www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West answering celibacy

Dear brethren,

On the recent thread, "Need help forming an answer," the person asked how one should explain clerical marriage to a Roman.

I was surprised that nobody brought up what Sacred Scripture teaches on the subject. St Paul describes the Christian hierarchy as he knew it:

1 Timothy 3:2 Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher.

1 Timothy 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

Titus 1:5-6 A presbyter must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

Any comments? How can somebody say, "There has always been a celibate priesthood"? While St Paul commended celibacy (1 Cor 7:7), he certainly knew of no custom or canon stipulating mandatory celibacy for bishops, priests, or deacons.

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Marshall:

For an overview of the Roman Catholic "answer" to your legitimate concern, may I suggest:

http://www.catholic-pages.com/dir/celibacy.asp

Thanks for expending your valuable time on this recurring subject re: celibacy in the Latin Church.

AmdG

Marshall,

I don't think any [knowledgeable] person denies that priestly celibacy hasn't always been the case. It's been the norm in the Latin Church for about 1100 or 1200 years, possibly a little less. It's never been the norm in the East.

Hierarchical celibacy is another matter. Isn't there a tradition that, after being ordained, the Apostles left their wives to become celibates? I was under the impression, and have always been taught, that the celibacy of bishops has been in place since the earliest centuries of Christendom.

Logos Teen

I posted before seeing Amado's post. Gracias, Amado!

Logos Teen

Dear Teen,

I have heard it said that the Apostles "left their wives." I doubt this means, "See ya sweety. You and the kids can fend for yourselves. I'm following Jesus." Could Jesus honestly ask a man to leave his wife and children? Is that godly?

Plus, St Paul says that the Apostles and Peter took their wives with them:

1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as the other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

in Christ,
Marshall

Dear Logos Teen:

De nada!

And as to the "tradition" that the Apostles remained celibate AFTER following Christ, it was mentioned in passing at:

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/celibacy_of_priests.htm

Our Lord Jesus Christ AND St. Paul were the first "real" celibates.

AmdG

Thanks for the link, Amado.

Marshall,

I don't mean to imply that I believe something similar to the caricature you describe occured. If this tradition is based in fact, I suspect that the Apostles possibly even lived with their wives as brother and sister. Perhaps they didn't even live with them; I don't know.

Logos Teen

Marshall,
the Romans I was talking to had already discussed these passages...the comments I have a problem with and needed help answering were the ones that stated that a married priesthood doesn't work, ever...totally discounting the success that the East, both Catholic and Orthodox, have had with a married priesthood.

I finally realized, with the help of others on this board and others, that it's just not worth my time to get into the discussion with them. If they really are open to the idea then they, like I did, will research it and find out the truth. But if they are closed to the idea and determined that their way is the only right way, I doubt even Our Lord Himself could convince them otherwise.

Vie

Dear Marshall,

The attitude of the Eastern Orthodox Churches in this respect seems to be that married priests are a MUST for parish work and that unmarried or widowed priests must become hieromonks.

That tradition isn't held everywhere stringently, of course.

I once did a book review here on a new publication about priestly celibacy.

It was written from a strictly "no married priests" perspective.

The author, after reviewing the practice of the West in the first millennium, was obliged to conclude, however, that married priests were the norm in the Western Church for a long time.

But he added that such married priests lived with their wives as brother and sister only - that they had no sexual relations.

One can only conclude then that the offspring of such priestly marriages, a number of whom went on to become great Saints, were delivered by . . . storks (?).

The book is offered by Ignatius Press, but I forget the title and the author's name.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Was that your parting shot, that you pledged to eventually forget the title and the author's name? How very scriptural of you and how very appropriate. Good job!

May I add:

Regarding married bishops in the East, they were also common in the early Church, but not necessarily the majority. However, the married bishops TENDED to be the ones who compromised too quickly with the various emporers and others who sought to dilute the faith, thus falling out of favor with the faithful. Not being paid well, they were tempted to use Church property as an inheritance for a son or a dowry for a daughter. With these problems, a celibate episcopacy became the norm, especially after the iconoclastic controversy.

We still have married celibate bishops; to wit Bishop Kozma of Appolonia (of blessed memory) in Albania from 1998 to 2002. He was in his seventies or eighties when consecrated.

A married bishop is expected to abstain from congugal relations with his wife so that he may devote himself entirely to the work of the Church. The canon actually stipulates that, both parties willing, each enrolls in a monastery. Logically, the children will have already been raised and have left the home.

In Christ,
Andrew

in the West, some bishops were married, and remained married. St. Hilary was married and had a daughter, who is also venerated as a saint.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Andrew,

I've always found it humorous that St. Gregory of Nyssa, a married bishop, wrote all those sermons about celibacy.

In Christ,
mikey.

Dear Reader Andrew,

I guess since the author insisted that there was no sex involved in priestly marriages I found the book boring and easily forgotten about . . .

But seriously though . . . hmmmm . . . I think I'll get back to you on that score when I really do have something serious to say . . .

Alex

Dearest brethren in Christ!

I had a sinking feeling in my stomach when I read the name of this particular thing--"answering celeba cy" as if celebacy were a desease that needed to be cured. The Western Church has from the very beggining held to celebacy as a dissipline though there was not a total consensus in the west that it was a law. Still, by the time of the First Council of Nicea the West already had canonical laws regarding celebacy.

Celebacy is not a disease. In the East you also enjoy the beauty of Celebacy. Did not the Lord himself say "some make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom"? I believe that any attempt--perceived for real--to stamp out mandatory celebacy in the West by Easterners is uncharitable and below you. At the same time, it is proper to answer why your own tradition does not mandate celebacy. I will have the respect to not try and introduce this mandatory discipline into the East, and I beg you not to try and deprive me of it. Those who are intimately connected to the Roman Church know that it does nothing but fuel the flame of the dissidents and heterodox for orthodox Catholics to work against this dissapline.

Why do we practice it? There are really quite a few reasons. Though I haven't read the book, there is a book called "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celebacy" which may go into some of those. It comes down to a few things. First it is the fullness of the sign. Our Lord was celebate because he was married to the Church. Similarily Roman theology says that the priest is married to the Church, so he fullfills the sign better if he himself is celebate. Also it is practicle. Priests in Roman Churches are asked to be counselors, confessors, directors, and to celebrate the Mass daily along with any other rite. Thus we greatly admire the freedom of the priest to give up the joys of a family for the sake of his Bride, the Church.

I don't believe that is dissipline is wrong. I don't believe that it needs to be changed. I don't believe that it has caused the so-called priest shortage (look at orthodox dioceses, Poland, Africa, and other places where there is no priest shortage) and I believe that it is beautiful and wonderful. Even if I were to become an Eastern Catholic I should still want to be celebate if it were the Lord's will.

I love you!

Joseph

Dear Joseph,

I believe our Lord said it best when He told those who were able to take it - to take it.

Mandatory celibacy is wrong, we believe, for secular priests. Optional celibacy for those who can take it - of course!

There are thousands of Latin priests who have left to get married.

And they still want to be priests.

Alex