a certain skill set or ability automatically narrows down the range of applicants, according to their match with the requirements. It’s no different with the Catholic Church.

Catholics have solid reasons from Holy Scripture itself — that I will get into — for requiring this: explicit passages from Jesus and Paul. If they are valid, then it is absurd to insinuate (by logical deduction), “Jesus and Paul forced Catholic priests to be celibate!” Moreover, it’s rarely ever noted that Eastern Catholic priests are not required to be celibate. They are as Catholic as any other Catholic. There are also some exceptions made even in the western, Latin rite, such as married Anglican priests who convert and are allowed to be married Catholic priests. I myself have known two of these priests.

Siricius, Bishop of Rome (A. D. 385), held that the marriage rites, which he stigmatized as obscoenae cupiditates [“obscene desires”], are inconsistent with the clerical state.

It didn’t take long for the sheer nonsense and fact-challenged polemics to set in. The two Latin words — in context [see an English translation of the papal decretal] — are not referring to legitimate sacramental matrimony (nice try), but rather, to immoral “forbidden liaisons whose manifest incontinence was shown by children born after absolution”: which are later referred to in the same section as “obscene desires.” The next section continues the same theme:

[C]ertain monks and nuns, having thrown off the life of sanctity, plunged into so much wantonness that they tangled themselves up in illicit and sacrilegious intercourse, first in secret, as it were under cover of the monasteries, but afterward, led on precipitously by abandonment of conscience they freely produced children with illicit partners, which both civil laws and ecclesiastical regulations condemn.

But Dr. Summers, who certainly should have known better, as a scholar, deliberately left the impression that a pope “stigmatized” the marriage ceremony as “obscene desires.” It’s outrageous. And it happens all the time in the anti-Catholic literature. Here it occurred in the second sentence of the chapter! Anything goes, in order to bash the Catholic Church: lie or not. It’s the old sin and rationalization of “the end justifies the means.” If one must lie and deceive in order to make a particular case, how strong can it be, I ask?

Dr. Summers then accounts the alleged horrors that made Catholic clergy “restive under these unnatural restrictions, and then cited the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which decreed that “if a married man wants to become a priest he must leave his wife, who must of her own free will take the vow of chastity.” He seems to be citing Canon IX on matrimony, which actually doesn’t say this particular thing. But even if it did imply that, or if somewhere else in the documents of Trent it states this, the problem with the insinuated contempt towards such a (voluntary) scenario is that it was espoused by our Lord Jesus Himself:

Luke 18:28-30 (RSV) And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” [29] And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

Accordingly, Trent states, following this model:

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the Church errs, in that she declares that, for many causes, a separation may take place between husband and wife, in regard of bed, or in regard of cohabitation, for a determinate or for an indeterminate period; let him be anathema.

He then cites Trent again:

Whoever shall affirm that the conjugal state is to be preferred to a life of virginity or celibacy, and that it is not better and more conducive to happiness to remain in virginity or celibacy, than to be married; let him be accursed. [Canon X on matrimony]

Again, this notion — in the correctly understood, somewhat qualified sense — is explicitly scriptural straight from the Apostle Paul:

1 Corinthians 7:28 But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35, 38 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . [38] So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Paul says that celibacy is “better” and can “secure” an “undivided devotion to the Lord.” That’s why, in a nutshell, the Catholic Church — for the most part — prefers celibate priests. We want those whos “interests” are not “divided” to be our pastors: totally devoted to their flocks, in heroic self-sacrifice. It’s remarkable to me that a Methodist minister and professor of theology — in all likelihood a fine Christian man — can be seemingly unacquainted with relevant plain Scripture on this topic.
*
Even Martin Luther admired the Catholic priests in his region who went out to serve the sick during one particular plague, risking possible death, whereas the Lutheran married pastors were too scared to do so, and understandably so, because they had families to care for. One sees here the practical utility of the celibate priest. He has but one flock, and he serves it fully, without distraction. The advantage seems self-evident, yet so many are inexplicably blind to it.
*
In passing, we must denounce the Tridentine sophism, insinuated in the contrast between marriage and chastity. Everybody knows that the Scriptures never oppose the one to the other. Those who are true to their marriage vows are as chaste as those who live continually in a state of celibacy. It ill becomes those who make matrimony one of the seven Sacraments, to say otherwise.
*
Trent did no such thing. Dr. Summers refers to Canon IX:  “all who do not feel that they have the gift of chastity, even though they have made a vow thereof, may contract marriage.” This statement is using “chastity” as a synonym of celibacy, which is perfectly in accord with the use in English. Dictionary.com states the definition of “chaste” as follows:
*
  1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous.

    Synonyms: continent

    Antonyms: immoral

  2. virgin.
  3. not engaging in sexual relations; celibate.
Hence, earlier in this canon it refers to “clerics constituted in sacred orders, or Regulars, who have solemnly professed chastity.” That’s clearly being used as a synonym of “taking a vow of celibacy.” The word “chastity” (like most words) also has a larger meaning of being sexually pure, which applies to all people, married and celibate alike. And of course, the Catholic Church agrees that marriage should be chaste as well in this larger sense. After all, as Dr. Summers notes, we regard sacrament as a sacrament. Methodism and larger Protestantism do not. We also regard a lawful marriage between two never-married Protestants as a sacrament. Sacraments give grace.
*
The superior sanctity supposed to reside in the clerical character and profession, does not therefore require that ministers should be celibates . . . 
*
Yes: that which Paul called “better” (1 Cor 7:38): a heroic sanctity of renouncing things that are in and of themselves good for the sake of the kingdom (a practice that Paul heroically chose in many ways, for many years) . . . Clerical celibacy is a specimen of a larger category of those who voluntarily remains single so as to have full devotion to the Lord, according to Paul. As I have pointed out many times, the Catholic Church simply draws most of its priests from this pre-existing “pool” of men who have been called by God Himself to be celibate.
*
Paul wrote: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17). Thus, the Catholic Church (western Latin rite, not the eastern rites) chooses to ordain those who have been called by God to singleness and celibacy. They’re not “forced” to do anything. They want to do this, otherwise they wouldn’t “sign up.” Duh!
*
indeed it rather requires that they should enter “the holy estate of matrimony.”
*
Now Dr. Summers becomes most unbiblical and unPauline and “requires” clergy to be married. Paul teaches that one should live in the way that the Lord called him to live, whether single or married. But now Protestant tradition wants to thumb its nose at Paul’s wise advice and make out that all clergy must be married. Even Paul’s own example and that of Jesus and most of the original disciples contradicts that. They were single. But the unspoken, unbiblical rule in Protestantism, is that pastors ought to be married.
*
Our Lord wrought a miracle to cure Peter’s wife’s mother of a fever, and said not one word about his putting away of his wife in order to become a Pope!
*
This is untrue. Peter had already voluntarily separated from his wife in order to be Jesus’ disciple (and Jesus was fine with that), as seen in Luke 18:28-30, which I already cited above. And Peter said, “we have left our homes . . .” That is, it wasn’t just him. It was several of the disciples.
*
John seems to have had a house in Jerusalem, and it might be inferred that he had a family there. John xix.
*
Having a house (whether rented or bought) is no proof of being married. Dr. Summers then notes that according to Church historian Eusebius, citing others, Philip and Jude were married, and that Church father Epiphanius thought that Andrew, Matthew, and Bartholomew were also. That would be six of twelve (including Peter), if so, and many or all of those may have voluntarily separated, as Peter did.
*
It’s no problem for our position at all. Celibacy is a mere discipline, not a dogma. As such, it can even change in the future. Our point is to note that celibacy for the sake of the kingdom and/or leaving existing wives, with mutual consent, have strong scriptural evidence in their favor. The fact that some of these men were married (at the very least two, judging by Jesus’ own words) doesn’t defeat that argument. We never denied it.
*
Now, we attach no importance to the statements of the Fathers, . . . 
*
That’s a fascinating statement, coming from a Methodist: a tradition that has relatively more respect for Church history. He doesn’t even follow established aspects of his own denomination. John Wesley, from whom Methodism derived, wrote:
. . . the primitive Fathers; I mean particularly Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian; to whom I would add Macarius and Ephraim Syrus. . . . I exceedingly reverence them, as well as their writings, and esteem them very highly in love. I reverence them, because they were Christians, such Christians as are above described. And I reverence their writings, because they describe true, genuine Christianity, and direct us to the strongest evidence of the Christian doctrine. . . . I reverence these ancient Christians (with all their failings) the more, because I see so few Christians now; because I read so little in the writings of later times, and hear so little, of genuine Christianity; . . . (A Letter to the Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton Occasioned by His Late Free Inquiry [4 Jan. 1749)
the Fathers never dreamed that the apostles or other ministers were debarred from matrimony.
*
Having just stated that the Church fathers are of “no importance,” he goes on to erroneously cite them en masse against Catholicism. See: “Early Church Fathers on Celibacy” (Practical Apologetics, 7-8-13).
*
Paul himself says : ” Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. ix. 5.)
*
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states: “A sister, a wife – Margin, ‘or woman.’ This phrase has much perplexed [Protestant] commentators.” So it’s not a cut-and-dried passage, even from a Protestant perspective. I would note that Paul is referring primarily to the right to have a wife while being an apostle and a missionary, as opposed to stating a fact that many of the apostles were married. It’s two different things. Paul argues that they all had the “right” to be married, and to “food and drink” (9:4, 9-10, 13) and “material benefits” (9:11) and wages (9:7, 14).
*
The wives of these married disciples — including Peter’s — could have joined them at certain times. One would expect that. After all, Jesus is thought to have lived for a time in Peter’s house in Capernaum on the shores of the Sea of Galilee (implied by Mk 1:29; Mt 8:14, 16; Lk 4:38; cf. similar Jn 11:54), where Peter could fish and still make a living. Presumably his wife lived with him at that time, and his mother-in-law, it appears, lived in the house with them (Mt 8:14), which was common Jewish practice.
*
Peter is shown throughout the Gospels working as a fisherman. Thus, plausibly, he continued to support his wife and family by simply sending them money earned by plying his trade. They wouldn’t have been that far away, as Israel is a small country. After Jesus’ resurrection and appearances to the disciples, Peter and other disciples were still fishing on the Sea of Galilee (Jn 21:1-14). So up to that time, at least, Peter seems to have never ceased being a fisherman, just as Paul made tents to support himself (Acts 18:3).
*
For the married disciples, it might have been a bit like musicians going out on tour. Often they leave their families, for months at a time. At other times (while touring), they are joined by their wife and maybe children. Our view incorporates all the relevant passages. Peter (along with one or more other disciples) left his family to serve (outside of Capernaum) with Jesus – or so it seems from his own statement, unless one illogically assumes that “everything” (Mt 19:27; Mk 10:28) and “nets” (Mt 4:20; Mk 1:18) are identical. But he seems to have been later accompanied by his wife on at least some missionary trips (1 Corinthians 9:5).
*
The late great Billy Graham often publicly regretted how he had to leave his wife and family for long periods of time, for his evangelistic crusades. But all eventually regarded it as a heroic sacrifice. Same thing with Catholic priests and monks and nuns . . .
*
In his First Epistle to Timothy (o. iii. ) he says, ‘ ‘A bishop, then, must be blameless, the husband of one wife — one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” So of the deacons: ”Even so must their wives be grave. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” . . . one thing is very certain, it does not exclude monogamists. It has been variously construed to forbid celibacy — successive or simultaneous bigamy or polygamy — and second marriages. As the rule obtains in the case of “the widows” mentioned (1 Tim. V. 9), who must have been each “the wife of one man,” it cannot mean that bishops and deacons must be married, . . . 
*
Does that mean (if we are interpreting hyper-literally and disallowing any exceptions) that every bishop must be married, and also must have children? What about widowers who became bishops (they must marry again?), or who couldn’t have children (low sperm count), or whose wives couldn’t, or were post-menopausal? Obviously, then, qualifications have to be made. I think the passage is generalized language, meaning, “if a bishop is married, it should only be once [no divorce or deceased wife followed by remarriage], and to one wife [no polygamy], and if he has children, he must have the ability to manage them well.” Again, this was the teaching, then. As a disciplinary matter (as opposed to dogmatic), it could and did change later.
*
After a while, however, exaggerated notions of the superior sanctity of celibacy crept into the Church, derived largely from the Jewish Essenes, the Gnostics, Montanists, Encratites, and others, whose ascetic notions . . . 
*
Um, that was St. Paul who taught this, as part of inspired revelation, as I have documented above.
*
But the imperious Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII., set himself to stop it effectually. He held a Council at Rome, A. D. 1074, in which the marriage of priests was considered as concubinage; and from that time to the present, the Romish Church has not allowed its clergy to live in the holy estate of matrimony.
*
The “Romish Church” in fact has allowed married priests in its 23 eastern rites (which contain some 18 million people), and in exceptional cases in the western rites, as already alluded to.
*
And experience has abundantly proved how vain is the attempt to alter the nature, or meliorate the character, of God’s creatures by mere human purposes or vows, without a peculiar gift or grace of God.
*
That’s the whole point. The Catholic Church selects those men who already have such a long-discerned vocation (or “peculiar gift” if you will) from God, to be priests.
*
They refer to Matt. xix. 11, 12 : ”But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men; and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” But what bearing has this on the subject? Is that any command for the clergy, or any others, to take the vow of celibacy?
*
The “eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” are those who voluntary abide by a life of celibacy, to which God has called them. They’re the ones whom the Church selects as priests. It’s because they have the calling and vocation from God, that they are able to live in that way. Those who aren’t, should never have become priests. But we know some priests are not truly called, or were and fell away due to their own rebellion. Some folks are serious sinners? Like this comes as a surprise?
*
Then there is a third class constituted of those who made themselves eunuchs, not in a literal sense . . ., but metaphorically, in the sense of subduing natural inclinations, so as to be at liberty to promote the cause of the gospel in such a way as cannot be done in the married state. Cf. 1 Cor. vii. 26, 34 ; ix. 5, 15, 16. . . . concurring however with divine aid. Now, our Lord says, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it” — implying that some cannot live in celibacy, but permitting those to do so, who can and are willing to do it for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; otherwise it seems to be the duty of all to marry. Heb. xiii. 4.
*
Exactly! I couldn’t have said it better, myself. This is the often-seen practice of critics of the Catholic Church accurately explaining the biblical rationale for one of our beliefs or practices, but then simply denying that it applies in our case. And so Dr. Summers writes, “This passage . . . gives no . . . countenance to the enforced celibacy of the clergy, or of monks and nuns.” It’s a remarkable blindness due to a strong prior bias.
*
So of 1 Cor. vii., which is pressed into the argument for the celibacy of the priesthood. There is no reference to ministers apart from others in that chapter.
*
It’s not required. Paul lays down a general principle of the difference between marriage and the single state, which is the background of the requirement of clerical celibacy. Priests ideally are chosen from the larger class of folks who are already called to celibacy by God.
*
The apostle counsels those of the Corinthians who could do so, to remain single, ”because of the present distress,” — the persecutions and trials through which the Church was passing, when there was frequently but a step between the font and the stake. (1 Cor. xv. 29-32. ) They would thus be saved from many cares and anxieties, and would attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if they had not the special gift of continence, he advises them to enter the conjugal state; ”for,” says he, ”it is better to marry than to burn.”
*
Exactly. So what — again — is the objection to having priests who are characterized by — and enabled to be, by being single — able to “attend upon the Lord without distraction”? We can’t have that! Clergy must never be solely devoted to the Lord! The hostile view collapses of its own weight. Dr. Summers virtually refutes it himself, but seems not to realize that he is doing so.
*
They are bound by no domestic ties, restrained to no locality, ready at a moment’s notice to go whithersoever their services are needed.
*
Exactly! We see this as a good thing, based on Scripture. Dr. Summers sees it as a bad thing, and has not produced any Scripture to counter or contradict it.
***
See many more articles on this topic in the “Clerical Celibacy” section (near the bottom) on my [Catholic] Church and Ecclesiology web page.
**
*
***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,600+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: Thomas Osmond Summers, 1881, photo by R. Poole [source] [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I critique the (weak!) arguments against priestly celibacy made by a prominent 19th century Methodist clergyman and professor of theology, Thomas O. Summers.

 

Follow Us!



Browse Our Archives