www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Article: Is Mandatory Celibacy an Apostolic Tradition?

Deacon John,

I read the above Biblical passages, and in the Bible I have it says, "It behooves therefore a Bishop be blameless, the husband of one wife,...,chaste,..." 1Tim 3:2.
How do I reconcile this discrepincy (unless I am reading it wrong). It seems to me that Paul is asking that a Bishop not be a polygamist or been divorced as well as maintain chastity in the marital relationship. Or maybe I have an error ridden translation.

Thanks for the help and many prayers,
Timothy

Timothy,

Christ is risen!

The "apparent" discrepancy stems from a common misunderstanding of what it means to be "chaste". Chastity does not necessarily imply celibacy. Chastity may be found in two forms: celibate chastity, where a man or a woman forgoes physical intimacy with others; and marital chastity where a man and a woman forego physical intimacy, except with each other.

Christ is risen!

I once heard an Orthodox monk lament the existence of a married clergy in the Orthodox Church. He said this as a spiritual father of a married priest, and he explained to me the difficulties married life can be for a priest. (He probably revealed too much to me when he said that he had to force the priest and his wife to sleep in separate beds! Too much information, thank you!) There is too much of a sentiment in this forum of "married priest = good" and "clerical celibacy = suspect". What one has to emphasize is that if we have a married priesthood without a general ascetical context in the Eastern Catholic Churches, all we are really doing is "letting the priests off easy", so to speak, in comparison with their "sexually-repressed" Latin brethren. Priests in a family context still have to control themselves sexually in the Orhtodox Church, and the demands can sometimes be rigorous. One could even ask if damming in the natural waters of the male sexual drive is easier than trying to control its flow.

In any event, although I am not at all for the supression of the married priesthood (to the contrary, I am for it in our churches in this country), I am not at all going to take aim at a practice that could be, if practiced properly, superior to ours. He who does not have a wife cares for only the things of God. This is an absolute truth, in spite of how it is put into practice.

Arturo

Arturo,

"There is too much of a sentiment in this forum of 'married priest = good' and 'clerical celibacy = suspect'."

I see the opposite sentiment true on most Latin forums. The Latin Church must decide for itself if it is time to end mandatory celibacy, however it can not do so in a vaccum and of course is going to look to the East for its experience. When ending mandatory celibacy is talked about every possible situation in which a married priesthood could be problematic is thrown out and given as sufficient reason not to even think about it. What if the: priest has marital problems?, gets divorced?, has an affair?, the priest's wife is (fill in the blank)?, and on and on. At the same time ignoring the problems assocaited with mandatory celibacy, not the least of which is the unnatural situation the Latin Church has created by enforcing celibacy but not having those same priests live in community.

"He who does not have a wife cares for only the things of God. This is an absolute truth, in spite of how it is put into practice."

Talk is cheap. Practice is all that matters. I have known plenty of celibate priests who managed to not care only for the things of God.

The problem I see is either side being hung up on celibacy/marriage. We need holy men to make holy priests. Being married or celibate does not guarentee it. If a holy married man is called to the priesthood ordain him, Latin or Eastern. If a holy single man is called to the priesthood ordain him, Latin or Eastern. With the vocation crisis looming we need to be worried about having holy men for priests, not whether this or that secondary tradition is maintained.

Fr. Deacon Lance

I would like to respond to "he who does not have a wife cares only for the things of God". I was reading I Cor. 7 and I notice two statements that seem to qualify this verse. The first is I Cor 7:26
"I think, then, that this is good on account of the present distress - that it is good for a man to remain as he is." The second is I Cor. 7:29: "But this I say, brethen, the time is short; it remains that those who have wives be as if they had none;."
Of course I could extend verse 29 and it seems to indicate that Paul is referring to a particular situation of that time facing the Corinthian church or some may argue that it is Paul's belief in the imminent return of Christ.

Though the sentiment expressed of "caring for the things of God" is true for the unmarried, the qualifiers above would seem to take the force from this verse being used as a support for mandatory celibacy.

Just my two cents and if I am missing something here I am always open to instruction and correction.

Terry

Well the first Ecumenical council did make a canon that says Manditory Celebacy for Priests is not allowed, but the RCC doesnt pay much attention to the 7 Ecumenical Council Canons.

In Christ
Nektarios

Dear Nektarios,

That was uncharitable. Pointing out the canon, without qualifying rudeness, would have sufficed.

Gaudior, whose temper is rather short, these days.

Dear Nektarios,

Let us be fair. As an "Oriental" Orthodox, I can point out instances when the "Eastern" Orthodox have not followed the canons either. So a sweeping remark like "the RCC doesn't pay attention to the 7 Ecumenical Council canons" is unnecessary/ out of place.

I think we have to distinguish between the "mandatory celibacy" of such sects as the Valentinians (and other Gnostic sects) and Montanists - which declared that ALL men should not be married - and the celibacy enjoined by the Latin Church for the "sake of the Kingdom." The Ecumenical Council's statement about mandatory celibacy is CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY in regards to the damnable tradition of the heretical sects, not in regard to Rome's practice.

Blessings,

Marduk

P.S.

Just call me "P.S." man since I seem to have a lot of afterthoughts. I don't deign to know the mind of the Council Fathers, but perhaps their main concern was also (if not primarily) one of freedom of conscience.

As far as I know, those who are celibate in the Latin Church CHOOSE to be so. Some have left the priesthood and CHOOSE to marry. That is their FREE CHOICE. Subjectively, their celibacy is NOT MANDATORY. Objectively, it is not mandatory either, since we know there exists Western and Eastern Catholic priests that ARE MARRIED. Once again, this goes back to the meaning of "mandatory." If one says that something is "mandatory," then that is the way it is WITH NO EXCEPTIONS. Indeed, that was the case with the heretical sects. The fact that there ARE EXCEPTIONS to the rule of the WESTERN Church means it is NOT mandatory. In the context of the entire Catholic Church (not just the Western Church) the celibacy rule is DEFINITELY NOT MANDATORY.

First

INMHO Oriental "Orthodox" are not Orthodox.
Oriental is another word for Eastern. Non-Chaldeians are not Orthodox.

2nd

I would have no problem with a celebate priest.
"For the sake of the kingdom" is good. But its not a choice its forced apon you if your a Roman Priest you dont have a choice, unless your a Roman in the Eastern rites.

Yes unfortunaltey not every Orthodox Bishop follows the canons as they should, but I was a former Catholic and the RC do change their canons every once in a while. And while I was a Catholic I never heard about the Ecumenical Canons till I became Orthodox. Jus from my expereince.

In Christ
Nektarios

Can I add another question into this topic?

IF the Roman Catholic Church changed it's views on mandatory celibacy, would that be only going forward.... as a Byzantine priest cannot choose a wife *after* being ordained. Wouldn't that leave all current RCC priests still embracing celibacy, while newcomers can become married priest.

Rose2
I think your right, once youve been ordained no marriage. East and West is in aggreement here.
Stephanos I