dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (05/29/90)
In article <May.24.00.12.17.1990.18715@athos.rutgers.edu>, st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes... >A recent post mentioned the council of Nicaea's declaration that >priests be celibate. Though this is no doubt a long-standing tradition >(and not without scriptural support (1 Corinthians 7)), I have wondered >how Catholics explain that St. Peter had a mother-in-law and was thus >obviously married? I don't think that any Catholic would deny this point--it's not that important. St. Augustine, for example, never married, but was a father. The first thing is that priestly celibacy does _not_ date back to the beginnings of the church. It was imposed later because it was decided that a celibate priest would be better able to discharge his duties. The celibacy of the priesthood is a _discipline_ (as opposed to _doctrine_) that could quite possibly be changed or be subject to a special dispensation (although either is unlikely). The second thing is that marriage does not necessarily imply a lack of celibacy (just as non-marriage does notimply celibacy): the Catholic church has ordained priests--in this century--who were married. However, after becoming ordained, they also became celibate. -dh [As an semi-interesting aside, the first time I ever heard the term celibacy was when I was in 3rd grade home sick with the Chicken pox watching the dating game. Bachelorette #2 announced that she was celibate, bachelorette #3 was selected for the date.] --- Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu spitballs at girls that I liked. Now, dhosek@ymir.bitnet I beg and plead for dates. Frankly, the uunet!jarthur!ymir old way was more satisfying."
oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (05/29/90)
Re: Steven Timm In article <May.24.00.12.17.1990.18715@athos.rutgers.edu>, st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >A recent post mentioned the council of Nicaea's declaration that >priests be celibate. Though this is no doubt a long-standing tradition >(and not without scriptural support (1 Corinthians 7)), I have wondered >how Catholics explain that St. Peter had a mother-in-law and was thus >obviously married? Hi, Steven! From my own lowly perspective :), I don't think Peter's marital status would affect things much, unless there were some deliberate attempt by the early Church to JUSTIFY celibacy by use of the life of St. Peter. To the best of my knowledge, the Church has not tried to do that. (Is anyone out there certain of this, one way or the other?) Celibacy, in the eyes of the Church, is a condition that fosters a deeper and more devoted life to God. That fact alone is enough to promote celibacy as a beneficial Christian force. NOTE: in this setting, it can be seen that the Church does NOT condemn non-celibacy... any more than the Church condemns the laity for not being of religious high status. I recall that St. Paul urged celibacy to ALL Christians, but even he made a point of saying that it was merely a recommendation... a piece of non-divine advice, if you will. "Should you marry, however, you will not be committing sin." (1 Corinthians 7:28) "The unmarried man is busy with the Lord's affairs, concerned with pleasing the Lord; but the married man is busy with this world's demands and occupied with pleasing his wife. This means he is divided." (1 Corinthians 7:32-33) It seems that the Council of Nicaea took these bits of advice to heart, since it was in their interest to encourage the holiest possible lives in priests and other religious. So Peter, though acclaimed the first pope (somewhat retroactively, it seems... :) ), was in no danger of sin, on this occasion. I doubt that Peter had anything to do with later celibacy rulings. -- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
chrise@hpsrcje.hp.com (05/29/90)
In soc.religion.christian, st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes:
A recent post mentioned the council of Nicaea's declaration that
priests be celibate. Though this is no doubt a long-standing tradition
(and not without scriptural support (1 Corinthians 7)), I have wondered
how Catholics explain that St. Peter had a mother-in-law and was thus
obviously married?
Well, I guess we're forced to admit that St. Peter lived before the council
of Nicea. :-)
A slightly longer answer involves the Catholic distinction between doctrine
and discipline. Many of the "un-Scriptural" traditions of the Church to
which Protestants protest are not "man-made doctrines", but disciplines.
Doctrine doesn't change (although it does devlop--cf. Cardinal Newman),
and indeed the Church has no power over doctrine--it merely hands on what
it has received from its Founder.
Discipline consists of the laws that the Church has made, which it may
change as well. Joe Buehler has already pointed out the diversity among
the rites of the Catholic Church on the advisability of the _discipline_ of
priestly celibacy.
Chris
Unity in essentials, freedom in non-essentials, and charity toward all.
-- Augustineta00est@unccvax.UUCP (elizabeth s tallant) (06/05/90)
Even Jesus disciples were married. How can you say that a priest is better able to concetrate if he is unmarried? It seems to me that he would have far less chance of thinking certain impure thoughts if he had a wife. [Clearly there are both advantages and disadvantages. Paul obviously felt the advantages outweighed the disadvantages. E.g. 1 Cor 7:25ff. As long as everyone agrees that there nothing intrinsically impermissible about married priests, then it's just a debate about what is most useful for the Church. --clh]
jhpb@garage.att.com (06/05/90)
> I don't think that any Catholic would deny this point--it's not > that important. St. Augustine, for example, never married, but > was a father. In case it wasn't clear, Augustine had an illegitimate child *before* his conversion. You can read his story in his "Confession". Joe Buehlre
wagner@karazm.math.uh.edu (David Wagner) (06/05/90)
I'm going to try to respond to this without turning it into a flame, which, given the Lutheran literature on the subject, would be all too easy. For reference, see Melancthon's 'Apology to the Augsburg confession', Article 23, 'The Marriage of Priests'. Melancthon wrote in response to the following in the Roman Confutation to the Augsburg confession: "...They [the Lutheran princes] call sacerdotal celibacy an abuse when the direct contrary, the violation of celibacy and unlawful transition to marriage, deserves to be called the worst abuse in priests...The princes ought not tolerate it, to the perpetual shame and disgrace of the Roman Empire, but should rather conform with the universal church..." The principle point of Melancthon's response was that vows of celibacy were honored mostly in the breach. He further cites Paul: "But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." (1 Cor 7:2) and "But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:9). He cited the council of Nicea, which (as mentioned in a previous article) refused to make a requirement of priestly celibacy. IMHO this gives an interesting insight into how error has crept into the church. This idea gets started, and the church rightly resists it, but does not quite succeed in stamping it out. Several hundred years later the error becomes enshrined in church doctrine or practice. I believe just about everything that Protestants find objectionable in Roman Catholicism had its origins in this manner. Some of his more pointed comments: "But they are not serious about celibacy. They know good and well how few practice chastity, but they use religion as a pretext to maintain their authority, which they think chastity enhances." "...although our opponents do not defend this regulation for religious reasons, since they see that it is not being observed, still they cloak it with pious-sounding phrases to give it a religious front. They claim that they require celibacy because it is pure, as though marriage was impure and sinful or that celibacy merited justification more than marriage." He goes on to show that there is no foundation in scripture for this view. We all should be on guard against pious-sounding phrases that have no basis in scripture, on any number of subjects. It is interesting that Melancthon quotes 1 Tim 2:15, which is generally regarded as one of the more doctrinally difficult passages in the Bible: "But women will be saved through childbearing--if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." He does this to show that marriage is just as blessed, if not more, as is celibacy. Melancthon would surely never suggest that childbearing is a good work which merits salvation, but he quotes this anyway. One possible interpretation that avoids what appears to be a dilemna for Lutherans is "Women will be kept safe through childbearing", which makes just a little more sense. "The canon commands that priests [who marry] should be suspended; our canonists suspend them all right-- not from office but from trees! They cruelly kill men because they are married." I suppose that's a historical flame; I don't pretend Catholic practice is the same today. But people should be aware of their history. I see one reason, which is supported in the Scripture, for a person to choose celibacy and remain unmarried. That is that first of all, God has given them the ability to do so. Secondly, if that person chooses celibacy to permit him or her to do better work in God's kingdom. (1 Cor 7:32-35). But Paul clearly instructs us not to judge each other in this matter. Luther, incidentally, was inclined not to marry. But when he met Katherine von Bora (not quite sure on the last name) he changed his mind--perhaps so that other pastors would not have doubts remaining in their consciences regarding marriage. According to history, she had her sights set on him and sought him out! By all acounts the marriage was a very happy one. David H. Wagner A confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs are not likely to conincide with any held by The University of Houston.
kriz@skat.usc.edu (Dennis Kriz) (06/07/90)
A certain historical perspective has to be taken into account too. Celibacy was enforced in the Church not in small measure to prevent Church posts (particularly those of the Bishops) from becoming hereditary. The Catholic Church's history is *long* ... It passed through a period where just about every other position of power was deemed hereditary. (Kings, lords and what-not). I think that it was a good thing that the Bishops were not allowed to become both "pope and ceasar" dennis kriz@skat.usc.edu