2025-03-29T10:05:31-04:00

Last updated on: March 29, 2025 at 10:05 am   By
0 Comments

Photo credit: Karl August von Hase (1800-1890), in 1890 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) was a German Lutheran theologian and church historian, who was a professor of theology at Jena from 1829 to 1883, and the great-grandfather of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He wrote many books; his most influential one being A History of the Christian Church (1834; 12th edition, 1900). I will be critiquing one portion of the first volume of von Hase’s two-volume work (one / two), Handbook to the Controversy with Rome (1862; 7th edition, 1900; English translation by A. W. Streane, London: The Religious Tract Society, 1906). The translator wrote that it “has been fitly called indispensable for a knowledge of the Roman controversy, and a masterpiece of Protestant theology . . . unrefuted and irrefutable” and he himself described it as “a powerful statement of the case against Rome” (v. 1, p. viii). His words will be in blue. I use RSV for biblical citations.

*****

The conception that obedience to the dictates of nature was not becoming for the higher religious life came first from without into later Judaism, and fixed itself in the celibate vow of the Essene. (pp. 174-175)

The Essenes began in the second century BC.  Jeremiah the prophet lived from c. 650- c. 570 BC, and he wrote in his book:

Jeremiah 16:1-2 The word of the LORD came to me: [2] “You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place.”

Granted, he seems to have been an isolated example (though the prophets Elijah and Elisha may also have been celibate, as no mention is made of wives in their stories), but this shows that consecrated virginity for spiritual purposes was not completely unknown in ancient Judaism; nor did the “conception” of it come “first” some 450 years later.

St. Jerome derives comfort from another source : ‘ Peter washed away the defilement of marriage by means of the blood of martyrdom.’ (p. 176)

No individual Church father speaks for the Church, in terms of authority. Nor do even the mass of fathers. What they do is indicate the presence of holy tradition. But individual ones can be, and too often were, wrong in their opinions. This would be an example. The Catholic Church has never taught this. It teaches that marriage is a sacrament. Sacraments confer grace. They can hardly do that and be at the same time “defilement.”

Protestant contra-Catholic polemicists often use this tired tactic: if they can’t find an actual Church document to “prove” some argument of theirs that the Catholic Church is in error, they will look for — typically — either a scholar or a Church father to back themselves up. But we never said that either of those sorts of persons are part of Catholic magisterial authority, so it’s barking up a wrong tree. It’s essentially irrelevant.

there arose a glorification of the state of virginity, and with this a hesitation as to the compatibility of the priestly office with marriage. (p. 176)

Nothing — technically — “arose” because it was already a principle clearly stated in Holy Scripture by our Lord and St. Paul. We only “glorify” what they taught us should be glorified:

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.”

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 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 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. (cf. 7:28)

1 Corinthians 7:38  So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

In the biblical and Catholic view, one is to serve God in whatever state that God calls one to. Marriage is good and a sacrament (“he who marries . . . does well”) and celibacy is “better” for the reasons that Paul details in this chapter. That’s biblical teaching. We simply follow it, and so we require priests (in the Latin rites, not in eastern Catholicism) to be single, in order to draw from those who are in a state of life that Paul calls “better”.

How Protestants often counter this is to make out that we think marriage is bad because we say that consecrated virginity if heroic self-sacrifice and “better”: as Paul does. It’s not “bad vs. good”; it’s “good and better”. If one has to caricature an opponents’ views in order to “refute” it, then one must have an exceedingly weak case; otherwise, one would critique the actual view and not a distorted, made-up one.

Dr. von Hase does make a fair point when he notes about St. Paul’s view:

He was disposed to wish on account of the present distress that all were as he. . . . No order is to be made in this matter, and his dissuasion from wedlock, subject to such decision and depending completely upon individual tastes and dispositions, is given under the presumption of the approaching end of the world. (p. 175).

This is indeed true. Paul refers to “in view of the present distress” (7:26); however, though his remarks do have that larger context and presupposition, he goes on to make general points about singleness and marriage, that apply to all situations.  And Jesus’ remarks in Matthew 19 had nothing to do, in context, with the end times, etc. He said what he did in response to a discussion about divorce under Mosaic Law.

. . . at the great Council of Nicaea – the result of ecclesiastical morality was to demand a victory over nature, and many votes were given in favour of the new decision, . . . (p. 177)

It’s not a matter of overcoming “nature”; rather, it’s an espousal of heroic — strictly personal — renunciation of a good thing, and heroic sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom (great Christian and biblical ideals, last time I checked). Jesus and Paul taught that; we follow it. As I have noted many times in defending Catholic views in this regard, every organization has requirements that one may choose to follow, so as to join, or not. No one is forced at gunpoint to join any group or way of life.

Short people have a hard time playing in the NBA. Those who are allergic to dander would find it difficult being employed at a dog kennel.  One who hates preparing meals would not be a chef, etc. ad infinitem. And so, if one is called to marriage by God, then they can’t be a Catholic priest in the western rites. But they can do so in Eastern Catholicism, where it’s permitted. That option is open to them. Catholicism incorporates both visions of the priesthood within itself.

There arose [in the Council of Nicaea] Paphnutius, an Egyptian bishop, . . . (p. 177)

Here we go again, appealing to an individual opinion . . .

who had lost an eye in the Christian persecutions and was so honoured among the people that miracles were ascribed to him. This aged confessor, who had never touched a woman, urged that so heavy a yoke should not be laid upon the priests; moreover that untarnished wedlock was an honourable thing, and the intercourse of the man with an honoured spouse chastity. (p. 177)

The Church never taught otherwise, so this was neither here nor there. But Dr. von Hase barges on and ridiculously continues:

Chastity and marriage are considered as irreconcilable opposites, and marriage thus only as an institution for the legal satisfaction of evil lusts. (p. 183)

This is sheer nonsense. What a disappointment! I was hoping for some serious arguments from this supposedly “unrefuted and irrefutable” two-volume work. Pope Anastasius I wrote in 400: “If anyone . . . believes that human marriages . . . are blameworthy, let him be anathema” (Denzinger #206, 2012 edition, p. 76). Pope John III, writing in 574 — long before celibacy requirements for priests — , was equally clear:

If anyone condemns human marriage and despises the procreation of children . . . let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the formation of the human body is the work of the devil and that the conception of children in their mothers’ womb is brought about through the activity of the devil . . . let him be anathema.

If anyone says that the creation of all flesh is not the work of God but of bad angels . . . let him be anathema. (Denzinger, ibid., #461-463, p. 159)

Marriage is “bad” and sex is “evil”? That’s not Catholic teaching. It was, however, Gnostic and Manichaean teaching, which Pope John III was roundly condemning. Adultery and fornication and other sexual sins are evil, but not sex per se, in a valid marriage.

all voted in support of his view, that it should simply be left to the discretion of individuals whether they should give up intercourse with their wives. (pp. 177-178)

That’s fine. This was the conciliar decision at that time. At a later date, the Church deemed it better to require celibacy for most of her priests, following Paul’s principles in 1 Corinthians 7. This isn’t dogma; it’s discipline and practice, and can change over time, as the Church sees fit.

Where nature is taboo, there arises a danger of the unnatural and the criminal. (p. 181)

Funny that this didn’t happen with John the Baptist, almost all of Jesus’ disciples (save Judas and whoever was married) and St. Paul. They seemed to do quite fine, and all were martyred, save St. John. The Catholic Church has had a long line of consecrated virgin-saints for 2000 years. Rather than closely examine what the Bible has to say on the subject. Dr. von Hase prefers to tell horror stories as attempted disproofs of biblical teaching  (another old tactic of those who can provide scarce biblical rationale). Perhaps my favorite such anecdote from Dr. von Hase is this one:

Then come the experiences of the confessional, which, although but seldom including criminality, yet reveal to the unmarried man all the weaknesses of the female sex, and incite him to avail himself of them. (p. 181)

I would say that this is one reason of scores why the Catholic Church requires a very long discernment period with regard to a vocation from God of the priesthood (and the celibate priesthood). One must be called by God to undertake this special consecrated life. It can’t be done under one’s own “power.” For that matter, marriage has many challenges of a different nature as well and requires the same divine power to fulfill. But married men can be tempted, too (as all married men know well).

In any event, these sorts of stories and truisms about the weakness of human concupiscence do not disprove what Jesus and St. Paul taught as truths. All they prove is that some folks sin and fall short (which we already knew without him telling us). We don’t resolve the Catholic-Protestant dispute simply by trading scandalous stories of lousy examples of each group. Nothing’s accomplished by that. In the end, it has to be decided by the Holy Bible that we both hold to be God’s inspired revelation.

The celibacy of priests rests simply upon an ecclesiastical law which, as it once came into being, so can again fall into disuse. It was only by sophistry that the Council of Trent succeeded in making it into a dogma, . . . (p. 183)

Dr. von Hase correctly describes the status of celibacy in his first sentence, then oddly and surprisingly enough, contradicts himself in his second. A dogma is far different from an ecclesiastical practice or discipline. Trent simply stated that consecrated virginity is superior to marriage:

If anyone says that the married state excels the state of virginity or celibacy, and that it is better and happier to be united in matrimony than to remain in virginity or celibacy, let him be anathema. (Canon X on the Sacrament of Matrimony)

This, of course, reiterates what St. Paul plainly taught:

1 Corinthians 7:32-35, 38 . . . 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, . . . to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. . . . [38] . . . he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

This being the case, why is Dr. von Hase not disputing against St. Paul rather than misrepresenting and blasting the Council of Trent? Well, we know why: that wouldn’t look very good for his case. The “whipping boy” is supposed to be the big bad Catholic Church: not apostles and the Bible. That would be bad PR. But whether this isn’t evident in his words or not, this is what it comes down to (its logical reduction): he opposed Paul and inspired Scripture from God, which the Catholic Church is simply being obedient to.

Obviously, it’s not a command for all to be celibate, but Paul does teach that consecrated celibacy is “better” than marriage and this is what lies behind the Catholic view on celibate priests and nuns. It’s “better” because it involves heroic renunciation of a sort that Paul understands well, since he gave up many things and suffered much in order to be the greatest evangelist of all time and the intellectual theologian of the New Testament. He wrote about this:

2 Corinthians 11:23-28 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; [27] in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. [28] And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches.

2 Corinthians 12:10 For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Philippians 3:7-8 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. [8] Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, . . .

Philippians 4:11-12 Not that I complain of want; for I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content. [12] I know how to be abased, and I know how to abound; in any and all circumstances I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want.

St. Paul knew all about voluntary suffering and deprivation for the sake of the kingdom and his calling as an evangelist and writer of much of the New Testament. St. Luke records the words of God concerning Paul: “I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name” (Acts 9:16). Catholic priests give up marriage and family for the sake of devotion to a higher and noble cause. It’s the same biblical, Christian self-sacrificing principle and is only a matter of degree.

the true substantial question is lost sight of, viz. whether the Church is justified and compelled, forbidding what Christ has left open, to demand the vow of celibacy from her priests? (p. 183)

Our Lord Jesus Christ didn’t leave this “open”! He said, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. . . . 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 19:11-12). We simply say that Catholic priests are the equivalent of those whom Jesus described as “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

Then He noted twice when He said this, how there will be men who cannot “receive” it because it hasn’t been “given” to them. In other words, it’s spiritually discerned by those given the grace by God to comprehend it. Dr. von Hase, unfortunately, seems to be among men of that class, who are unable to “receive” this teaching. And so basically he caricatures, mocks, and dismisses it. But he has not come within a thousand miles of dismantling the strong biblical case to be made for it. He scarcely even tries.

If we want to accuse someone of lowering marriage from what it is and ought to be, I would say that Protestantism is the far greater culprit, since it took away the sacramental status of marriage. I guess that means that Protestants no longer thought that it conveyed grace. And, more and more they allow divorce (which we don’t at all) and they cheapen marriage also by accepting contraception, which works against procreation and the love of children (and has directly led to abortion, philosophically and legally), and, more and more, premarital sex and homosexual sex: all of which cheapens marriage and makes it less holy than it is, and all of which we absolutely oppose, as we always have.

Much of this would have also been opposed in 19th century German Lutheranism, no doubt. One can thus hope that if Dr. von Hase were alive today, he would sing a much different tune, and go after legitimate blameworthy targets, rather than bogus ones.

Married priests, said Perrone, would not go with the same readiness as missionaries among barbarous nations. (p. 185)

Martin Luther was ashamed to see that it was the single Catholic priests who went to minister to the sick during epidemics or the outbreak of highly contagious diseases in his Saxony. The married Lutheran pastors with families were too afraid to do so.

Further it is alleged that the married priest is held back by innumerable domestic cares for his household, for his wife and children, from the sole care of his soul. (p. 185)

Yes; that was essentially “alleged” by the Apostle Paul, as we saw above. Dr. von Hase needs to argue against the proper target, rather than pretending that he (Paul) isn’t relevant to the discussion.

A capable man has time for everything which it becomes him to do. (p. 186)

Every man has the limitations of time and can’t minister with the same quality to more and more people, adding up to many hundreds in many cases. One person can only do so much; only so many hours in a day. It’s a very practical, sensible concern: how to get good things done more efficiently and successfully.

The Council of Trent, from the superior favour accorded to virginity as compared with the wedded state, . . . [made] merely an aesthetic judgement which is formed upon slender grounds and about which a warm dispute can be carried on, . . . (p. 188)

“Merely . . . aesthetic”? Again, it simply followed Paul’s straightforward teaching. Dr. von Hase apparently thinks that he and all Protestants by extension can reject whatever they don’t personally care for in Scripture. It’s a denial of biblical inerrancy, inspiration, and infallibility. But I understand that he was considered a theological “liberal” in his time, and this is what we always get from them: condescension towards Holy Scripture as well as Holy Tradition.

The motive . . . which mainly is responsible for the Catholic notion of assigning superior favour to the virgin state, viz. the worship of the Holy Virgin, . . . (p. 188)

I see. I guess Paul had nothing to do with it, huh? Again, we follow Paul: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17). If it’s consecrated celibacy, one must follow that; if it’s marriage, one must do that.

Not that I would wish to deny that there have existed many truly Catholic priests, who have lived only for their sacred office and their congregations, vanquishing the weaknesses of the flesh, and relinquishing that higher something offered by God. The very thought that as standing in the midst between God and mankind they were by the special favour of God raised above the common lot of men, may easily unite with the sentiment of spiritual insufficiency in themselves to induce pious fervour. There exists an ideal of the Catholic priesthood as of the Protestant pastor with his parsonage, and there are to be found in real life numerous approximations to both. The Catholic ladder, from the highest dignitaries of the Church, here and there still possessed of princely rank and riches, down to the poor chaplain and mendicant friar, has at any rate something impressive, and harmonizes with the essential nature of a Church, which with its brilliant externals yet desires to embrace all the relationships of life. (p. 192)

Thank you! At least it wasn’t all negative and  caricature . . . I’ll end on this positive note, then.

*
***
*

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 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six 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. If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider a much-needed monthly or one-time financial contribution. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV).
*
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 and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information.
*
You can support my work a great deal in non-financial ways, if you prefer; by subscribing to, commenting on, liking, and sharing videos from my YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights, where I partner with Kenny Burchard (see my own videos), and/or by signing up to receive notice for new articles on this blog. Just type your email address on the sidebar to the right (scroll down quite a bit), where you see, “Sign Me Up!” Thanks a million!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Karl August von Hase (1800-1890), in 1890 [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

Summary: I offer biblically based responses to several arguments against priestly celibacy from the German Lutheran Karl August von Hase (1800-1890) in his allegedly “irrefutable” work.

 

2024-07-25T19:58:27-04:00

Last updated on: July 25, 2024 at 7:58 pm   By
0 Comments

Yours truly with my beautiful wife Judy (July 2012)

Reformed Baptist Gavin Ortlund stated in his video, “Clerical Celibacy: A Protestant Critique” (7-14-24) at 2:16:

. . . related to that the concern is a conception of celibacy as intrinsically more excellent than marriage in its nature as opposed to just a more fitting and expedient arrangement according to God’s calling.

First of all, I fully agree that God’s calling is paramount. We all must follow the vocation that God has for us. Vocation isn’t relevant only to priests and nuns, pastors and missionaries. St. Paul writes: “let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him” (1 Cor 7:17, RSV) and “each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1 Cor 7:7). I believe I have been called to be an apologist, and I have followed that calling since 1981. I was also called to be married, as indicated by a very happy marriage that will be forty years in length this October.
*
That said, and agreed with, now I submit that voluntary, heroic, self-sacrificing celibacy for the sake of the kingdom, has aspects about it that make it “better” in some sense than marriage, which we also regard as holy and indeed a sacrament (meaning, that it gives grace). Protestants don’t regard it as a sacrament. We — and the Orthodox — do that. We even regard their marriages (if there is no defect of form; former Catholics or divorcees, etc.) as sacramental. The same Paul also wrote the following:

1 Corinthians 7:7-8 (RSV) I wish that all were as I myself am. . . . [8] To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.
*
1 Corinthians 7:28 . . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.
*
1 Corinthians 7:32 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
*
1 Corinthians 7:34 . . . And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; . . .
*
1 Corinthians 7:35 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.
*
1 Corinthians 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
*
1 Corinthians 7:40 . . . in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. . . .

Note that every time Paul makes a general one-on-one comparison, he states that singleness or celibacy is “better” (1 Cor 7:38). Why? It’s never the opposite. There must be something to that, no? He does say, “it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion” (1 Cor 7:9), but that’s a different comparison (i.e., longing for marriage and sexual desire vs. being married, where both can be properly fulfilled. Paul explains exactly what he means, earlier in the same verse: “if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry” (cf. 7:36).

***

“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!

***

There is also the aspect of heroic renunciation of things good in and of themselves for the sake of the kingdom. Those who do that are in a higher state, so to speak, than those who don’t. They are going “above and beyond.” St. Paul did this, not only in being single, but voluntary undertaking all of his sufferings. He wrote about it:

2 Corinthians 11:5, 12, 16, 23-28, 30 I think that I am not in the least inferior to these superlative apostles. . . . [12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. . . . [16] . . . I too may boast a little. . . . [23] Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one — I am talking like a madman — with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. [24] Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; [27] in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure. [28] And, apart from other things, there is the daily pressure upon me of my anxiety for all the churches. . . . [30] If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness.

1 Corinthians 9:5, 15 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? . . . [15] But I have made no use of any of these rights, . . .

That’s a heroic, saintly lifestyle. That is far relatively “better” in a spiritual sense than a life, say, like mine, where I do what I passionately love all day, writing apologetics at my desk (with heat or air conditioning and a nice comfy chair), ride my electric bike or Jet-Ski, travel for fun, listen to music, hike in the woods with my wife, swim in my backyard pool, visit with children and grandchildren and friends, watch good movies and documentaries, etc. None of that is “bad” but it’s not as good as what Paul did. And that’s because he was — by his own choice and calling — following what Catholics call the evangelical counsels. I’m not. Likewise, there is a real and true sense in which voluntary celibacy is better than marriage. Paul expressly said so. Who are we to disagree? Jesus said the same about the lifestyle His disciples willingly chose (including, in several cases celibacy or significant, sacrificial willing separation from an existing wife or other family members:

Luke 18:28-30 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.”

Matthew 19:27-29 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” [28] Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life. (cf. 19:12)

Therefore, the Council of Trent in 1563 (24th Session: Canon X on the Sacrament of Matrimony) was merely reiterating Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching above, when it decreed that no one should say “that the marriage state is to be placed above the state of virginity, or of celibacy, and that it is not better and more blessed to remain in virginity, or in celibacy, than to be united in matrimony.” It’s not good to contradict the words of Jesus and Paul in the inspired and inerrant revelation of Holy Scripture (we can all agree).

I’d love to hear Gavin’s reply to this argument, but he has chosen — with one lone exception — to not interact with me at any length (citing time factors and priorities). Oh well . . .perhaps someone who holds his opinion will interact.
*
For related reading, see my article, “Evangelical Counsels & Monasticism (Vs. Calvin #33)” (1-26-19). I also have many articles about priestly celibacy on my Church web page (section: “Clerical Celibacy”: fourth from the end).

*
***

*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,800+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Summary: I contend from St. Paul’s arguments in 1 Corinthians 7, and the biblical “evangelical counsels” that there is a sense in which voluntary celibacy is superior to marriage.

2024-03-15T11:08:07-04:00

Last updated on: March 15, 2024 at 11:08 am   By
0 Comments

The Perfectly Sensible and Explicit Biblical Rationale for Priestly Celibacy

Protestant anti-Catholic apologist James Swan wrote a ludicrous piece entitled, “Catholic Answers vs. Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on Peter’s Marriage” (2-28-24). I’d like to examine it more closely. His words will be in blue.

First of all, I contend that the title of the article seeks to perpetuate the old tired and absurd myth that Catholics supposedly believe that St. Peter was not married. All Christians — including Catholics — believe that, since all serious Christians believe in an inspired Bible: which declares that Peter had a mother-in-law (Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39). So why this title? The issue is not whether Peter was married. No one denies that he was. Rather, the only issue is whether he was a widower by the time he traveled with Jesus, or whether his wife ever traveled with him on his missionary and pastoral journeys.  Swan continues to belittle and misrepresent Catholicism in his first sentence:

Here’s an interesting compare and contrast between Catholic Answers and Clement of Alexandria (and Eusebius) on whether or not Peter was married.

A person with no prior views would, I think, interpret this to mean that “Catholics — or at least this one Catholic group, that defends Catholicism — deny that Peter was married, over against [Church fathers] Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius.” Is that not the intended meaning? If a disagreement is framed as “whether or not Peter was married” the clear implication is that one side claims he wasn’t, and the other believes that he was. Thus, this sentence, like the title, perpetuates a falsehood and fable about Catholic teaching. Swan cites Karl Keating in his critique, and right in the quote, Keating says, “I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed.” So why is Swan dichotomizing Keating (the founder of Catholic Answers) against the Church fathers and implying that he — or by extension, Catholics generally — denied that Peter was married?

The biblical text which fuels this comparison is 1 Corinthians 9:5. Paul says that the Apostles have particular “rights,” and one such right is taking a wife along when ministering… just as the Apostle Peter did! Here is the passage from the NAS:

3 My defense to those who examine me is this: 4 Do we not have a right to eat and drink? 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? 6 Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working? 7 Who at any time serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat the fruit of it? Or who tends a flock and does not use the milk of the flock?

Yes, some of the apostles were married [insert obligatory exclamation point here: !]. This is some big revelation (pun intended)?

Out of curiosity, I consulted the North American magisterium, Catholic Answers, to find out what this verse really means (read: sarcasm). What intrigued me about their answer was that they included a quote from Clement of Alexandria to substantiate their answer. Here’s what Catholic Answers stated, 

…[T]he apostles [were] accompanied by ‘sister women’ who could assist them in ministering to women—for example, at full-immersion baptisms, where a question of modesty could arise, or in cases where it would be more appropriate for a woman to perform a charitable or catechetical function. Clement of Alexandria agreed, saying the women were not the wives of the apostles but were female assistants who could enter the homes of women and could teach them there (Stromata III, 6). In short, I think Peter was a widower at the time his mother-in-law was healed. [“Did Peter Have a Wife?,” Karl Keating, 5-1-07]

With as much dripping sarcasm as I can muster through the printed word: The Fathers! The Fathers! The Fathers! So… I then went off to see what Clement of Alexandria said in context, and well… he didn’t say what Catholic Answers asserts. In fact, he says the opposite, and none other than Eusebius backs Clement up on it! Here’s the text from Clement . . .:

Clement of Alexandria:

52. . . .  Peter and Philip had children, and Philip gave his daughters in marriage.

53. Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry. Accordingly he says in a letter: “Have we not a right to take about with us a wife that is a sister like the other apostles?”  But the latter, in accordance with their particular ministry, devoted themselves to preaching without any distraction, and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. . . . [the above was all bolded by Swan, which I removed]

Swan then cites Eusebius, the father of Church history, in substantial agreement.

Granted, there is some ambiguity because the English word for wife being used is, “consort.” 

There is indeed at least some uncertainty here. Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, after all, states: “A sister, a wife – Margin, ‘or woman.’ This phrase has much perplexed [Protestant] commentators.” This means that equally reasonable and pious folks (both Protestants and Catholics) can and do disagree on the passage, so that there is not only one foregone conclusion, with which no honest person can disagree. Traditionally, two major competing interpretations have been set forth:

1) The text refers to accompanying women who are not literally wives, but helpers (along the lines of Lk 8:1-3; 23:55).

2) The text refers to literal wives and strongly implies that most of the apostles were married men.

We should 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). Paul himself, however, after passionately defending all of these rights on behalf of his fellow Christian workers, ends by writing, “I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision” (9:15) and “What then is my reward? Just this: that in my preaching I may make the gospel free of charge, not making full use of my right in the gospel” (9:18). Was Clement claiming that St. Paul was married? It seems so to me. But that would contradict inspired Holy Scripture: “it is well for them to remain single as I do” (1 Cor 7:8; cf. 9:15 above). So Clement was wrong and misinformed. No one disagrees that Paul was unmarried.

I submit that there is a third interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9:5 that avoids the arguable “either/or” nature of the two usual positions taken by commentators listed above. Those are not the only two feasible options. I shall argue that some of the disciples and apostles were married (Peter, with certainty), and that the Bible informs us that they left their wives and children, with Jesus’ blessing, at least in some cases (including Peter’s), for the sake of ministry. I have explicit biblical texts (three specific ones and one broad one) to substantiate this point of view:

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.”

Matthew 19:27 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” (cf. Mk 10:28-30)

1 Corinthians 7:5 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. [4] For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.[5] Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.

Matthew 1:24-25 (NRSV) . . . Joseph . . . took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son . . .

Jesus commends the disciples who left their wives and families, including children, “for the sake of the kingdom of God”. Obviously, Jesus didn’t think these self-sacrificial acts were of the sort that Paul condemned in 1 Timothy 5:8 (“If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”) or 1 Timothy 4:2-3 (“pretensions of liars . . . who forbid marriage”). Besides, 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).

The Greek word for “wife” in the first two passages above is gunee (Strong’s word #1135). Peter himself said “everything,” and Jesus clearly recognizes the propriety of leaving even family (“house or wife or brothers or parents or children”) in some instances of radical discipleship. But we do not rule out (in fact, we assume) the possibility of a mutual consent to separate, between Peter and his wife, in order for him to engage in ministry with Jesus. It doesn’t have to be a wicked separation, where the spouse resists it. Otherwise, Jesus could and would never sanction it. And Peter’s use of “we” means that at least one other disciple besides him also left his wife and family to follow Jesus (and Jesus’ reply supports this; there must be at least one disciple who has left his wife).

Many Protestants have done this, too. The late great Billy Graham (one of my two favorite Protestants; the other being John Wesley) 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. I recently watched a TV special about the Scottish Olympic runner Eric Liddell, who was portrayed in the famous 1981 film, Chariots of Fire. His parents were missionaries who worked with the London Missionary Society, and he became a missionary to China after running in the Olympics and receiving a gold medal in 1924. It was noted in the documentary that, often, children of such parents in ministry were sometimes separated from them in boarding schools for as long as seven years at a time. No doubt, the above passages would have been cited as the rationale for these practices.

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.

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 Catholic Church (Latin or western rite; not all portions of the Church) has a celibacy requirement for priests. But in so doing it simply chooses for its priests men who have already been called by God to celibacy (and to the priesthood). In that sense it isn’t forcing them to do anything. By this reasoning, one would have to say that God “forced” them by calling them to that lifestyle in the first place. But they had the free will to follow that call or not, just as I did to follow my calling as an apologist. It wasn’t “mandatory” that I did so. I chose to follow and pursue what I believe God has called me to, and for which he gave me various gifts (“let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him”: 1 Cor 7:17).

Protestant objections to this requirement presuppose something that is — upon reflection — not true at all: the impermissibility of an institution or organization to draw up rules for its members, for whatever reason it sees fit and helpful. If someone wants to play in the NBA, they will have to have the ability to shoot baskets or play good defense (and being tall will sure help, too). This rules out many people from the outset. A baseball umpire or a bus driver can’t be blind. A major league pitcher has to be able to throw fast (much faster than the average person). A person in the military (on the battlefield) has to be healthy and physically fit. A kindergarten teacher has to like small children. A gardener can’t have severe allergies. A talk show host has to like to talk. Etc., etc., ad infinitum. To puruse the NBA analogy further:

We [the NBA] aren’t forcing individual x, who objects to good basket-shooting ability, but wants to be an athlete in the NBA, to be what he isn’t suited for. We’re simply choosing our players from among the group of people who have already been gifted by God (supplemented by their own serious practice) with good basket-shooting ability.

Likewise, the Catholic Church has its perfectly biblical and sensible, practical reasons (particularly from 1 Corinthians 9:28-35) for having a celibacy requirement for her Latin rite, western priests. The Catholic Church thinks the principle that Paul brilliantly, succinctly explains in that passage is a very good one in the case of priests. The logic would be: “if Paul’s reasoning is wise across the board, for anyone, then it’s also wise for the smaller category of priests.” No one can say that it has no such right. Every group of human beings has requirements for various positions within the group. The Catholic Church says:

We’re not forcing individual x, who objects to celibacy, but wants to be a priest, to be what he isn’t called to. We’re simply choosing our priests from among the group of people who have already been appointed and called by God (1 Cor 7:17) to be both celibate and priests.

Is heroic self-deprivation taught in the Bible? It sure is. We need go no further than St. Paul, again (2 Cor 11:24-27). Why was St. Paul willing to endure all of this voluntary suffering and sacrifice? He tells us why (“for your comfort and salvation”: 2 Cor 1:6; “that they also may obtain salvation”: 2 Tim 2:10). Likewise, Catholic priests are willing to undergo personal sacrifice (including celibacy) in order to more fruitfully serve God (due to the practical advantages) and to help save as many people as possible. We think that is ideal, and, as I have shown, there are plenty of biblical rationales for it. Jesus taught the same: “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” (Mt 19:12).

One who wants to be a priest ponders whether he is truly called to this life by God or not. He understands the Catholic position (western rite). Upon lengthy reflection and advice and the informed corroborating opinions of others, at length he determines that he is indeed called to be a celibate priest: that God Himself has called him to that sort of heroically self-sacrificing life. He then voluntarily goes to the Catholic Church (i.e., to a seminary where he will be trained) with all of that already determined and decided upon. No one “forced” him to do anything against his will at any point of the process. He freely decided to go along with God’s will for his life. He decided to “become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” and willingly self-sacrifice for the kingdom and the sake of souls.

Lastly, I Timothy 3:2 states: “Now a bishop must be . . . the husband of one wife . . .” Paul goes on to say in verse 4: “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive . . .” 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.”

Frankly, I appreciate the writings of the church fathers, but I do not hold them to be that which is the final voice that determines what a Biblical passage means.

Neither do Catholics. We’re not bound to their opinions. They’re not granted the charism of infallibility or authority over the Church. We’re bound to what the Catholic magisterium declares. The fathers are not the magisterium. Even those as great as St. Augustine or St. Thomas or St. Francis are not, though they are regarded very highly. The Church — despite rumors and mythology to the contrary for 500 years — has required Catholics to interpret specific Bible verses in only one way in about 7-9 cases.

On the other hand, Rome’s defenders do claim the church fathers are of key importance to establish the validity of Roman Catholicism.

Yes, we do do that, because their views, broadly speaking, are far closer to ours than to Protestantism.

This text from Clement and its use by Catholic Answers demonstrates a severe disconnect. When they cite something… look it up!  

It doesn’t at all. Clement partially supported Keating’s reasons for citing him, and partially did not. No biggie. But Swan — not an impartial observer or researcher, to be as charitable as I can — tried to make a mountain out of a molehill. He failed, and if he wants to seriously discuss why Catholics believe in priestly celibacy, he needs to grapple with the relevant Bible passages that I brought to bear.

*

***

*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ 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 Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*

***

Photo credit: GDJ (2-15-17) [Pixabay / Pixabay Content License]

Summary: Protestant apologist James Swan critiqued Karl Keating and Catholic Answers regarding the question of Peter’s marriage, but miserably failed, as I demonstrate.

2023-02-21T16:33:07-04:00

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:33 pm   By

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

This is my 43rd refutation of Banzoli’s writings. Since 5-25-22 he hadn’t written one  word in reply, until he responded on 11-12-22 to Part 5 of my series on souls, and now, a second time. Why? It’s because he thinks my articles are “without exception poor, superficial and weak” and that my “objective” was “not to refute anything, but to exhaust [my] opponent.” He claims that “only a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take” my articles “seriously.” He didn’t “waste time reading” 37 of my 40 replies (three articles are his proof of the worthlessness of all of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I have a “job” and claimed that I don’t “work.” I disposed of these and other slanderous insults on my Facebook page on 11-13-22 and again on 11-15-22. Even so, Banzoli thought that replying to me was so “entertaining” that he resolved to “make a point of rebutting” my articles “one by one.” 

I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in blue.

*****

I’m replying to Banzoli’s article, “A hilária tentativa de Dave Armstrong de encontrar o celibato obrigatório do clero na Bíblia” [Dave Armstrong’s Hilarious Attempt to Find Mandatory Clergy Celibacy in the Bible] (11-15-22), which in turn was a response to my article: On Whether Required Celibacy is “Biblical” (9-24-22). My past words cited will be in green.

[T]he Church . . .  imposes mandatory celibacy as a condition to the priesthood – something that simply does not exist in the Bible . And the biggest problem is not even that it “does not exist” in the Bible, but that it explicitly clashes with it .

The principles that lie behind the requirement certainly are in the Bible. Therefore, our requirement doesn’t clash with the Bible at all. It is agreeing with the portion of it that expresses exactly how we think about the issue. Banzoli started by citing these words of mine that sum up the biblical principle in play:

The Catholic Church (Latin or western rite; not all portions of the Church) has this requirement. But in so doing it simply chooses for its priests men who have already been called by God to celibacy (and to the priesthood). In that sense it isn’t forcing them to do anything. By this reasoning, one would have to say that God “forced” them by calling them to that lifestyle in the first place. But they had the free will to follow that call or not, just as I did to follow my calling as an apologist. It wasn’t “mandatory” that I did so. I chose to follow and pursue what I believe God has called me to, and for which he gave me various gifts (“let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him”: 1 Cor 7:17).

I wrote:

But Lucas presupposes something that is — upon reflection — not true at all: the impermissibility of an institution or organization to draw up rules for its members, for whatever reason it sees fit and helpful. If someone wants to play in the NBA, they will have to have the ability to shoot baskets or play good defense. This rules out many people from the outset. A baseball umpire or a bus driver can’t be blind. A major league pitcher has to be able to throw fast (much faster than the average person). A person in the military (on the battlefield) has to be healthy and physically fit. A kindergarten teacher has to like small children. A gardener can’t have severe allergies. A talk show host has to like to talk. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Banzoli’s “answer” to this (which is no answer at all but merely a “blow off”) is:

It’s hard to know if Dave really missed the point or if he’s just playing dumb with his “illustrations ad infinitum “. The problem is not that the Church has its own rules; the problem is that these rules clash directly with Scripture.

The rule obviously does not clash with Scripture at all, because it teaches that there is such a thing as a person who is called to celibacy by God (1 Cor 7:17 + 9:32-35; Mt 19:12). Since the model exists, we are not contradicting Scripture in choosing to follow this very high and self-sacrificing in the case of our priests. Banzoli himself conceded that not all priests must marry. Therefore, no contradiction exists between our policy and the Bible. We simply want the men whom Paul describes as being “anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Cor 9:32) and those who have an “undivided devotion to the Lord” (1 Cor 9:35). Sounds like the perfect folks to guard over a flock to me!

Dave prefers to continue deceiving people into believing that there is “biblical evidence” for Catholicism, while rejecting the Bible at the earliest opportunity. 

Right. The apostle Paul taught that “revilers” will not “inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:10). Banzoli is already in danger of hellfire by denying that Jesus is God, and in so doing, becoming an apostate from the Christian faith. He needs a lot of prayer, and I strongly urge my readers to keep him in their prayers: to extend that basic Christian charity to this deluded, highly confused non-believer and heretic. But I don’t deny his sincerity (as he does, mine). He’s just sincerely wrong again and again.

But if obligatory celibacy (in the sense already explained above) were just as obvious, why was it not imposed neither in the OT law of God, nor by Jesus, nor by the apostles?

It didn’t have to be. The model on which it is based is in Holy Scripture: in people like Jeremiah, John the Baptist, St. Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and even our Lord Jesus. Let me ask him a question in return: if “faith alone” is supposedly a “pillar” of biblical belief, why is it never taught anywhere in Scripture, and why is it condemned in at least one place?:

James 2:24, 26 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.

And why is sola Scriptura (i.e., the Bible as the only infallible norm and standard of doctrine and theology) never taught anywhere in the Bible (while it is contradicted all over the place. I wrote a book listing 100 of them)? But heroic celibacy for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord and service towards others is a perfectly biblical principle, without question, and beyond all argument. We choose to take Paul’s and Jesus’ wise advice concerning it and to follow it, in the case of our priests in the Latin, western rite. Eastern Catholics, however, who are just as much Catholics as anyone else, chose to not require it, just as even the Latin Church did for some 1,000 years before it changed its disciplinary requirements.

Dave is literally calling God, Jesus and the apostles imbeciles for not realizing something so obvious,

They didn’t have to “realize” anything. They taught that God has a calling / vocation for every believer, that they must follow (1 Cor 7:17; Mt 19:12). Most of us get married; a small class follows the celibate life, with its spiritual advantages for their particular calling. Both are in God’s will. If it had been an ironclad requirement and “dogma” for all, then there would have been no married Christian workers: like priests in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, or deacons in western Catholicism, or apologists like myself, or all the married catechists and teachers in Catholic schools. God has a plan for each individual life.

it’s as if the Roman Catholic authorities had more insight into celibacy as a condition of the priesthood than God Himself

Nonsense. Jesus is God, and He taught the principle involved here in Matthew 19:12. But of course, since Banzoli denies that He is God, this example wouldn’t count for him. Paul reiterates it and explains it in depth in 1 Corinthians 9. We haven’t invented anything. We’re following the celibacy model personally exemplified by Jeremiah, John the Baptist (likely also Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel), St. Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. And Paul often stressed that his followers should imitate him, and even wrote (in the context of discussing marriage and singleness):

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 I wish that all were as I myself am. . . . [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.

God allows it, but the Catholic Church does not, 

That’s not true. We do in Eastern Catholicism. And we also do in exceptions made for a few priests even in the western rite: particularly those who converted from Anglicanism and were priests there (and married). I myself have known two of these men. The Catholic Church reasoned that Paul was an excellent model to follow; took his own advice, followed his own preference, and wanted her priests to be like he was, and to “remain single”; following also the models of Jeremiah, John the Baptist (likely also Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel), the Blessed Virgin Mary, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I think it was an excellent choice, based upon superb and unsurpassed biblical models, including the model of the God-Man Himself: God the Son, Jesus Christ.

The problem is when a priest is forced to be one thing or another, as if the opposite were a sin

We never said the opposite was a sin (while Banzoli almost implies that our celibacy requirement is a sin). It’s the distinction between “very good” and “better” or “heroic self-sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom.”

Dave knows I’m not saying it’s mandatory to have a wife and children, 

Great! Then this entire discussion has now been rendered null and void . . . If marriage isn’t mandatory for clergy, then there is such a thing as chosen celibacy, and all the Catholic Church does is acknowledge that this class of people already exists, by God’s express will, and that it is an excellent “pool” from which to draw our priests.

When Peter says that “we have left our homes and followed you” (Luke 18:28), the meaning is not that “we have left our wives and children”, as Dave claims, but that he has prioritized Jesus over family ties.

It’s not me saying or inventing this, but our Lord Jesus:

Mark 10:19-20 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Peter makes it more clear what was being discussed, by saying, “we have left everything and followed you” (Mk 10:28). So Jesus comforts His disciples by noting that anyone who left any and all family members and/or properties for the sake of the gospel would later receive a “hundredfold” for doing so. In other words, they would later be rewarded for what they were now voluntarily depriving themselves of.

What’s really stupid is that Banzoli cites Luke 18:28 and denies that it is also about (or potentially about) children, despite the fact that Jesus interpreted the passage in the next verse, where He talked about those (like His disciples) who had “left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God”. So Banzoli interprets the Bible according to his own preconceived notions (up to and including denying that Jesus is God). I interpret it with the wonderful help of people like, oh, how about Jesus?

the intended meaning is that we should prioritize Jesus above everyone else

Exactly! And so we are saying that, for the priest, service to Jesus and the flock is prioritized above having a wife and family, per Paul’s wise advice (part of infallible, inspired Scripture) in 1 Corinthians 7.

Dave read[s] the Bible like a 6-year-old reads a Marvel comic. There is not the slightest interest in capturing the meaning of the texts, 

Right. Whatever you say . . .

it shows the extent to which Rome is willing to destroy families in order to sustain mandatory celibacy.

Mark 10:19-20 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, [30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.

Mark 10:28 Peter began to say to him, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you.”

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty 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]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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

***

Summary: Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist Lucas Banzoli mightily tried to rail against required celibacy for Catholic priests. But biblically speaking, he fired all blanks.

2023-02-21T16:09:09-04:00

Last updated on: February 21, 2023 at 4:09 pm   By

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

This is my 33rd refutation of articles written by Lucas Banzoli. As of yet, I haven’t received a single word in reply to any of them (or if Banzoli has replied to anything, anywhere, he certainly hasn’t informed me of it). Readers may decide for themselves why that is the case. I use RSV for the Bible passages unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas’ Portugese into English. His words will be in blue.

*****

I’m replying to relatively more rational and coherent portions of Lucas’ article, “O celibato obrigatório do clero é bíblico?” [Is mandatory clergy celibacy biblical?] (10-6-17).

First of all, it is necessary to make it clear that what will be refuted here is not “celibacy” per se, but mandatory celibacy, which is the imposition of celibacy on someone who wants to be a priest in the church. Celibacy itself is respectable; Paul was celibate as was John the Baptist, but they were celibate by choice and not by imposition or obligation.

The Catholic Church (Latin or western rite; not all portions of the Church) has this requirement. But in so doing it simply chooses for its priests men who have already been called by God to celibacy (and to the priesthood). In that sense it isn’t forcing them to do anything. By this reasoning, one would have to say that God “forced” them by calling them to that lifestyle in the first place. But they had the free will to follow that call or not, just as I did to follow my calling as an apologist. It wasn’t “mandatory” that I did so. I chose to follow and pursue what I believe God has called me to, and for which he gave me various gifts (“let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him”: 1 Cor 7:17).

But Lucas presupposes something that is — upon reflection — not true at all: the impermissibility of an institution or organization to draw up rules for its members, for whatever reason it sees fit and helpful. If someone wants to play in the NBA, they will have to have the ability to shoot baskets or play good defense. This rules out many people from the outset. A baseball umpire or a bus driver can’t be blind. A major league pitcher has to be able to throw fast (much faster than the average person). A person in the military (on the battlefield) has to be healthy and physically fit. A kindergarten teacher has to like small children. A gardener can’t have severe allergies. A talk show host has to like to talk. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

Likewise, the Catholic Church has its perfectly biblical and sensible reasons (that I shall be presenting) for having a celibacy requirement for her Latin rite, western priests. No one can say that it has no such right. Every group of human beings has requirements for various positions within the group.

In evangelical and orthodox churches celibacy is also optional; the pastor or priest marries if he wants to, remains single if he thinks better. There is no celibacy prerequisite for being ordained or for continuing to serve.

They have the right to make whatever rules and requirements they deem to be ideal for them, too. The Orthodox require celibacy from their bishops. So will Lucas say that they can’t do that, either? They have their reasons, just as we do. We simply make the requirement more broad than they do, and think it’s good for priests as well as bishops to be celibate.

The most important thing to show right away is that in the Bible there is NEVER any imposition of celibacy to be a priest; on the contrary, we see the priests, as a rule, having wives.

It’s not necessary that we see such a requirement. In the Catholic Church, celibacy is a pastoral discipline, not a dogma. It can change and has changed. Therefore, all that we need to see in the Bible is any model for celibacy that is positively presented. And we certainly have those.

This has been the case since Old Testament times, when the priests and religious leaders of the people used to live married to their wife. Moses was married (Ex 4:25), as were Aaron (1Ch 24:1), the Levites (Judges 20:4), and prophets (cf. Ezek 24:18).

Most were; but not all. Again, all the Catholic has to show is that there is such a thing as a positively presented celibate in the Bible. Once this is shown, then all we have to say is that this is the model we think is best for priests. Jeremiah the prophet was celibate (Jer 16:2). So was John the Baptist: the last prophet, as Lucas acknowledged above. It’s thought that the prophets Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel were also celibate. A search for all three of them and the word “wife” yields nothing.

Thus, the Catholic replies that our priests are following the lifestyle model of these five men, as well as that of Jesus, most of His disciples (and the Bible says that Peter “left” his wife for ministry: i.e., mutually voluntary separation), and St. Paul. No one can say that it is improper, impermissible, or “unbiblical” to do this. No one can possibly object on biblical grounds to a statement such as, “we want our priests to emulate the celibate lifestyle of Jeremiah, Elijah, Jesus, and Paul.”

Lucas refers to bishops being described as married in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:6-9 and adds:

In addition to not mentioning that he “must be celibate” to be a bishop, Paul still clearly states that they could marry, for verse 2 says he must be “the husband of one wife”, and verse 4 that he “must rule his own family”, and to leave no doubt that this family includes a wife and children, he adds: “having the children subject to him”. As we can see, the only requirements to be a priest had to do with questions of moral order and qualification for teaching, which included being a “husband of one wife”, which implies that the only thing prohibited was polygamy, not marriage itself. . It takes a monster in the art of ignorance and dishonesty not to realize this.

But — once we examine these passages more closely — this proves too much. By Lucas’ woodenly legalistic reasoning, this would require all bishops to be married, which already contradicts his earlier statement: “In evangelical and orthodox churches celibacy is also optional; the pastor or priest marries if he wants to”. They wouldn’t have that choice if these passages are interpreted as absolutely binding in every case (and the Orthodox contradict that — along with Catholics — because they require celibate bishops). I Timothy 3:2 states: “Now a bishop must be . . . the husband of one wife . . .” Paul goes on to say in verse 4: “He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive . . .”

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.”

The most interesting case is, ironically, that of the supposed “first pope” of the Church, Peter, who was married: . . . (Matthew 8:14 [which mentions his mother-in-law]).

This poses no problem for us. As I noted, it’s a discipline, not a dogma, and so can change without contradiction. I wrote about this:

Why Peter’s Marriage Doesn’t Disprove Catholicism: A Dialogue [January 1999]

St. Peter’s Marriage and Priestly Celibacy [National Catholic Register, 4-9-20]

But if we’re going to talk about that, let’s not forget that Peter and undisclosed other disciples were described by Jesus as having left wives and even children:

Luke 18:28-30 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.”

To solve this problem,

It’s not a “problem” for our outlook and practice. Lucas wrongly thinks that it is.

Catholic apologists created the thesis that this wife was already dead, that is, they literally killed Peter’s wife!

We don’t know for sure. What we do know with fair certainty, based on the passage above, is that Peter left his wife and possibly children — presumably with their consent and agreement — for the sake of being Jesus’ disciple and traveling companion (an itinerant evangelist), and that at least one other disciple also did so (as shown by Peter’s use of “we”).

Many Protestants have done this. The late great Billy Graham often 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. I recently watched a TV special about the Scottish Olympic runner Eric Liddell, who was portrayed in the famous 1981 film, Chariots of Fire. His parents were missionaries who worked with the London Missionary Society, and he became a missionary to China after running in the Olympics and receiving a gold medal in 1924. It was noted in the documentary that, often, children of such parents in ministry were sometimes separated from them in boarding schools for as long as seven years at a time. No doubt, the above passages would have been cited as the rationale for these practices.

[O]thers invented the most surreal [story]: that Peter abandoned his wife to follow Christ! There’s only one little problem with that: Paul says that “If any one does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” (1 Tim 5:8). . . .

There’s only one little problem with Lucas’ supposed “gotcha!” tactic: Jesus (see the passage above) commended the disciples who left their wives and families, including children, “for the sake of the kingdom of God” and said that they would “receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.” Obviously, Jesus didn’t think these self-sacrificial acts were of the sort that Paul condemned in 1 Timothy 5:8. Besides, Peter is shown throughout the Gospels being engaged in the work of 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 being fishermen 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.

And to the general dismay of them all, the older Church Fathers attested that Peter not only remained married and living with his wife who did not die, but that he also remained with her until martyrdom!

And they may very well have been right; and (I reiterate), this poses no problem whatsoever for the Catholic position. Some clergymen were married in the early days, then there was a celibacy requirement (but not in Eastern Catholicism, etc., and with occasional exceptions even in the west; such as with Anglican priest converts; I have known two of these myself). In the future the discipline may change again, for all we know. If anti-Catholics like Lucas weren’t so abysmally ignorant about Catholicism, we wouldn’t have to keep pointing out the obvious. But heaven forbid that they should actually properly learn about the thing that they despise and trash and constantly lie about.

According to a BBC article, there were at least two popes who were married while pope: Adrian II (867–872) and John XVII (1003). St. Hormisdas (514–523) and Clement IV (1265–68) were widowers. Nor are these facts covered up by the Church (Lucas is not above making such a charge). The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) noted about Adrian II: “He had been married before taking orders . . .” About John XVII, the same work stated in 1910: “Before taking orders he had been married, and had three sons who also became ecclesiastics.” Again, in 1908, the reference work wrote about Clement IV: “His wife died, leaving him two daughters, whereupon . . . he gave up worldly concerns and took Holy orders.” In 1910, it was also observed regarding Pope St. Hormisdas: “Before receiving higher orders he had been married; his son became pope under the name of Silverius (536-537).”

Sorry to disappoint Lucas and his fellow salivating slanderers, but clearly there is no cover-up at all about this. And there isn’t because it’s not a problem for our position.

Lucas brings up the following verse. I’m delighted that he did!:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Lucas then proceeds to refute himself and make my argument for me (thanks!):

In the case of 1 Corinthians 9:5, it is perfectly clear that it is really a wife, and not another woman, for Paul is claiming for himself and for Barnabas the right to take his wife on trips as the other apostles did, this right that he would give up.

What did Paul do?! He gave up the right?!!! Ah!: isn’t that interesting. Lucas is oblivious as to the momentous nature of that statement of Paul’s, and its relevance to this discussion. After writing about the apostles’ “right” to food and wages from 9:4-14, Paul then exclaims:

1 Corinthians 9:15 But I have made no use of any of these rights, nor am I writing this to secure any such provision. . . .

Paul voluntarily foregoes what he had just vigorously argued was his and any apostles’ right (both remuneration and having a wife). Lucas himself understands this:

The meaning of what Paul was saying is simple: “The apostles and brothers of Jesus are married, they take their companions with them in the ministry, Barnabas and I could also exercise this right if we wanted, but we gave it up”. It is a simple text for the context, requiring a monstrous effort not to understand. . . . this was a right that the apostles had, the which could be used or not. 

And so we come around again to the rationale for the Catholic position. We are simply following Paul’s model in the case of priests. He could have gotten married if he had chosen to; he chose not to, and he explained why: “though I am free from all men, I have made myself a slave to all, that I might win the more” (1 Cor 9:19). Why follow Paul’s practice in particular? Well, for one thing, he urged his followers to imitate him, no less than nine times:

1 Corinthians 4:16 I urge you, then, be imitators of me.

1 Corinthians 11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Philippians 3:17 Brethren, join in imitating me, and mark those who so live as you have an example in us.

Philippians 4:9 What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace will be with you.

1 Thessalonians 1:6-7 And you became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you received the word in much affliction, with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit; [7] so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedo’nia and in Acha’ia.

1 Thessalonians 4:1 Finally, brethren, we beseech and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you learned from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, you do so more and more.

2 Thessalonians 3:7-9 For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us; we were not idle when we were with you, we did not eat anyone’s bread without paying, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not burden any of you. It was not because we have not that right, but to give you in our conduct an example to imitate.

1 Timothy 1:16 but I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience for an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life.

2 Timothy 1:13 Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;

So the Catholic Church reasons: “Paul’s a great model to follow; so is our Lord Jesus, and Jeremiah, and John the Baptist; therefore, we will require our priests to follow the model of their celibacy and full attention to the matters of the Lord.” How does one argue against that? I’d like to see the attempt. Paul provides the perfectly sensible, wise reason for doing so:

1 Corinthians 9:28 . . . those who marry will have worldly troubles . . .

1 Corinthians 9:32-35 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.

That is the principle here. Being unmarried allows one to “secure . . . undivided devotion to the Lord.” Is that a good thing? Of course it is (while we don’t at the same time conclude that marriage is a bad thing at all). The unmarried disciple of Jesus (in this case a priest) can give full attention to the Lord, and is willing to heroically sacrifice for himself what is intrinsically a good thing (marriage).

Lucas makes an argument that these passages do not support the Catholic practice of priestly celibacy:

[N]owhere in this chapter does Paul address priests specifically or exclusively. . . . On the contrary, just read the entire chapter and you will find that Paul’s instructions are to the believers in the Corinthian church in general, not to the clergy in particular.

. . . which is perfectly irrelevant to the Catholic argument. It doesn’t have to be about priests. Paul is laying down a practical principle of the spiritual life. The Catholic Church thinks the principle he brilliantly, succinctly explains is a very good one in the case of priests. The logic would be: “if Paul’s reasoning is wise across the board, for anyone, then it’s also wise for the smaller category of priests.”

The second important thing that needs to be noted is that nowhere in the chapter, not even in these verses taken out of context, does Paul support the idea of ​​obligatory celibacy. At most what he does is place celibacy as a more praiseworthy condition than marriage, but always leaving both options open, never forcing anyone to choose the first over the second. Therefore, right after saying that he would like all men to be single like him, he adds that “but each one has his own gift from God; one this way, the other the other” (1Co 7:7), and throughout the chapter he makes it perfectly clear that marriage is a legitimate option, and in no way wrong or forbidden to anyone.

Again, this is a non sequitur. Celibacy is not forced on anyone by the Catholic Church. The Church replies, in effect: “we’re not forcing individual x, who objects to celibacy, but wants to be a priest, to be what he isn’t called to. We’re simply choosing our priests from among the group of people who have already been appointed and called by God (1 Cor 7:17) to be both celibate and priests.”

To use the sports analogy again:

We [the NBA] aren’t forcing individual x, who objects to good basket-shooting ability, but wants to be an athlete in the NBA, to be what he isn’t suited for. We’re simply choosing our players from among the group of people who have already been gifted by God (supplemented by their own serious practice) with good basket-shooting ability.

Is heroic self-deprivation taught in the Bible? It sure is. We need go no further than St. Paul, again:

2 Corinthians 11:24-27 Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. [25] Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked; a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; [26] on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; [27] in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

Why was St. Paul willing to endure all of this voluntary suffering and sacrifice? He tells us why:

2 Corinthians 1:6 If we are afflicted, it is for your comfort and salvation; . . .

2 Timothy 2:10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain salvation in Christ Jesus with its eternal glory.

Likewise, Catholic priests are willing to undergo personal sacrifice (including celibacy) in order to more fruitfully serve God (due to the practical advantages) and to help save as many people as possible. We think that is ideal, and, as I have shown, there are plenty of biblical rationales for it. Jesus taught the same:

Matthew 19:12 “. . . 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.”

Lucas comments on this:

Again, there is absolutely nothing in this text imposing the idea of ​​mandatory celibacy. “Becoming a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” is a free choice, not a coercion or imposition to become a priest.

Precisely! One who wants to be a priest ponders whether he is truly called to this life by God or not. He understands the Catholic position (western rite). Upon lengthy reflection and advice and the informed corroborating opinions of others, at length he determines that he is indeed called to be a celibate priest: that God Himself has called him to that sort of heroically self-sacrificing life. He then voluntarily goes to the Catholic Church (i.e., to a seminary where he will be trained) with all of that already determined and decided upon. No one “forced” him to do anything against his will at any point of the process. He freely decided to go along with God’s will for his life. He decided to “become a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

In fact, the text does not even speak of priests.

So what? It doesn’t have to because it’s laying down an observation about how some willingly self-sacrifice for the kingdom.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty 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]. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

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

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli mightily tried to rail against required celibacy for Catholic priests. But biblically speaking, he fired all blanks.

 

2020-03-20T17:30:35-04:00

Last updated on: March 20, 2020 at 5:30 pm   By

Reactionary Steve Skojec of One Vader Five infamy wrote in a combox of his site on 3-6-20:

Celibacy is fundamental to the priesthood. It’s not just a discipline, and never has been, no matter what our Eastern brothers tell us. It’s a concession.

And yes, changing celibacy in the Latin Rite — which has 98.5% of the Catholics in the world — absolutely fundamentally changes the priesthood, and breaks down barriers that advances the cause of changing the institution.

St. Peter, by the way, was a widower, as far as anyone knows. There’s mention in the Scriptures of his mother in law. Never of his wife.

Of course it’s a discipline (as opposed to a dogma, or intrinsic to the priesthood). The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches:

1579 All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord,” they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

1580 In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.

Skojec can’t (and therefore doesn’t) deny that Peter was married, at least in the past (based on the “mother-in-law “passages: Mk 1:29-31; Mt 8:14-15; Lk 4:38-39). He says he was a widower at the time recorded by the gospels. Maybe he was. We don’t know for sure. But he could possibly have been presently married. How do we know that? We know from the following passage, which specifically references at least some of the apostles having “left” a living wife for the sake of ministry:

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.”

We presume that in such cases the wives (and children, as the case may be), agreed with the resolve (somewhat like, for example, Billy Graham, who had to often leave his wife and family for long periods of time in order to evangelize). It’s right there in Scripture. It’s not incompatible to be married and also to be a priest or even a bishop. And there are many examples in history of that.

1 Timothy 3:1-5 The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. [2] Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, [3] no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. [4] He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; [5] for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s church?

If the intent was to talk only about widowers, or was forbidding marriage to the bishop altogether, surely the text would have made that clear. But it doesn’t. It casually assumes that a bishop would have a wife and children (just as a later passage — 3:12 — assumes about deacons). These things aren’t presented as if they were only in the past.

There were even three popes who were married during their papacies: Pope Adrian II (r. 867-872), Pope John XVII (r. 1003), and Pope Clement IV (r, 1265-1268).

Therefore, on these two biblical grounds, marriage is perfectly compatible with being a priest or a bishop or a pope. Ergo: celibacy cannot possibly be said (based on inspired revelation in Scripture) to be inherent or intrinsic or essential or “fundamental” to any of these offices (let alone be a dogma).

***

Photo credit: Ogni (3-10-13).  Eastern Catholic priest from Romania with his family. [Wikimedia Commons /  Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

2020-01-14T16:22:46-04:00

Last updated on: January 14, 2020 at 4:22 pm   By

Christopher Altieri wrote in Catholic Herald (1-13-20):

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a proposal “to end priestly celibacy” in the Church.

There is a proposal from the [Amazon] synod fathers, now before the Holy Father, asking him to consider relaxing the very long-standing discipline currently in force for secular (roughly “diocesan”) priests in the Latin Church, which impedes married men from receiving ordination to the priesthood. . . .

Pope Francis has taken a strong position in favour of the current discipline. He even made Paul VI’s line on the subject his own: “For the Latin rite,” he offered in January of last year, “I am reminded of a phrase of St. Paul VI: ‘I prefer to give my life before changing the law of celibacy.’ This came to me and I want to say it because it is a courageous phrase,” he told journalists in response to a direct question asked in solicitation of his personal thoughts on the matter.

While the rest of Pope Francis’s answer left the possibility for some relaxation of the discipline open, he concluded his remarks by saying, “I do not say that it should be done — because I have not reflected, I have not prayed sufficiently on this — But the theology should be studied.”

Charles Collins added, in an article for Crux (1-13-20):

“Personally, I think that celibacy is a gift to the Church. Secondly, I would say that I do not agree with permitting optional celibacy, no,” Francis said on Jan. 28, 2019.

The pope then admitted possible limited exceptions, such as the Pacific Islands, before discussing more deeply one of the viri probati proposals to ordain older, “proven men” – similar to those chosen for the permanent diaconate – to provide sacraments in remote areas.

Such a possibility was endorsed by the October 2019 Amazon synod as a way to provide sacraments to a region where people might see a priest only once or twice a year.

Francis – and most of the synod fathers – have been clear that celibacy as a rule is not being questioned; but rather, they are looking at possible exceptions to the rule for pastoral necessity.

Of course, Benedict is more than familiar with this idea, since he more than any other previous pontiff has facilitated the reality of married priests in the Western Church (most of the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church allow married men to be ordained.)

Benedict’s 2009 document Anglicanorum Coetibus provided for the establishment of Ordinariates to provide pastoral care for former Anglicans who had become Catholic; including their mostly married clergy. Benedict established three ordinariates – one each in the UK, North America, and Australia – all of which have a large percentage of married priests.

When Benedict made these provisions, he was not wavering on his commitment to priestly celibacy; he was establishing an exception based on pastoral need.

The above is sufficient to dispel the current tempest in a teapot. I’d rather do a survey of what Pope Francis has stated in the past on this topic. Sadly — as so often –, it will not be in accord with the secular media and much of conservative Catholic media’s jaded, distorted spin.

Secondly, it bears repeating that priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma, which means that it can and may change (possibly, greatly so). It wasn’t always a strict requirement (even in the western, Latin church) — this requirement began in the 11th century — and may not always be in the future. It doesn’t take much research and study to verify this.

[Cardinal Robert Sarah oddly observed on 1-13-20: “Priestly celibacy, far from being merely an ascetical discipline, is necessary to the identity of the Church.” Really? It would follow that Eastern Catholics are not fully in line with a Catholic identity (which is ludicrous), and moreover, that the entire Church for the first ten centuries of its existence lacked necessary requirements of Catholic identity: which is grotesquely absurd. With all due respect (and I love Cdl. Sarah), I think the good Cardinal was having a bad hair day, or some frustrating equivalent ordeal, evidenced by “reasoning” like this, which is well-nigh indefensible on close examination]

Thirdly, Eastern Catholics are every bit as much Catholics as anyone else, and they allow married priests. I believe (without having actual statistics) that the great majority of Eastern Catholic priests are married.

[Cardinal Robert Sarah stated yesterday (1-13-20), according to a Catholic News Agency article: ” ‘[t]he Eastern married clergy is in crisis,’ pointing to comments by some members of these Churches noting tension between the priestly and married states, as well as the problem of divorce by priests.” Whether this is true, or how extensive the purported problem is, I have no idea. I’m merely reporting what was stated . . . ]

Fourth, there are exceptions to the rule of priestly celibacy in the west: particularly for former Anglican priests. I personally have known two married priests in the Latin rite: the late Fr. Ray Ryland, and Fr. Dwight Longenecker. Exceptions to the rule are nothing new, and as Charles Collins noted above, Pope Benedict XVI in particular encouraged them, where it was pastorally wise and helpful.

Fifth, my own position (if anyone cares to know) is identical to that of Pope Francis and Pope Benedict: I’m a strong advocate of priestly celibacy, and have defended it many times: probably as much as anyone has in recent times. At the same time, I am open to further possible rare exceptions, just as I am a supporter of married priests in the East and of the three Ordinariates that Pope Benedict established for former Anglicans: with a high percentage of married priests.

If it’s a discipline and not a dogma, why all the uproar, hysteria, and conspiratorialism? Well, I submit that it’s because of a certain paranoid, cynical reactionary or semi-reactionary mindset (spearheaded by good ol’ Taylor “Tin Foil Hat” Marshall) that has taken hold among many Catholics: accustomed to hearing the lying nonsense and hogwash about Pope Francis, week in and week out.

Even a normally sensible, rational person like Karl Keating (not strictly a reactionary in my definition: I hasten to add, and merely a “papal nitpicker”) succumbed to it, when he put up a ridiculous meme (on 10-26-19) on his Facebook page, stating, “THE REAL PLAN [:] Married priests in Amazon today, married priests everywhere tomorrow” [caps in original, italics mine]. It has received 186 likes and 25 shares, as of writing: including 25 mutual Facebook friends (or 13% of the total). I’m delighted to see that 87% of the “likers” are not on my friends’ list. That’s heartening to me (i.e., my friends online know better than to espouse such silliness), while it is disturbing that such a large number of Karl’s Facebook friends succumb to such groundless paranoia and suspicion.

What follows are the pope’s own words.

*****

Think about this: when a priest — I say a priest, but also a seminarian — when a priest or a sister lacks joy he or she is sad; you might think: “but this is a psychological problem”. No. It is true: that may be, that may be so, yes, it might. It might happen, some, poor things, fall sick…. It might be so. However in general it is not a psychological problem. Is it a problem of dissatisfaction? Well, yes! But what is at the heart of this lack of joy? It is a matter of celibacy. I will explain to you. You, seminarians, sisters, consecrate your love to Jesus, a great love. Your heart is for Jesus and this leads us to make the vow of chastity, the vow of celibacy. However the vow of chastity and the vow of celibacy do not end at the moment the vow is taken, they endure…. A journey that matures, that develops towards pastoral fatherhood, towards pastoral motherhood, and when a priest is not a father to his community, when a sister is not a mother to all those with whom she works, he or she becomes sad. This is the problem. For this reason I say to you: the root of sadness in pastoral life is precisely in the absence of fatherhood or motherhood that comes from living this consecration unsatisfactorily which on the contrary must lead us to fertility. It is impossible to imagine a priest or a sister who are not fertile: this is not Catholic! This is not Catholic! This is the beauty of consecration: it is joy, joy. (Address, 7-6-13)

***

Family life is the vocation that God inscribed into the nature of man and woman and there is another vocation which is complementary to marriage: the call to celibacy and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is the vocation that Jesus himself lived. (Address, 10-4-13; italics in original)

***

Seminary formation must offer young men a serious path of intellectual and spiritual growth. May priestly holiness be authentically proposed to them, beginning with the example of priests who live out their own vocation with joy; may future priests truly learn to live the demands of priestly celibacy, . . . (Address, 3-24-14)

***

I urge you to be close to your young people as they seek to establish and articulate their identity in a disorienting age. Help them to find their purpose in the challenge and joy of co-creation with God that is the vocation to married life, fulfilled in the blessing of children; or indeed in the celibate vocations to the sacred priesthood or religious life, which the Church has been given for the salvation of souls. Encourage young Catholics by living lives of virtue to experience the liberating gift of chastity as adults. (Address, 11-17-14)

***

In a time of an apparent decrease in vocations to the priesthood and to religious life, it is important to speak openly about the fulfilling and joyful experience of offering one’s life to Christ. For when your Christian communities are built up by your own continued example of “living in truth and joy your priestly commitments, celibacy in chastity and detachment from material possessions” (ibid., 111), then vocations to the priesthood and the consecrated life will most certainly abound. (Address, 4-24-15)

***

Initial formation at the Seminary and vocational discernment are necessary. In addition to intellectual, spiritual and communal formation, particular attention must be given to their human and emotional formation, so that future priests are capable of living their commitment to celibacy, in which no compromise is acceptable. (Address, 5-15-15)

***

In the seminaries, may there be no neglect of the human, intellectual and spiritual formation which ensures a true encounter with the Lord; while cultivating the pastoral devotion and emotional maturity that render seminarians fit to embrace priestly celibacy and capable of living and working in communion. (Address, 5-28-15)

***

In fact, Jesus was already revealing himself as a Messiah different from their expectations, from how they imagined the Messiah, how the Messiah would be: not a powerful and glorious king, but a humble and unarmed servant; not a lord of great wealth, a sign of blessing, but a poor man with nowhere to rest his head; not a patriarch with many descendants, but a celibate man without home or nest. (Angelus, 3-12-17)

***

There might only remain a few possibilities in the most remote places – I am thinking of the Pacific islands… But it is one thing to reflect on when there is pastoral necessity, there, the pastor must think of the faithful. There is a book by Father Lobinger [Bishop Fritz Lobinger, Preti per domani (Priests for Tomorrow), Emi, 2009], it is interesting – this is a matter of discussion among theologians, there’s no decision on my part. My decision is: optional celibacy before the diaconate, no. That’s something for me, something personal, I won’t do it, this remains clear. Am I “closed”? Maybe. But I don’t want to appear before God with this decision. . . .

Yes, you ask me about what Pope Benedict had done, it’s true. I had forgotten this: “Anglicanorum coetibus”, the Anglican priests who have become Catholics and keep their [married] lives, as if they were of the Eastern [rite]. At a Wednesday audience, I remember seeing many of them, with their collar, and many women with them and children holding the hands of the priests…, and they explained to me what it was. It is true: thank you for reminding me. (Press conference, 1-27-19)

***

Allow me now to offer a heartfelt word of thanks to all those priests and consecrated persons who serve the Lord faithfully and totally, and who feel themselves dishonoured and discredited by the shameful conduct of some of their confreres. All of us – the Church, consecrated persons, the People of God, and even God himself – bear the effects of their infidelity. In the name of the whole Church, I thank the vast majority of priests who are not only faithful to their celibacy, but spend themselves in a ministry today made even more difficult by the scandals of few (but always too many) of their confreres. I also thank the faithful who are well aware of the goodness of their pastors and who continue to pray for them and to support them. (Address, 2-24-19)

***

Related Reading:

Mandatory Celibacy of Priests & Religious (Dialogue) [1997-1998]

Why Peter’s Marriage Doesn’t Disprove Catholicism: A Dialogue [January 1999]

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

Martin Luther & Antipathy Towards Clerical Celibacy [2-21-04]

Dialogue w a Baptist on Required Clerical Celibacy [7-2-06]

Objections to Clerical Celibacy: In-Depth Dialogue [7-12-06]

Unbiblical Rejection of Priestly Celibacy (vs. Calvin #31) [9-15-09]

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]

Further Reflections on Mandatory Priestly Celibacy [8-2-14]

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

Priestly Celibacy: Garden-Variety Objections Debunked [9-18-17]

Married Bishops (1 Tim 3) & Catholic Celibacy: Contradiction? [9-18-17; expanded on 6-20-18]

Pope Benedict Eschews Co-Authorship; Ignatius Says “No!” [1-14-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
Photo credit: Christ Healing the Mother of Simon Peter’s Wife (1839), by John Bridges (1818-1854) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]
***
2019-06-10T18:57:56-04:00

Last updated on: June 10, 2019 at 6:57 pm   By

This is a collection of various Facebook comments of mine in response to an earlier paper, Mandatory Priestly Celibacy: New (?) Argument. That ought to be read for background, because I made a highly specific argument regarding Eastern Orthodox priests, that has some subtle aspects to it.

*****

With the data I found (from America), we see that when there is a choice to be married or to be celibate, before being ordained as a priest, 90-93% of those who are Orthodox priests chose marriage. That, to me, does not suggest a very robust appreciation of celibacy (in conjunction with the priesthood) at all. Clearly, celibacy is more highly spoken of in Scripture, as part of the evangelical counsels, yet only 10-13% of Orthodox priests (in America) choose it? I think that undervalues celibacy.

***

I’m talking mostly about parish priests, not monks (where there is more agreement between Catholicism and Orthodoxy). We simply like most of our priests to be more like both Orthodox and Catholic bishops (celibate) than Orthodoxy does. If they want to bash our policy, we reply with the Bible and note that they have the same opinions regarding their bishops. So we apply it to priests, too, in the Latin Rite. Ho hum. No biggie. But because it has to do with sex, it is (as with all these issues) a big stink and never-ending controversy.

***

I already knew that I lacked worldwide statistics, so the argument is tentative in that respect. I said that where we do have statistics, 90-93% of Orthodox priests are married.

[My Orthodox dialogue opponent] precisely confirmed my argument by saying, “we don’t often have celibate parish Priests.” Why is that, if celibacy is valued in Orthodoxy as much as Catholics value it (as we are told)? We agree regarding monks and bishops. Thus, the argument is about parish priests. I’m not minimizing the importance of monasticism; I’m simply taking about one particular thing.

The Catholic argument regarding parish priests would be that they have to be responsible for hundreds or thousands of people; therefore, being single would be at least as important as it is for the monk, so that undivided attention can be given to the flock.

I’m not trying to force anything. I am giving the rationale for our view, which is constantly both maligned and misunderstood. This is what apologists do. The Orthodox (and Protestants) say that we overvalue celibacy; I am replying that they undervalue it, by the looks of things. The Bible appears to put consecrated celibacy on a higher plane than marriage (the evangelical counsels).

This is why, as a western, Latin Catholic, I am glad that celibacy is required for priests, since it merges the priesthood with heroic observance of the evangelical counsels.

***

If we get the total statistics and compare all Catholic priests with all Orthodox, it is still gonna be the case that many more Orthodox priests are married. So my question is: why? Why don’t we see many more celibate Orthodox priests than we do? Why is it that marriage is encouraged in their case but forbidden to the bishops and monks? In other words, what would be the argument against an Orthodox parish priest who wants to combine the monastic ideal with his own job as shepherd of a flock?

Why do Orthodox prefer their parish priests to be married rather than celibate?

***

I support folks keeping to all legitimate Christian traditions that are not immoral (such as, e.g., allowing contraception and divorce). I am defending the Catholic view of priestly celibacy that is constantly maligned and attacked, and challenging Orthodox to defend their own views.

I say that celibate priesthood is a higher state of life, according to the notion of heroic, consecrated celibacy, in line with the idea of the “evangelical counsels.” That seems to be what East and West disagree about; yet the East applies the same criterion to their bishops and monks, so I don’t see how they can denigrate our applying it to our priests. We simply have a stricter standard there. The Orthodox should respect that, since they are stricter than we are in a number of ways (such as fasting requirements).

It seems to come down to this notion that priests somehow have less capacity monks and bishops to be celibate, as if it is (practically) impossible or undesirable for them to do so, or as if there just aren’t enough men out there called to be both celibate and priests (which is the constant, droning secular argument against us). And this is what I object to, if that is the reasoning.

***

What we’re saying is that we choose to select our priests from among those men who are called to celibacy and the evangelical counsels.

St. Paul is talking about the average person (like me!), who is not living heroically. We’re modeling our priesthood in the Latin Rites after someone like St. Paul himself (and St. Peter): who renounces riches and the married life in order to serve his flock. Paul argued that the apostles (by extension, priests) had the right to both remuneration and to be married.

He renounced both in his own case, because he was living heroically: above and beyond. So the (Latin) Catholic Church says, in effect, “yeah; that is the sort of man we prefer in a priest: so that he can give ‘undivided attention’ to God and His flock” (1 Corinthians 7).

It’s not forcing anyone to do anything (this is why we encourage those discerning a call to take many years); it’s simply a standard and a rule. The NBA does not “force” anyone to be 6’11”. It simply chooses from the men who are that tall, to be in the NBA.

***

Yes, a single man doesn’t understand as well all the things involved in marriage (via empathy), but that is only one thing. And we shouldn’t overestimate the notion of having to personally experience everything in order to understand it. After all, that is one of the major fallacious pro-abortion arguments: “you’re not a woman! You can’t possibly understand or talk about abortion!” It’s not true.

The solution is not to ditch celibacy because discernment was lacking in too many cases, but to make the discernment more rigorous and strict. Nor does merely being married make a person, ipso facto, “more mature, psychologically stable, and orthodox.” (!!!) Surely anyone can see the fallacy there!

***

I also note that vocations (to celibate priesthood) are slowly increasing even now, with the constant talk of sexuality and attack on celibacy as an impossible ideal in Christianity (and supposed cause of sexual abuse and all the rest of the usual media / secular garbage).

Therefore, such heroic lives are still being formed and brought about by God, and our job is to find and encourage these people to become priests. But there will always be those who fall short. The entire human race is fallen. We should never be surprised by this. We have to especially do our best to minimize it in our clergy, because it is so scandalous when the priest falters and falls into sin.

A priest who says “I am called to celibacy and believe I am called to be a priest” is not “forced” to do anything. He is joyfully following God’s will for his life. Priests in the Latin Rite come from a very small group of men with that special call of heroic renunciation.

***

Why is it that Orthodox parish priests are far more likely to be married than not? I still haven’t gotten an answer to that simple question. And why does this not show that a married parish priest is the norm rather than a celibate one? What is the reasoning there? Is there any answer to my question, besides, “well, then the priest can relate to married couples better, because he’s married”? I’m simply curious as to the reasoning: why Orthodox monks are celibate but parish priests are usually married. There must be some rationale that Orthodox and Eastern Catholics give for that. But for some reason I have the greatest difficulty in getting an answer to my simple question.

Latin Rite Catholics can give many biblical, disciplinary, and practical reasons for why we think that celibate priests are a higher calling, while at the same time not denying the validity of the married priest at all. It goes back to the evangelical counsels and the Pauline “undistracted devotion to the Lord” that the single person can give.

If anyone can direct me to a specific defense of the practice of married parish priests and why they are preferred in Eastern Christianity, I’d love to see that.

***

Meanwhile, in two seconds in a Google search I can find Orthodox attacking our preference for celibate priests (this is what I have to deal with as an apologist):

The first error of the Westerners was to compel the faithful to fast on Saturdays. (I mention this seemingly small point because the least departure from Tradition can lead to a scorning of every dogma of our Faith.) Next, they convinced the faithful to despise the marriage of priests, thereby sowing in their souls the seeds of the Manichean heresy. (Except from The Encyclical Letter of Photius: 867 AD)

Photius makes no sense: if the evil, wicked “West” requires celibacy for priests, that is “Manichean,” whereas if the East requires it for monks and bishops, that’s not “anti-body” or “anti-sex” at all. The spectre of an alleged odious “anti-sex” mentality or prejudice seems to lurk behind so many critiques of our celibacy requirement, and here it is in Photius himself. Has he no knowledge of 1 Corinthians 7 or Matthew 19? Has he never heard of the evangelical counsels?

***

I am arguing, “okay, imagine a situation where celibacy is not required; does a priest voluntarily choose it or does he choose marriage?” And so Orthodox priests in the US choose marriage by a 9-1 ratio. Thus I concluded, based on that, that marriage is overwhelmingly the preference, and asked why that is? Why would the actual statistics come out like that, rather than 55% married / 45% celibate, or even 66-33?

And my sheer speculation was that celibacy is difficult, and folks will choose the easier path, given the choice; hence it comes out 9-1 in favor of marriage. Thus, making celibacy mandatory is advisable, so as to preserve the special charism and vocation of celibacy.

***

The late Fr. Ryland: a married priest in the Latin Rite (who was a friend of mine also), defended priestly celibacy in an article, and makes this historical statement (whether it is accurate or not, I don’t know):

The Eastern Orthodox discipline of optional celibacy (optional for priests and deacons, required for bishops), was first formulated in 692. Prior to that time, all the Eastern Churches followed the apostolic tradition of mandatory continence for both married and unmarried clergy.

But the Council of Trullo in 692 radically changed the discipline of celibacy. One of its canons did retain the prohibition of bishops, priests, and deacons marrying after ordination. It also partly preserved the apostolic tradition in requiring perpetual continence of married men who were installed in the episcopate. But it decreed that married men ordained to the diaconate and priesthood could continue their conjugal life after ordination. The council herein both explicitly and polemically rejected the clerical discipline of Rome, which is to say, the apostolic tradition.

To justify this departure, Trullo quoted the earlier canons of the Council of Carthage. That council, as we have seen, had restated the rule of perpetual continence for all married clergy by appealing to what it called the apostolic tradition. Its records were widely available. Trullo changed the wording of the Carthaginian canons so that they mandated only temporary continence for married clergy only on days when they served at the altar. (This is effectively the Old Testament law for levitical priests who served in the Temple.)

Despite this radical alteration of the Carthage council’s ruling, the Council of Trullo blithely assured all who would listen that by their decrees they were only “preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order.” 11 The Catholic Church, of course, has never recognized the Council of Trullo.

If he is correct, the Eastern practice (similar to it’s late-arriving policy on divorce and remarriage) only goes back to 692, and hence is not apostolic, and barely even patristic.

The Catholic Encyclopedia writes about the Council of Trullo:

It was attended by 215 bishops, all Orientals. . . . In the matter of celibacy the Greek prelates are not content to let the Roman Church follow its own discipline, but insist on making a rule (for the whole Church) that all clerics except bishops may continue in wedlock, while they excommunicate anyone who tries to separate a priest or deacon from his wife, and any cleric who leaves his wife because he is ordained (can. iii, vi, xii, xiii, xlviii).

Note that there was no tolerance for the Western preference for celibacy; it had to be a rule for “the whole Church” to be able to marry. Thus, the complaint (often justified) of Easterners of excessive Roman requirements and forced practices works both ways in this case. No Western bishops were even present to vote in this council! Yet they were supposedly bound to its decrees?

So we  find that at Trullo in 692 all Eastern bishops wanted to impose on the entire West the relaxation of celibacy. So it ain’t just the East wanting to observe its own traditions, but also to impose them on the West (whereas we usually hear about things the other way around: the pope imposing his will in the East). Then the obvious question to be raised would be, “why prefer a non-apostolic practice to an apostolic one?”

I’m just trying to understand rationales and to know the historical facts. If the practice can only be canonically traced to 692 then it’s not apostolic. Since it is a disciplinary and not doctrinal issue, that’s not a deal breaker altogether, but it does seem to me to be an argument for the preferability of priestly celibacy (if it has apostolic pedigree and the other practice does not).

I reiterate my own position, which is tolerant and all for observing more local traditions, while at the same time acknowledging that celibacy is a higher state of heroic renunciation and part of the evangelical counsels.

***

All we do is apply the Orthodox monastery requirements also to most parish priests. If our view doesn’t wash, then it also doesn’t among Orthodox monks. Therefore, by straightforward logic, any Orthodox argument against our celibate priests collapses, since if one estate of life is derided (celibate Catholic priests), the other corresponding one (Orthodox monks) goes with it (i.e., if we are logically consistent and making a fair, dispassionate analysis).

The Orthodox monk goes through the same conundrum that the Catholic potential priest goes through. I say that God gives the desire “to will and to do”. If He is calling one to celibacy, this doesn’t require all the anti-sex rhetoric and bloviations about how Catholics hate sex and marriage so much.

All it takes is an understanding of Jesus (some make themselves eunuchs: Matthew 19) and St. Paul (“I wish that all men were as I myself am” / “undistracted devotion” of the single man / everyone has his own calling).

Heroic renunciation of sex for the sake of the kingdom is not the same as being “against” sex. Man, if folks could just grasp that concept, I would be eternally grateful! It’s always been difficult for me to comprehend why many find it so difficult, because it was always utterly self-evident to me, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic. It’s really not hard to understand at all. But because it has to do with sex, all this silly and irrelevant and hyper-polemical junk gets bandied about.

As I’ve said over and over, I have nothing against married priests (where they are allowed by canon law). I have been friends with two in the Latin Rite (the late great Fr. Ray Ryland and Fr. Dwight Longenecker).

So as usual, it is the Orthodox frowning upon (indeed, by the looks of it, also being downright prejudiced against) distinctive Catholic practices, while we are fully tolerant of Orthodox practices; indeed, allow them among Eastern Catholics and may (for all we know) allow them again in the Latin Rite on a wider basis, since we already do in terms of dispensations for Anglicans, etc. It’s a discipline and can change.

Surveys have shown that 80% of Catholic celibate priests would stay so even if allowed to marry.

***

If we allow choice of celibacy or not for [parish] clergy [which I have said over and over is what i am talking about], it seems like the de facto norm quickly becomes marriage. This appears to be the case in Orthodoxy (from what statistics I could find), and it certainly unquestionably is in Protestantism.

This, in turn (without judging any individual’s call; I don’t need to, to make my argument) seems to undercut what I believe is the priority given to celibacy (as a “higher / heroic calling”) in the New Testament. If we grant that, then it becomes an argument for making it mandatory, so that celibacy can be given the place of honor that the New Testament appears to call for.

That was my exact argument. The lopsided ratio among Orthodox priests suggests to me that celibacy is being undervalued in a way that St. Paul and Jesus (who even literally talked about leaving wives and homes and everything whatever for the sake of ministry) never do.

I’m not opposed to married priests in principle: even to a possible change in the Latin Rite (though I would favor a limited one, if so); my concern is with preservation and honoring of the celibate higher calling. To be concerned for one doesn’t entail being against the other (yet it is so often perceived to be so, because folks think in “either/or” dichotomous terms).

***

It could possibly be also in Orthodoxy that some of those who are called by God to be celibate and a parish priest refrain from doing so because of the environment that is overwhelmingly making a married parish priest the norm. In this case, they are not opposing God’s will so much as being discouraged from what they believe to be His perfect will, because of the clergy situation “on the ground.”

***

(originally 8-2-14 on Facebook)

Photo credit: P-JR (7-6-14); pellegrina of a Catholic priest [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

2019-01-25T12:19:47-04:00

Last updated on: January 25, 2019 at 12:19 pm   By

This is an installment of a series of replies (see the Introduction and Master List) to much of Book IV (Of the Holy Catholic Church) of Institutes of the Christian Religion, by early Protestant leader John Calvin (1509-1564). I utilize the public domain translation of Henry Beveridge, dated 1845, from the 1559 edition in Latin; available online. Calvin’s words will be in blue. All biblical citations (in my portions) will be from RSV unless otherwise noted.

Related reading from yours truly:

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010 book: 388 pages)

A Biblical Critique of Calvinism (2012 book: 178 pages)

Biblical Catholic Salvation: “Faith Working Through Love” (2010 book: 187 pages; includes biblical critiques of all five points of “TULIP”)

*****

IV, 12:23-28

***

Book IV

CHAPTER 12

OF THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION.
*

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. 

Here we go again with the ludicrous generalities. 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 again. 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. For those who are interested in a more biblical, reasoned approach, I offer  my own numerous papers:

Why Peter’s Marriage Doesn’t Disprove Catholicism: A Dialogue [January 1999]

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

Martin Luther & Antipathy Towards Clerical Celibacy [2-21-04]

Dialogue w a Baptist on Required Clerical Celibacy [7-2-06]

Objections to Clerical Celibacy: In-Depth Dialogue [7-12-06]

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

Priestly Celibacy: Ancient, Biblical and Pauline [National Catholic Register, 9-18-17]

Priestly Celibacy: Garden-Variety Objections Debunked [9-18-17]

Married Bishops (1 Tim 3) & Catholic Celibacy: Contradiction? [9-18-17; expanded on 6-20-18]

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; those men declare that, in the ecclesiastical order, marriage is an intolerable vice; and, indeed, not content with this general vituperation, they term it, in their canons, the uncleanness and pollution of the flesh (Siric. ad Episc. Hispaniar.). 

That goes too far, and is not the Catholic position. 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. These, as types, represented Christ, who, as Mediator between God and men, was, by his own spotless purity, to reconcile us to the Father. But as sinners could not in every respect exhibit a type of his holiness, that they might, however, shadow it forth by certain lineaments, they were enjoined to purify themselves beyond the manner of men when they approached the sanctuary, inasmuch as they then properly prefigured Christ appearing in the tabernacle, an image of the heavenly tribunal, as pacificators, to reconcile men to God. As ecclesiastical pastors do not sustain this character in the present day, the comparison is made in vain. Wherefore 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: “ecclesiastical pastors do not sustain this character in the present day.” That’s supposed to be 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.

My last answer is, that they did not exact this so rigidly as to make continence necessary and compulsory on those who were unfit for it. For while the strictest laws were made against fornication, it was only enacted with regard to those who contracted marriage that they should be superseded in their office.

I’m not sure what Calvin means here.

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, not to allow those whom they deny an honourable and chaste use of marriage, to rush with impunity into every kind of lust, to bring back that obsolete discipline by which all licentiousness is restrained, and free the Church from the flagitious turpitude by which it has long been deformed. 

All good Christians desire such a reform in the clergy and in all Christians; indeed all men, if it were possible.

When they have conceded this, they will next require to be reminded not to represent as necessary that which, being in itself free, depends on the utility of the Church. I do not, however, speak thus as if I thought that on any condition whatever effect should be given to those canons which lay a bond of celibacy on the ecclesiastical order, but that 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.

***

(originally 9-15-09)

Photo credit: Historical mixed media figure of John Calvin produced by artist/historian George S. Stuart and photographed by Peter d’Aprix: from the George S. Stuart Gallery of Historical Figures archive [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license]

***

2018-08-06T19:07:40-04:00

Last updated on: August 6, 2018 at 7:07 pm   By
Ken Temple’s words will be in blue. When he cites my words, they will be in green.
* * * * *

Paul is trying to guard against “making a rule” that one has to be single and celibate by “command force”, but rather is up to the free will and choice of the individual and that they should understand that they have the gift (charismata of celibacy – 7:7) “in order to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord”. ( 7:35) Which, it seems to me, the RCC actually violates the spirit of this passage by making celibacy a dogmatic “command force – rule” for all pastors and elders and overseers ( in the RCC system priests),

This doesn’t follow. You accept (good for you: Luther and Calvin scarcely understood this explicit Pauline teaching) that God can give some individuals the charismata of celibacy.

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 other words, what sense does it make to believe that the Church “forces” men to do something that God already called them to do? This is what 95 out of a 100 Protestants never seem to grasp, because they hate the notion of celibacy so much (probably because they themselves couldn’t do it, which is also irrelevant, but is the emotional key to why they irrationally object so vociferously).

So there is anti-Catholic and contra-Catholic and emotional, personal bias (whenever sexual matters are discussed), but in the end, it is a quite simple, straightforward logical matter. The Catholic Church is following Paul’s injunctions here and not violating anyone’s “personal rights” to have sex. If they want to do so, they can get married. That is God’s plan for them. Every institution has a right to determine its internal rules of discipline and requirements for admission to its offices. This is self-evident.

Thanks! Yes, I agree to a certain degree, but your wording is carefully crafted with “almost”, and later, “who are already called” – those are the keys. It seems that many of these priests don’t know for sure about their calling, the screening process has many flaws, and still seems to go against the spirit of the passage, and I Tim. 3:2, etc.

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],

– this is OK, and I agree with the RCC position that they can make this rule if they want to, and that the priests understand it and make vows before entering into it; and I agree with the conservative orthodox RCs against those liberal Catholics and others who are arguing against the celibacy rule, and using the pedophilia as bolstering their case, because they have an agenda for homosexuality or women priests; which is what I usually see and hear on Talk shows or radio talk shows.

Still, it does seem to violate the spirit of the passage by emphasizing the freedom of choice aspect. Yes, there are life long celibates that have the gift of singleness, and some of them are ministers – John R. W. Stott, Gerald Bray (Anglicans), even Bill Gothard (Fundamentalist Baptist) had this gift. I am sure there are others. They followed the advice of the apostle Paul “in order to secure undistracted devotion” to the Lord.”

If they want to do so, they can get married.

But they cannot be ministers, elders, pastors – that is what seems wrong – making it a dogmatic rule or “discipline”. As long as monogomy and faithfulness is upheld, why not both? If one has the gift and another does not – it is a supernatural charismata – I Cor. 7:7 – it seems that both could minister in the Spirit and keep themselves from sinning in those areas, faithfulness in marriage, and celibacy for those called to that calling.

Every institution has a right to determine its internal rules of discipline and requirements for admission to its offices.

That part I agree with against the liberal arguments in favor of:

1.women’s ordination 

and

2. homosexuality

In other words, what sense does it make to believe that the Church “forces” men to do something that God already called them to do?

And that is the sticky issue, “already called them to do” – those that violate that were either never called to do that, or they sinned against their vows.

Difficult to know — its so subjective. Seems like the RCC would do better to not make it a hard and fast rule for all ministers, but uphold monogamy and faithfulness and also have celibates as ministers, but continue to stand firm against homosexuality and women’s ordination.

Why must marriage and sexuality be intrinsically joined with ordination? What have the two things to do with each other? If you say that they always must be together, then you deny Paul’s teaching on a certain “superiority” of celibacy (as Protestants overwhelmingly do). If you admit that this doesn’t have to be the case, then you have already made the crucial, central concession to our teaching on this.

Ordination and the religious life, in Catholic thinking, are precisely estates whereby the person is “married to the Lord.” It’s almost fundamental to the vocation (we do, of course, have married priests in the eastern rites and allow some married Anglican priests in: I know one personally: Fr. Ray Ryland).

The celibate priest can devote himself wholeheartedly to his parishioners and to the tasks of the priesthood. The married pastor, on the other hand, has a divided allegiance, just as Paul stated: he has to divide time between his pastoral ministry and his wife and children.

And as virtually anyone who has spent much time in Protestant environments (I was there for 32 years) knows well, “pastor’s kids” (PK’s) are notorious for their rebellion. Even Franklin Graham, Billy Graham’s son (now doing great work in his own right) was quite the rebel. And that is because one man can do only so much.

I know from my own experience, as a full-time apologist with a wife and four kids, that it is a very delicate balancing act. I can do that because I don’t have a whole flock to look after and shepherd. I’m just up in my library upstairs, writing. I don’t have direct responsibility for spiritual oversight of hundreds of souls. I work at home and my kids can see me anytime they want. I spend almost every evening with my wife (we usually watch a video or enjoy some music): many couples do not even do that.

So, if you add all the responsibilities of pastors to the married situation (visiting the sick and elderly and those in prison, marriages, baptisms, funerals, pastoral counseling and visitation, perhaps some evangelism or social outreach, Bible studies, prayer groups), you readily see that much of this activity takes time away from family, beyond the “9 to 5” tasks. It’s extremely difficult to balance all that.

And I observed it firsthand. The pastor of the church I attended from 1980 to 1982 is divorced. Then the assembly of God pastor at the church I went to from 1982 to 1986 got divorced. One of his associate pastors had an affair.

I went back to the same non-denominational church from 1986 to 1989. At that time, both elders (basically, assistant pastors) in the church left their wives and had affairs, eventually divorcing. Now, of course, there are many factors in divorce, but I am saying that the lifestyle and workload of a pastor or priest is such that it doesn’t blend very well with marriage, which is challenging enough in ideal circumstances.

Furthermore, the single priest or pastor can be heroic in ways that married persons usually cannot be, such as entering into very dangerous situations, where they may have to give up their life. The married person hesitates because he (rightly, naturally) thinks of his responsibility to his wife and children. This is the same principle behind the military’s extra concern for married soldiers and emphasis on drafting single men. The extraordinary devotion required of combatants does not synthesize very well with the notion of a wife and children sitting at home, worried about receiving that fateful “knock at the door” and terrible news.

In one of my papers I recalled an incident in Luther’s time where there was a plague. Luther was disgusted because Lutheran pastors were too afraid to go and minister to the suffering. That’s because (at least in part) they were married. But Luther noted and admired the heroism and selflessness of the Catholic priests, who freely went in to care for the sick, suffering, and dying (some of them dying themselves).

Priestly celibacy, then, has many practical benefits: precisely the kind of thing Paul discussed in 1 Corinthians 7. Catholics believe that the willing celibate life (as a calling and gift from God) has a heroic, self-sacrificing, self-denying aspect that marriage doesn’t have, while marriage is also a sacrament and a holy and good thing. We don’t view marriage (and its moral sex) and religious celibacy as “bad” and “good” (as the stereotype would have it), but rather, as “very good” and “heroic / above and beyond the call of duty”.

In any event, everyone should lead the life that God has called them to. I’ve never had the slightest inkling that I was to be single. And I felt a very strong calling from God to do apologetics, in 1981 (which, I think, has been confirmed). The documents I have produced above [about lay apostolates] acknowledged this personal call (while many critical Protestants and Catholics have mocked my calling as either self-serving or contrary to Catholicism).

Every person must do that which God has called them to do. If they feel called to consecrated celibacy, then they may also be called to the Catholic priesthood, which treasures the heroic, practical aspects of that calling and wants to utilize them for the purpose of advancing the Kingdom of God.

I think a lot of the antipathy really comes down to a strong emotional revulsion at the thought of living without sex. We worship sex to such an extent in North American and European society, that we almost automatically mock and insult those who don’t do so, and who don’t think it is virtually the highest goal in life, and most important thing.

Because it would be so hard for us to abstain from sex, we assume that those who can and do are weird, abnormal, or some sort of unnatural freaks. Luther and Calvin did this, but Paul (himself single) did not at all. The Catholic view is eminently biblical, and rejects the idolatry of sex.

Secondly, I think there is the usual ambivalence towards folks who are more saintly and holy and self-sacrificing than we are. That threatens us, and so we must run it down, rather than simply admit that it is admirable that some people can live in ways which we cannot (or will not, perhaps more accurately).

Yet God gave them the ability and calling. It all goes back to Him. He gets all the glory. The celibate priest or nun or monk can be admired for going along with the calling anf not rejecting it. We are to honor and appreciate them and pray for them. I certainly do, and I get sick and tired of this endless crusade against celibacy as if it is 1) unbiblical, 2) weird and unnatural, and 3) impossible. As a happily married man, I can admire and appreciate those who have embraced the celibate life, and I will vigorously defend them and the validity and profundity of that choice and vocation till my dying day.

Why must marriage and sexuality be intrinsically joined with ordination?

I did not say that. I only said that both are there in Scripture: Peter and the other apostles are married (I Cor. 9:1-5), the elders/pastors/overseers are married (I Tim. 3:2, Titus 1, etc.) and Paul is single and he exhorts that for those that have the gift and you did a good job of explaining it. You are right, many people are railing against it out of emotion and selfishness, lust, and fear, etc.

a certain “superiority” of celibacy 

I agree that there is a “certain superiority” of it in terms of time and dedication and heroism, as you noted that Luther noted. The same goes for foreign missions in some contexts, but it is also a big negative in Muslim contexts, who have no box for celibacy at all.

I agree with most of what you are saying and the spirit of it, and I agree that Protestants over-reacted against it, but the RCC enforced ruling is not balanced either.

I personally think I am trying to bring the balance of both and say that both are needed and both are Scriptural.

***

(originally 7-2-06)

Photo credit: Gerard Manley Hopkins (1844-1889) was an English poet, Roman Catholic convert, and Jesuit priest, whose posthumous fame established him among the leading Victorian poets. [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #6: Sola Scriptura 1
Is Christianity Too Hard... Or Are We Making...
This World or the Next? Why Not Both?
National Lottery Day: Is Gambling a Sin?
Heartland or Mesoamerica?
Accepting the Easy Task
view all Family blogs