Early in the church there were problems with nepotism in the selection of Bishops and the fact that small parishes can't necessarily afford to support a priest and his family. That is the practical argument… but, in addition, Scripture (and the Church) teaches that celibacy is superior to the married state. What these people are arguing here is to undermine the tenets and foundations of the Church for some nebulous notion of posterity. This isn't far removed from the "progress without principle" ethos of your average neo-liberal. Religion is not a mere cultural institution, it is an ideal and it is a path of transcendence for those that reject the zero sum game of earthly material existence. The Gospel should not be compromised to accommodate mundane convictions. What most people don't understand about canon law is that any minister, priest or deacon, married or not, is called to clerical continence (that means no sex at all). I believe when the married diaconate was re-allowed back in the middle of the 20th century, deacons were encouraged to be older since there would be no touchy-touchy with the wife. Wives needed to give their consent to this too. The Catholic Church is not Eastern Orthodoxy and there is no reason we should ape their practices. The Eastern Catholics are very similar to Eastern Orthodoxy in that they are structured around ethnic groups, the liturgy is in that ethnic group's language and the majority of the congregation is of that ethnicity. There is far more trust there. The last thing the Church needs to do right now is give in to the modern idea that sex is paramount. There is also the issue that many parishes are in debt and can barely afford to run themselves, much less support the priest's family. It also prevents dilettantish curate-types from becoming priests, which appears to be on balance a good thing. If you want to look at why the protestant denominations have become so trashy and diluted, this looks like just another point. The priesthood is regarded as an incredibly serious vocation. It's not to be divided among other pursuits; a priest with a wife is as self-contradictory as a priest running a Fortune 500 company or hosting a talk show. It has always been a vocation for men willing to devote themselves to it completely. The progression of gays through the ranks, in my opinion, had little to do with the marriage prohibition, and is a fairly recent trend that picked up speed with the dissolving of moral restraint mid-century. The decline in men pursuing the priesthood had more to do with changes in family structure, the centrality of religious life, and the rise of consumerism and mass society. If the marriage prohibition didn't cause it, then abolishing the prohibition won't fix it. The Catholic abuse scandals are not a scathing indictment of a certain group of people (secular/other religious institutions have similar rates of abuse), rather, it's a sign of the times.
If you oppose preistly celibacy, you are a Modernist
1 Timothy 3:2
Mark 1:29-31
Posts like yours is why sex abuse is happening in your church. You don't follow the Bible.
Protestants like you whom shattered Christendom with your traditions of men are the reason why the world is what it is.
Addressed that in the OP
1 Cor 7
Mat 19:11-12
The Church Fathers clearly teach that celibacy is superior to marriage.
Most Evangelicals have convinced their flocks that the Jews are the chosen race and their superiors. The mainline Protestant churches are used to assimilate people into subversive projects like feminism (female clergy/birth control/even abortion) and sexual deviancy (all the main branches are pro-sodomite marriage/"gender" politics). The history of Protestantism is a joke. Protestantism, which puts the individual so much to the forefront in man's relationship with God, naturally leads to the moralistic therapeutic deism. So who follows the Bible, really? Andersonites? The people who claim that portrayals of Jesus are idolatry and that the Apostles wrote the TR? For the Protestant, everything about communal religious life is negotiable. Liturgy exists, but is negotiable. Communion is a symbol, not a reality - at these "churches", the words of institution always include something about "wine or grape juice and gluten-free bread" - the further Protestantism gets from its roots, the more any sense liturgy decays. The earliest Protestant denominations are the most liturgical, with the "most branched off" sects being much more sermon-centered. In Protestantism, nothing really matters except what goes on between you and God. The Protestant devotion to the Bible as indispensable is good, but has only delayed the inevitable slide for a few centuries. Today the lack of concreteness about Christ and God seems more or less universal across Protestant denominations, even the conservative ones.
...
This is stupid.
The Church of the first millenium was doing just fine even when the non-roman rites were much more widespread, and their lack of clerical celibacy was still as prevalent as today.
The only thing it helps with is that you can shuffle around priests for whatever you need way easier.
In particular the Bible which was compiled for you by Catholic men. You're welcome.
That's a perfectly correct statement
the bible having X number of books is a tradition of men it should change every year so theres no tradition
If Joseph was a virgin then where did Jesus' brothers come from?
Nobody for 1500+ years thought those were Jesus' brothers. Why would He entrust the blessed virgin to St John if He had biological family? You are following an interpretation of man. Unless you think everyone was wrong for 1500+ years. You can admit that.
Yeah, no, if you take the best of your people and remove them from the gene pool, that's dysgenic, and St. Paul said bishops should be married, which implies priests should be married.
Even in married life many can’t remain with their own partner, let alone the problem of homosexuality and pederasty in the clergy. If people want to rape kids, they’re gonna do it regardless if they marry. If anything, they might just rape their own kids.
Side note, do you really want the introduction of marriage politics into the heap of church life? Have you ever met the child of a pastor either? More often than not they end up… strange.
This is, in fact, the exact opposite of the truth. Many of the great scientists and thinkers of the West were second sons of middle class families who became small-town vicars. All that free time meant they could build contraptions and do experiments. First, the numbers are too small–there weren't enough priests or monks to make much of an impact on the entire gene pool. Second, although entering the priesthood might mean someone got better than ordinary exercise of his brain, it isn't clear that the "best and brightest" ever became priests. Apart from there being a limited number of clerical openings to fill. So where is the impact on genes? The ability to send a child off to become a priest wasn't available to the poorest in society, but wealth then was not nearly as correlated with intelligence as it is now (or at least we suppose, due to the lack of class mobility–you couldn't just struggle your way into nobility). Literacy (a prerequisite) was fairly uncommon until perhaps the 17th century–probably no sooner than the 16th. (And this is exactly why Sola Scriptura is a heresy that could only be though up around Luther's time - because if he were born even 100 years earlier, Bibles would not be readily available.)
Much of the abuses in the Catholic Church were exposed due to lawsuits. The Church has deep pockets, which motivates the suits (not that this means the plaintiffs are just after money, but most would not bother with emotionally and financially draining lawsuits otherwise). But insurance agencies don't report higher rates of abuse by Catholic clergy: Of course the Catholic Church is the largest and would therefore have the largest number of cases, so it would look to the casual observer like a pattern. This helped feed the journalistic frenzy (and public ignorance) around the issue. An independent review showed about 3% of priests in a fifty year period had been accused of "sexual misconduct". Based on insurance company reports, the Protestant figure is likely somewhat higher. Orthodox and Hasidic Jews have been implicated in hushing up their own sexual abuse problems. Secular institutions have also shown patterns of abuse–famously, Penn State, where there was no gay mafia keeping the information secret. Schools have experienced problems with teacher-student impropriety, including of course married teachers. The Boy Scouts, which have tried to keep gays out of the organization, have also had problems. Gays themselves don't monopolize molestation, and a large percentage of child sexual abuse cases involve heterosexuals and/or indeterminate orientation–i.e. someone with access to children who is indifferent as to which sex he molests. You see sexual abuse where there is access, and abusers pursue positions where they will have access. Generally, child abusers don't rely on environments where they know everyone around will back them up–they manipulate and abuse their victims in secret and pressure them to remain silent. Setting aside all that, it is very weak to decide the Church should abandon a tradition of many centuries that it considers significant due to a few headlines and your supposition that married priests would be swell.
Our Lady, Our Lord, and John the Baptist were celibate virgins without Original Sin. Don't you think clergy should imitate?
And John the Baptist? No, why you do this?
He wasn't like Jesus or Mary, he was born with Original Sin. (The former were *conceived* without Original Sin), but he was born in a state of sanctifying grace. When he leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, he was filled with the Holy Spirit.
Oh so that's what the whole visitation of Mary thing is about. I was going through the motions apparently when doing the rosary.
I still don't get it though
I'm a celibate layman (not an incel.. I'm fine, thanks), and don't oppose celibacy. But I do opposed forced celibacy. This obviously does not bear good fruit. That was the number one guideline Jesus told us on how to weed out errors and falsehoods - and it applies here too. Things would be so much easier if we followed his simple advice.
Boy Scouts don't require celibacy, but they winnie the pooh a metric winnie the pooh ton of little boys. Same with public schools. What evidence do you have that celibacy causes sex abuse? I'm celibate, but I've abused no one. On the other hand, most sex abusers aren't celibate(technically all, by definition).
Blessed and chastepilled
priests should be the husband of one wife, as the bible says.
Works for the Eastern Orthodox for thousands of years.
This.
The only downside is making relocation more difficult, and at the most extreme level(though this was a strictly uniate thing, though it still led to some good) it led to this:
en.wikipedia.org
(((You)))
small impact * long time = ?
Celibacy wasn't the proximate cause. Celibacy led to priests worshiping marriage and women which they can't have, so they say cringy stuff like that they're married to the church, the church is married to Christ, they go on and on about female saints, they talk about newly ordained people like they're giving birth, and so on. They started believing in the Immaculate Conception and sinlessness of St. Mary, which is irresistible grace from Calvinism, so they became Calvinists. They were corrupted by the communists in the 20th century, who got everyone who wasn't gay to leave and get married.
So at a time in history when we were facing fornication, divorce, contraception, sodomy, polyamory, transsexualism, and so forth, our spiritual leaders weren't able to lead by example, and we had no one leading by example.
user, you are embarrassing youself. Stop it, get some help.
If you oppose preistly celibacy, you are a Bible Beilieving Christian.
FTFY
1 Timothy 3
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Catholics and Orthodox teach the exact opposite.
...
Not what the Bible says, the Bible says they must be married but you would rather follw the traditions of men instead of the commandments of God.
They chose it and it is not forced
Then why wouldn't priests seek out sex with consenting adults? They would be exposed because an adult would notice if they were a priest? Give me a break. Most people are not even Catholic or converting and if they wanted to break their vow to celibacy they could go a town or two over. They could even give up being a priest if it is so unbearable. There is nothing forcing them to be priests. This is absolutely fallacious.
So I'll be just like Pope Francis and 99% of bishops then? Sounds like I'll be in good company.
K.
Meh.
Celibacy is way overrated.
Married priests are bros.
Remove the celibacy requirement, which is completely arbitrary and was instituted to avoid problems with inheriting titles, a problem that no longer exists btw.
t.catholic
t. courtier
What does that mean?
It means stop frogposting.
Loterally none of those are traditions of men. Even thoigh I don't agree with some of those that's misinterpratation, not tradition. fool
unfortunately true. Celibacy and worship of women has been making Catholicism gay for 1000 years and none of the other branches.
Saint paul said that overseers of the church must be a husband of one wife.
Be fruitful and multiply (but not if you're a priest, in that case, ignore Timothy and actually be a virgin and not follow one of Gods first commandments)
Are you claiming that celibacy is actually evil? Wew lad.
Dude, the catholic church priesthood is dominated by a gay mafia. Eastern-rite Catholics allow priestly marriage and they haven't experienced nearly the degeneracy as Latin-rites.
Pretty sure the low number of reported abuses in the Eastern Rite has to do with how little Eastern Rite Parishes there are and nothing to do with priestly celebacy.
The liberal modernists and the faggots were never an issue until secular/protestant society decided to promote faggotry and proclaim them victims. Before the communist/sodomite infiltration of the Church in the 30s there wasn't issues. Priestly Celebacy isn't the problem, the problem is satan. Always has and always will be.
The roman church "opposed" mandatory priestly celibacy for 1000 years.
Let them be anathema?
Yes I am. It is evil. You are misusing Gods creation
t. liberal
Right, I misread Genesis 1:28, Genesis 9:7, and Jeremiah 29:6. Honestly, how do you think that the priestly tribe of Levi went for longer than one generation. How ignorant can one person be?
Jesus was celibate. If celibacy is evil that means Jesus was sinful. Repent.
A man without a family is not deserving of respect unless he's a soldier or a missionary. Jesus was a missionary. Allowing men without families to pretend to be considered normal and even high status is the reason for the present crisis in sexuality.
St. Paul says otherwise in 1 Cor. 7.
Paul specifically states that he has recieved no commandment from God regarding this and that it is purely his own Judgement, and if you actually read it, his reasoning isnt that it is unholy or sinful, rather his reasoning is that marriage will give you anxiety
I'm not saying that marriage is bad. Rather, the other user is claiming that celibacy is sinful, which is a ridiculous heresy.
It's supremely idiotic when people blame celibacy for all the abuse–take a look at all the traditional (Latin Mass) societies, they have next to no abuse. The pederasts are always liberals who never had the faith. The priesthood is incredibly serious, and celibacy is a reflection of that.
Don't you have Europe to save from the brown hoards, pagan?
Important reminder.
[-]
what you mention refers to how someone who practiced polygamy could not be made bishop. That is evident considering it is in a paragraph thta outlines some virtues a bishop must meet. So of course it follows that celibacy is desirable because it is a greater virtue, and making it mandatory is completely normal. Which is why those bishops who had a wife before being made bishops were expected to give up all conjugal rights as you can read from the Fathers of the Church.
I really wish NPCs like you stopped soiling Scripture by twisting it.
They are married to the Church!
Neither of these verses say that marriage is preferable, only that it's permissible.
Jesus explicitly says that it's a great blessing to be born sterile, and that anyone who can act like a sterile man, eg abstain from all sex, should.
Matthew 19:12
Paul goes on to write that marriage should pretty much only be done by people who would otherwise be fornicators or masturbators, and that anyone who can abstain ought to.
1 Corinthians 7:8
Marriage is good, but it's a lesser good. Celibacy is the greater good.
The Devil hates chastity.
Peter was married.
The Apostle Paul's letters to Bishop Timothy state that candidates for the priesthood and bishopric were to be husbands of one wife.
Married priests were the norm throughout all the Orthodox world, both in the East and the West, pre-schism.
It was only in the 1100s that Rome made celibate priests the norm. That's called an INNOVATION. Done by SCHISMATICS.
The problem with your interpretation of sacred scripture is that it is pharisaic.
So all bishops must be married? So what happens of the bishop's wife dies before the bishop does? Is the bishop's position forfeit? Is he no longer a bishop if his wife dies?
The "husband of one wife" is a virture not a literal requirement. The bishop must be faithful to one bride (ie the Church) just like how Jesus is the husband of only one wife (the Chuch)
Also
Tbh, fam, I lol'd.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
so if I want kids that would be the lesser good, even if I unite them in Christs Name and get them to spread the word of God?? : ((((