Celibacy and the Priesthood

Fundamentalists and even some Catholics, are surprised to learn that celibacy has not been and is not now a
rule for all Catholic priests. In the Eastern Rites, married men can be ordained; this has been the rule from
the first. But once ordained, an unmarried priest may not marry, and a married priest, if widowed, may not
remarry. Moreover, from the beginning of the Church, married men who were ordained were obliged by
Christ’s express wish, custom and in the 3rd Century, law of the church to remain celibate with their wives.

The law came into effect because a number of priests were siring children, and so were laicized for this
violation of their sacred calling.
Mat 19:29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or
mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and
shall possess life everlasting.

In the Eastern Rites, marriage is tolerated only for some of the lowest ranks of priests, in the villages where
it was customary. All monks in the East are celibate, and Eastern Rite bishops are always chosen from the
ranks of the monks, which means all Eastern Rite bishops are unmarried. In the West, the rule has been
different. In the early centuries priests and bishops could be married the practices in the West and East were
the same--but celibacy was soon accepted by the Church as a whole as the preferred state of life for the
clergy, and eventually it became a mandatory discipline. Note that this was a disciplinary rule, not a
doctrine, and the adoption of that rule did not imply a change of any doctrine, however, the Eastern Church
began permitting married priests to actually live as man and wife only in the 8th Century, and then came the
great Schism of the East, with that great part of the Church falling away, fragmenting, dominated by the
State and fossilized. They have had no saints for a thousand years. Loss of spiritual vitality because they
abandoned the law of celibacy.

In recent years we have seen a few married Latin Rite priests, some who were converts from Lutheranism
and, as Lutheran ministers, were married, and more recently a growing number of converts from
Episcopalianism/Anglicanism. These are clearly exceptions to the rule.

Fundamentalists do not approve of what they refer to as "mandatory priestly celibacy," with emphasis on
the adjective, as though the Church were imposing a discipline against the will of prospective priests. They
have a number of arguments against celibacy.

Is Marriage mandatory?

One argument Fundamentalists pose is that celibacy is "unnatural." After all, they claim, God commanded
all men to marry when he said, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28).

Not so. "Be fruitful and multiply" is a general precept for the human race; it does not bind each individual.
If it did, every unmarried man (and woman, for that matter) of marrying age would be in a state of sin by
remaining single. Christ himself would have been in violation of the commandment. And even if you
exempt him because of his divinity, you still would have to explain how it was that John the Baptist didn't
sin by not marrying.

We should also look at our Lord's teaching on the subject of celibacy for the sake of the gospel: "Not all
can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they
were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage
for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it" (Matt. 19:11-12). Notice
that Jesus speaks of this sort of celibacy that is chosen "for the sake of the kingdom" is a gift, it is a call that
is not granted to all or even most people, but it is a gift that is granted to some. The group of people most

1
suited for this state of life are those men and women who have "left everything" to follow Christ (cf. Matt.
19:21) as clergy and consecrated religious (i.e. monks and nuns). Consecrated celibacy is a sign to the
Church; a living out in the present the reality of universal celibacy in the heavenly kingdom that is to come:
"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven"
(Matt. 22:30).

Was St. Paul Celibate?

Remember too that Paul himself--Fundamentalism's favorite apostle--was himself celibate. "To the
unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot
exercise self-control, they should marry" (1 Cor. 7:8-9).

"That may be," opponents of the Catholic position say, "but what about the fact that Paul insisted a bishop
must be the husband of one wife? (1 Tim. 3:2). This means that at least bishops must marry!" This notion
betrays an elementary confusion. The point of Paul's teaching is not that a man must be married in order to
be a bishop, but that a bishop may not be married more than once. If a bishop had to be married, St. Paul
would have been in violation of his own rule (1 Cor. 7:7-8, 9:5). A rule forbidding a man to have more than
one wife does not order him to have at least one. A man who never marries does not violate the rule. Also,
Paul, being a bishop who ordained other men to be bishops (cf. 1 Tim. 1:6), would have been a hypocrite if
he enjoined such a rule ("to be a bishop you must be married") and then, by his own admission (1 Cor. 7:8-
9) ignored his own rule.

In the early years of the Church, because of the scarcity of single men who were eligible for ordination,
men who were already married were accepted for the priesthood and episcopacy, but as the supply of
single, eligible men became greater, only single men were accepted for ordination in the West, in
accordance with Paul's wish "that all were as I myself am" (1 Cor. 7:7).

Some Fundamentalists cite Paul's comment that a bishop "must manage his own household well, keeping
his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own
household, how can he care for God's church? (1 Tim. 3:4-5). "See," they say, "a bishop must be married!"
If that were the proper interpretation, the logic of Paul's statement implies a bishop must also have children,
and all his children must respect him without qualification. Would a married man without children thus be
ineligible for a bishopric? Under the Fundamentalist scheme, apparently so. And would a married man with
children, one of whom does not respect him fully, be ineligible? Again, yes. And how is one to measure the
respect of the children, to determine whether it is "full"? Who's to say?

All this passage means is that a married man, to be chosen as a bishop, must rule his own household well,
whatever the size of his household is. If his household consists of only himself, he must have self-discipline
(1 Cor. 9:24-25); if his household is him and his wife, he must lead gently and well (Col. 3:19); and if his
household is himself, his wife, and his children, he must rule it well. Paul's statement does not mean that a
man must have a household of a certain size to be an bishop, but that if he does not manage his house well--
whatever its size--then this is evidence he will not manage the church well either.

Are Catholics forbidden to marry?

"Ah, but we know that forbidding marriage (1 Tim. 4:3) is a sign of an apostate church," say
Fundamentalists. "The Catholic Church forbids some people, clergy and religious, to marry, so it must not
be the Church Christ founded."

In fact, the Catholic Church does not forbid anyone to marry. Most Catholics marry with the Church's full
blessing. Those men who become priests voluntarily become priests and voluntarily choose celibacy.

2
What is the Bible really talking about? The phrase "forbidding to marry" refers to people who declare all
marriage to be evil. Some early heretics held this, as did the medieval Albigensians and Catharists, (whom
anti-Catholic writers, knowing little about them, seem to admire purely because they happened to have
insisted on using their own vernacular translation of the Bible).

Marriage is not evil in the eyes of the Catholic Church (remember, it is the Catholic Church that claims
Christ raised marriage to a sacrament), and no Catholic is forbidden to marry. It is true that Catholic priests
in the West must be celibate, but no one is obliged to become a priest.

Marriage is not forbidden to them as human beings, but as priests. A Catholic man is free to choose the
celibate priesthood, the married life, or the single life (which also is celibate). Celibacy is forced on no one.

The Apostolic Practice of Celibacy

One things that even Fundamentalists are forced to admit is that the practice of celibacy among ministers of
the gospel (priests, deacons, bishops) goes straight back to the New Testament. While Peter and some of the
other apostles were already married at the time they were called to ministry (1 Cor. 9:5 refers to a sister or a
woman, not wives), not all were. Paul, for example, was not married, and was very insistent about the value
of celibacy for purposes of serving the Lord (1 Cor. 7).

He warned Timothy, a young bishop, that anyone who wishes to be a good soldier of Christ will stay clear
of certain pursuits, such as marrying and raising a family, because it will enable him to better serve Christ:
"Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian
pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him" (2 Tim. 2:3-4).

Elsewhere Paul elaborated: "I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about
the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs,
how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. 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. 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 Cor. 7:32-35). And
in certain cases, celibacy is preferable to marriage: "So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and
he who refrains from marriage will do better" (1 Cor. 7:38).

A form of priestly celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The Prophet Jeremiah was forbidden by
God to take a wife in order to enable him to fulfill his ministry better. "The word of the Lord came to me:
'You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place'" (Jer. 16:1-2).

Paul mentions an order of widows (an ancient Christian form of women religious) which was established in
the churches Timothy was overseeing. "But refuse to enroll younger widows; for when they grow wanton
against Christ they desire to marry, and so they incur condemnation for having violated their first pledge"
(1 Tim. 5:11-12). Not only was celibacy for religious reasons practiced by certain New Testament
Christians, a vow ("pledge") of celibacy was part of being admitted to a religious order. This is the situation
in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church today.

By instituting this policy, the Latin Rite has not claimed that God himself requires this of absolutely all his
priests (which is why the Church does not require other rites to make ministerial celibacy mandatory, and
why the Latin Rite itself makes some exceptions to this rule), but because it is a sound policy which was
recommended by Christ Our Lord and the great Apostle Paul. In making the requirement, the Latin Rite is
having its clergy do something, not just because God wishes it, but because it is an excellent idea that
produces great fruits, just as most denominations require their ministers to have formal theological
education, not because God says in the Bible that they must, but because it is a good idea.

3
Rev 14:1 And I beheld: and lo a Lamb stood upon mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty-four
thousand, having his name and the name of his Father written on their foreheads.
Rev 14:2 And I heard a voice from heaven, as the noise of many waters and as the voice of great thunder.
And the voice which I heard was as the voice of harpers, harping on their harps.
Rev 14:3 And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne and before the four living creatures and
the ancients: and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand who were
purchased from the earth.
Rev 14:4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are
virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were
purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb.
Rev 14:5 And in their mouth there was found no lie: for they are without spot before the throne of God.

What about the plight of priests who cannot keep their vow, will they be tempted to sin and scandal?

Yes, so will married men who cannot keep their vow. Should we abolish marriage for that reason? Indeed
no-one can say they cannot keep their vows. This is blaspheming God as if He would require of them what
is impossible. They must pray, do penance, renounce occasions of sin and if they still cannot keep pure, go
to a strict monastic order for the rest of their lives.

What about bishops who cover-up for priests and send them to another place where they can
continue their victimization?

Such bishops act with very grave sin wherever there was a definite crime committed. Sometimes the very
process of investigating the allegation can lead to great distress even for the victim or his family. Often the
victim will not allow the process to continue, refuse to testify under oath, and hence the gravity or certainty
of the crime remains undetermined. It is likely such victims are among the number of those who will
receive the vast pay-outs, and the guilty priests cannot be prosecuted because of the sensitivity of the issue
for all involved. The bishop may not have thought it justified to dismiss a priest for whom there is suspicion
but no certainty of grave crime committed. If there is such certainty, the priest must be laicized or even
excommunicated if he abused the confessional.

A lawyer in Boston defending one such priest, told me (July 2007) that by current jurisprudence, the word
“credible” now means “physically possible”. A witness is called credible if the accusation is humanly
possible, even if the “repressed memory” is totally forced by aggressive counselors, or if the accuser is
obviously unstable. The priest is now deprived of any livelihood or respect, ANY accusation means
GUILTY regardless of genuine credibility or proof. To avoid prosecutions in court, the bishops will pay the
victim to keep quiet.

Cardinal Pell in Sydney was forced to step aside while being investigated for a totally unjust accusation,
which the police threw out the window. 40 years ago he was said to have touched someone the wrong way.
The accuser had a list of previous offences as long as your arm, but this did not stop the media from
persecuting Pell and crucifying him without naming the accuser; Pell had been very out-spoken in
defending Catholic morality. This example shows what a which hunt is on today for priests; as Fr Corapi
says, only priests and the unborn now have no rights in this country.

Pell as Archbishop of Melbourne (before he became Cardinal in Sydney) had advertised in ALL the
churches, a pay-out of $50,000 for anyone who accuses a priest, so long as the church appointed lawyer
agrees you have a case, and you agree not to go to court (where you might get a million). Hence it was not
surprising that someone should seek an easy 50K by a simple accusation if it had been physically possible
with no witnesses to the contrary. The Cardinal fell victim to his own policy. He was totally innocent of any
crime, but was mistaken to listen to any lawyers.

4
What about the victims in the past glory days of the Church?
Human nature with its original sin, has not changed. If someone refuses grace they will fall into sin. Some
of the scandals involve the pre-Vatican II days, but vastly small by comparison. There is a religious Brother
who attends “sex-a-holics anonymous” because the changes in rules after VII gave him licence to do
whatever he wanted and no more protection by the ancient customs, prayers and disciplines of the Order.
Nuns used to have night prayers and lights out, now they have light prayers and nights out! Are these
changes calculated to protect chastity? NO.

Moreover it is always far worse when a consecrated soul violates the sacred Vow. We know that to steal a
cup in a kitchen is much less than to steal a chalice from a church, an infinitely worse sin.

Hence whenever a priest falls, it is a very great tragedy. The enemies of the Church will blow it out of
proportion and try to get Catholics into their sect and AWAY from CHRIST in the Blessed Sacrament, or
His forgiveness in the Confessional. The Devil’s plans have been very effective.

There needs to be a complete dedication from the Pope down, to purify the Church from all these evils.
There needs to be public acts of reparation to God, followed by the strictest laws the Pope can employ, such
as did St Gregory VIIth:

… “With admirable discernment, Gregory began his great work of purifying the Church by a reformation
of the clergy. At his first Lenten Synod (March, 1074) he enacted the following decrees:

• That clerics who had obtained any grade or office of sacred orders by payment should cease to
minister in the Church.
• That no one who had purchased any church should retain it, and that no one for the future should
be permitted to buy or sell ecclesiastical rights.
• That all who were guilty of incontinence should cease to exercise their sacred ministry.
• That the people should reject the ministrations of clerics who failed to obey these injunctions.

Similar decrees had indeed been passed by previous popes and councils. Clement II, Leo IX, Nicholas II,
and Alexander II had renewed the ancient laws of discipline, and made determined efforts to have them
enforced. But they met with vigorous resistance, and were but partially successful. The promulgation of
Gregory's measures now, however, called forth a most violent storm of opposition throughout Italy,
Germany, and France. And the reason for this opposition on the part of the vast throng of immoral and
simoniacal clerics is not far to seek. Much of the reform thus far accomplished had been brought about
mainly through the efforts of Gregory; all countries had felt the force of his will, the power of his dominant
personality. His character, therefore, was a sufficient guarantee that his legislation would not be suffered to
remain a dead letter. In Germany, particularly, the enactments of Gregory aroused a feeling of intense
indignation. The whole body of the married clergy offered the most resolute resistance, and declared
that the canon enjoining celibacy was wholly unwarranted in Scripture. In support of their position they
appealed to the words of the Apostle Paul, I Cor., vii,2, and 9: "It is better to marry than to be burnt";
and I Tim., iii, 2: "It behooveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife." They cited
the words of Christ, Matt., xix, 11: "All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given"; and,
recurred to the address of the Egyptian Bishop Paphnutius at the Council of Nice. At Nuremberg they
informed the papal legate that they would rather renounce their priesthood than their wives, and that he
for whom men were not good enough might go seek angels to preside over the Churches.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm

Modern seminaries have allowed homosexuals, deviants or their sympathizers into their seminaries in
astounding numbers. They may not all abuse children, but many are fond of teenagers who are often
ambivalent about their sexual identity. The scandal continues and the LA pay-out may be the tip of the

5
iceberg. Five dioceses have declared bankruptcy and over two BILLION dollars of Catholic man-in-the-
pew money has been given out. I wonder why any Catholic would give one penny to the collection plate in
these churches.

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C5976

You can see now why the SSPX keeps a safe distance from the mainstream Church. Look at the website for
admitting candidates, the plan for preparation for celibacy is outlined clearly, as the Vatican did before the
dreaded Council:

Requirements for Entry into Holy Cross Seminary

Holy Cross Seminary accepts vocations to the Priesthood and to the Brotherhood in
the Society of Saint Pius X. In both cases, it is very demanding as to the requirements
for admission, in line with Church practice and law prior to the Second Vatican
Council. The requirements for admission to both the Seminary and to the Brothers'
Novitiate are those contained in the magnificent and very clear instruction of 1961
which is to be found here below. It is the statement of the Church's teaching and
practice in verification of religious and priestly vocations on the eve of the Second
Vatican Council. All potential vocations must be presented by a priest of the Society
of Saint Pius X, who will verify that the candidate has all the necessary qualities for a
priestly or religious vocation, following the guidelines described in the document
attached below. He will also have to assure the Seminary Rector that none of the
impediments mentioned below apply to the applicant.

Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates

For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders

(S. C. Rel., 2 Feb., 1961).

http://www.holycrossseminary.com/entrance_requirements.htm

It is a masterpiece of supernatural common-sense.

There are no easy answers, just keep up your prayers of all involved and don’t give up hope for the future
of the Church after the great purification/chastisement that MUST come soon.

Romans 1:28 And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge,
God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things
which are not convenient. (ie;perversion follows apostacy)
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice,
wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity:
whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty,
inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity,
without mercy.

6
Rom 1:32 Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand
that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not
only they that do them, but they also that consent to them
that do them.