Obligatory Celibacy

[Rufus_1611]

Pope reaffirms 'obligatory' celibacy for priests

VATICAN CITY (AFP) - Celibacy "remains obligatory" for Roman Catholic priests, Pope Benedict XVI stated Tuesday in a long-awaited text that also urges Catholic lawmakers to oppose laws favouring divorce, abortion and euthanasia.

"I reaffirm the beauty and importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God," reads the apostolic exhortation, the first of Benedict's papacy and second in importance only to an encyclical.

"I therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition," the pope wrote in the document reflecting the conclusions of an October 2005 synod of bishops.

OB'LIGATORY, a. Binding in law or conscience; imposing duty; requiring performance or forbearance of some act; followed by on; to is obsolete.

VOL'UNTARY, a. [L. voluntarius, from voluntas, will, from volo.]

1. Acting by choice or spontaneously; acting without being influenced or impelled by another.

2. Free, or having power to act by choice; not being under restraint; as, man is a voluntary agent.

3. Proceeding from choice or free will.

FORBID'DING, ppr.

1. Prohibiting; hindering.

(Source: Webster's 1828)

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Timothy 4:1-3

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" - 1 Timothy 3:2

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

Is the Pope reaffirming an anti-Biblical position on this issue?

Is the Pope promoting a doctrine of devils?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." - 1 Timothy 4:1-3

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry! No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They renounce marriage (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage…

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;" - 1 Timothy 3:2

What an absurd argument, if you read on in verse 4-5, we also learn that one must manage his own household well and keep his children submissive and respectful…

With this logic, one would have to be married and have children! No single guy, or even someone married with one child will qualify as a bishop…clearly such literalism must me rejected…


-

 

[webdog]

What an absurd argument, if you read on in verse 4-5, we also learn that one must manage his own household well and keep his children submissive and respectful…

With this logic, one would have to be married and have children! No single guy, or even someone married with one child will qualify as a bishop…clearly such literalism must me rejected…

Why must it be rejected and not taken at face value? It says nothing of having children, btw, just managing their household well. A husband and wife can consist of a household. I believe an elder, pastor, deacon should be married, and the text leaves not room for interpretation on that.

 

[Rufus_1611]

The Catholic Church forbids no one to marry! No one is required to take a vow of celibacy; those who do, do so voluntarily. They renounce marriage (Matt. 19:12); no one forbids them. Any Catholic who doesn’t wish to take such a vow doesn’t have to, and is almost always free to marry with the Church’s blessing. The Church simply elects candidates for the priesthood from among those who voluntarily renounce marriage…

The Pope affirmed that it is obligatory for the office of the priests that they be celibate. It is an obligation, it is required. One can not be wed and be a priest, so while one would be volunteering for the office, they have no choice but to remain unmarried if they desire the office, as the church has forbidden the office holders to marry.

What an absurd argument, if you read on in verse 4-5, we also learn that one must manage his own household well and keep his children submissive and respectful…

With this logic, one would have to be married and have children! No single guy, or even someone married with one child will qualify as a bishop…clearly such literalism must me rejected…-

The critical issue is to recognize that, according to the Holy Bible, it is acceptable for a bishop or a deacon to be the husband of one wife. According to the Pope, it is unacceptable for a bishop or a deacon to be the husband of one wife. Is the Pope's position a pro-Bible position or an anti-Bible position?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Personally, I see a big advantage to the RCC requiring their priests to be celibate. If I were a pastor, married, with 3 kids, I could not possibly devote myself 100 percent, it’s just not possible.

Now, 1 Cor. 7:38, Paul concludes that he who marries does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better…Paul here makes a case for preferring celibacy to marriage…”Are you free from a wife: Do not seek marriage…those who marry will have worldly troubles…” Ain’t that the truth…lol

In addition after Jesus’ teaching on divorce and marriage in Matthew 19, His disciples question Him that if such is the case between a man and his wife, is it better not to marry…Christ replied…for the sake of the kingdom…read on in verses 11-12, we learn that some renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom.

Celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is a gift, a call that is not granted to all, or even most people, but is granted to some. Others are called to marriage…as I was…

So it’s my conclusion that the bible speaks favorably of both celibacy and marriage and the RCC requiring its priests be be celibate, which is again, is totally voluntary and the Church picks those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19), which is biblical. But then again, we see exceptions made for married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

Your issue is the teaching authority of the Church, which has obligated its priests to be celibate, which falls within Christ giving His Apostles the authority to bind and loose.


-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Why must it be rejected and not taken at face value? It says nothing of having children, btw, just managing their household well.

What bible you reading...
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

So at face value, unless you have children, meaning more than one...no deacon for you...

Anyway, Paul's whole point here is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).


-

 

[Jack Matthews]

The "husband of one wife" requirements in I Timothy are acknowledgements of the fact that bishops, elders and deacons of the church were, in most cases, already married men. There is no injunction, command, or indication that a man must be married in order to serve in this capacity. The rule was instituted to prevent men married to multiple wives from serving.

Personally, I don't see how unmarried men make it. In my wife I have someone who shares my interests, understands my position, is my best friend, a confidant, a counselor, a supporter of mine in every way without keeping track of either my mistakes or the times when she bears more of the load. It's a relationship of intimacy in every way that I can't imagine living without. The circumstances of life that I've encountered have made having a wife a huge blessing from God.

But, I think it's dogmatic to insist on such a narrow, literalistic interpretation of the scripture as to think there is an indication in them that there is no room for another view.

And, the way this was worded, and the response that followed, makes me wonder whether this is just another planned, plotted attack on the Catholic Church. Seems that some people just don't have a clue as to what kind of God they really worship.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Personally, I see a big advantage to the RCC requiring their priests to be celibate. If I were a pastor, married, with 3 kids, I could not possibly devote myself 100 percent, it’s just not possible.

I see a big disadvantage as it is a contributor to a greater percentage of sodomite priests than in the general populace and a contributor of an admitted 10,000+ sexual abuses from over 4,000 priests in the last 50 years in America alone. (Source: http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/minilist.htm). One of the reasons Paul cites to marry is to avoid fornication, these "celibate" priests are not avoiding fornication.

...

So it’s my conclusion that the bible speaks favorably of both celibacy and marriage and the RCC requiring its priests be be celibate, which is again, is totally voluntary and the Church picks those who have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom (Matthew 19), which is biblical. But then again, we see exceptions made for married Latin-Rite priests who are converts from Lutheranism and Episcopalianism.

Your issue is the teaching authority of the Church, which has obligated its priests to be celibate, which falls within Christ giving His Apostles the authority to bind and loose.

The Bible does speak favorably of both celibacy and marriage but the RCC is not a greater authority than the Bible. The Bible says that it is good for a Bishop to marry, the RCC forbids it.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Personally, I don't see how unmarried men make it. In my wife I have someone who shares my interests, understands my position, is my best friend, a confidant, a counselor, a supporter of mine in every way without keeping track of either my mistakes or the times when she bears more of the load. It's a relationship of intimacy in every way that I can't imagine living without. The circumstances of life that I've encountered have made having a wife a huge blessing from God.

I couldn't agree more, that's why in Matthew 19, Christ says that those who renounce marriage, do so for the sake of the kingdom...it's a gift, a call, and not all will be called to be celibate, but some are, just as you and I were called to be married.

Anyway, this will turn into nothing more than a Catholic bashing thread, that will get 3,000 views and 40 pages of reguritated RC propaganda and no one will be interested in learning to think for themselves...



-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I see a big disadvantage as it is a contributor to a greater percentage of sodomite priests than in the general populace and a contributor of an admitted 10,000+ sexual abuses from over 4,000 priests in the last 50 years in America alone. (Source: http://www.multiline.com.au/~johnm/ethics/minilist.htm). One of the reasons Paul cites to marry is to avoid fornication, these "celibate" priests are not avoiding fornication.

Give me a break Rufus...you think sexual abuse is only limited to the RCC? The only reason this gets media attention is that the RCC is by far the largest Christian group on the face of this planet and the fact that the RCC requires it's priests to be celibate...The admitted abuses are but a small percentage, compaired to the overall numbers of Catholics in the world.

I'm not surgar coating this either, I have a problem how the Church has been covering it up, but again, Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and a proportion of corrupt and sinful priests will not destory it.


-

 

[Rufus_1611]

Give me a break Rufus...you think sexual abuse is only limited to the RCC?

No. However, 4,000+ priests made a solemn promise to God that they would be celibate and they were not, yet how many remained priests? However, if one of these priests decided to get married he would not remain a priest. Thus, within the Catholic church, sexual abuse by priests outside of marriage and breaking their vow of celibacy is accepted, so long as it is not done within the confines of marriage. This is exactly opposite of the teachings of the Holy Bible and if fornication is the $1 Billion problem that it is within the RCC, then it would seem that not forbidding priests to marry would be a scriptural solution.

The only reason this gets media attention is that the RCC is by far the largest Christian group on the face of this planet and the fact that the RCC requires it's priests to be celibate...The admitted abuses are but a small percentage, compaired to the overall numbers of Catholics in the world.

I'm not surgar coating this either, I have a problem how the Church has been covering it up, but again, Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and a proportion of corrupt and sinful priests will not destory it.

-

If the church is covering up corrupt and sinful priests, then does this not cause the church to be representative of the same descriptors?

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No. However, 4,000+ priests made a solemn promise to God that they would be celibate and they were not, yet how many remained priests? However, if one of these priests decided to get married he would not remain a priest. Thus, within the Catholic church, sexual abuse by priests outside of marriage and breaking their vow of celibacy is accepted, so long as it is not done within the confines of marriage. This is exactly opposite of the teachings of the Holy Bible and if fornication is the $1 Billion problem that it is within the RCC, then it would seem that not forbidding priests to marry would be a scriptural solution.

Do you really want to go down this path Rufus? Are you that despirate to prove that the Catholic Church is evil, to make you feel better?

Well, here's some information for you...the Christian Science Monitor recently did a survey, interesting enough the majority of sexual-abuse allegations in America were found to have occured in Protestant churches. There were 3,500 sex-abuse allegations a year...that's roughly 70 cases a week in Protestant Churches...where the clergy were married. So if your fixiation with the RCC is to stop the abuse before us, and prohibiting it from ever happening, then the CSM poll proves is that marriage is no insurance policy.

Therefore, the RCC, sexual-abuses, weren't caused by celibacy, but by the lack of celibacy...And it says nothing about the Church itself, they're (the priests) are just following Christ's example who Himself was celibate!

CSM source http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0405/p01s01-ussc.html


-

 

[Rufus_1611]

Do you really want to go down this path Rufus? Are you that despirate to prove that the Catholic Church is evil, to make you feel better?

The path I am going down is, I have heard it said that the celibacy requirement is voluntary and yet the Pope has reaffirmed it to be "obligatory"...his word. This obligation, to me, resembles a doctrine of devils as the RCC is forbidding a certain group of folks within their church, who feel called to a certain office, to be celibate, when the Bible clearly states it is acceptable for the men holding that office to be married. Thus, a man can believe that he is called to be a Bishop, believe that the Bible says that it is acceptable for a bishop to marry, yet have to submit to the authority of a man who forbids marriage. Your arguments to this point, suggest to me, that you believe the Pope and the hierarchy of the RCC have the authority to override the Holy Bible.

 

[donnA]

There is absoutley nothing in scripture that says not marrying is an obligation in serving God. Are men who marry and have children serving God less, are they less faithful to God, love God less? No.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Here were your questions:

Is the Pope reaffirming an anti-Biblical position on this issue?

Is the Pope promoting a doctrine of devils?

The answers I thoroughly, with Holy Scripture, answered these questions as NO. You yourself admitted that the Bible speaks favorably in regard to both celibacy and marriage. Therefore the Pope is NOT reaffirming an anti-biblical position, nor is he promoting a doctrine of devils…

What’s proven is that your argument is not about ‘celibacy’ per say, but Church Authority, but you as many fundamentalist do, is use celibacy, which you’re really not against, to blast the Churches teaching Authority.

So if your hiccup is with the hierarchy of the RCC, then start a new thread…This song’s already been sung…


-

 

[Agnus_Dei]

There is absoutley nothing in scripture that says not marrying is an obligation in serving God. Are men who marry and have children serving God less, are they less faithful to God, love God less? No.

And there's nothing in Holy Scripture that says marrying is an obligation in serving God.

The RCC stands by Christ's words in Matthew 19:11-12, where He states that those that renounce marriage are doing so for the sake of the kingdom...therefore, the RCC elects to chose thoses that have taken a vow of celibacy and have choosen to follow Christ's example and remain celibate...


-

 

[webdog]

What bible you reading...
"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." - 1 Timothy 3:12

So at face value, unless you have children, meaning more than one...no deacon for you...

Anyway, Paul's whole point here is not that he must have one wife, but that he must have only one wife. Expressed conversely, Paul is saying that a bishop must not have unruly or undisciplined children (not that he must have children who are well behaved), and must not be married more than once (not that he must be married).


-

I'm reading the same Bible as you (hopefully). Please show where it states in that text you MUST have children. It states managing their (plural: elders, deacons) children and households well. States nothing of having to have children.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

It states managing their (plural: elders, deacons) children and households well. States nothing of having to have children.

So now you’re interpretation of children is elders and deacons? So Paul wants bishops to rule the elders and deacons? In what way should the bishops rule?


-

 

[Bro. Curtis]

1 Timothy 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

Wasn't Peter married ? Does it matter ? What is verse 5 saying ?

And don't twist my words, or attempt to use them agaisnt me. Simple questions deserve simple answers.

 

[webdog]

So now you’re interpretation of children is elders and deacons? So Paul wants bishops to rule the elders and deacons? In what way should the bishops rule?


-

What?

I'm talking about the plural meaning of "their", as it is speaking of elders and deacons in general managing "their" children and households. It doesn't state they ALL have children, but it DOES state they are to be the husbands of one wife.