Is Celibacy Necessary?

[balshan]

Very true, although this thread is about celibacy, not Indulgences.

Nowhere does Scripture say that church workers like elders and overseers must be celibate and unmarried--in fact, for both, Paul writes that they should be the husband of only one wife, with respectful children and well-run households. That is the opposite of what the RCC teaches and does.

Maybe you know the statistics, but I think I remember reading in TIME magazine many years ago, after the pedophile priesthood problem came out into the open, that it is estimated that up to half of all Catholic priests are gay. If true, then they should stay celibate. But what about heterosexual priests? If they should meet a nice Catholic lady and fall in love, and want to marry her, but remain a priest, then where is the sin in that?

You are right both threads have gone off the rails.

To me celibacy means NO sex with anyone. But there are so many of the leadership requirements RC priests don't meet.

I was watching a show about gay priests and there was a large number.

I found this article:

According to Father James Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at Boston College, Francis's comments aren't a fundamental change in the church's teaching, but represent a much-needed shift in attitude that reflects the reality of the priesthood.
"It's an empirical fact that lots of men are gay who are priests. And they are very good priests," he says. "I would also observe that the numbers of gay men and women in the church ministry is probably larger than the general population, precisely because they are not seeking marriage."...
The notion that many Catholic priests are quietly gay is not new. In the 2000 book "The changing face of the priesthood," Rev. Donald B. Cozzens suggested that the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58 percent of priests were gay, and that percentages were even higher for younger priests. His numbers matched previous estimates by sociologists who put the numbers of gay priests between 10 and 60 percent.
from US News.

This could explain the changing attitude of the RCC to homosexuality and it has changed.

 

[Bonnie]

You are right both threads have gone off the rails.

To me celibacy means NO sex with anyone. But there are so many of the leadership requirements RC priests don't meet.

I was watching a show about gay priests and there was a large number.

I found this article:

According to Father James Bretzke, a professor of moral theology at Boston College, Francis's comments aren't a fundamental change in the church's teaching, but represent a much-needed shift in attitude that reflects the reality of the priesthood.
"It's an empirical fact that lots of men are gay who are priests. And they are very good priests," he says. "I would also observe that the numbers of gay men and women in the church ministry is probably larger than the general population, precisely because they are not seeking marriage."...
The notion that many Catholic priests are quietly gay is not new. In the 2000 book "The changing face of the priesthood," Rev. Donald B. Cozzens suggested that the priesthood was increasingly becoming a gay profession. Cozzens estimated that as much as 58 percent of priests were gay, and that percentages were even higher for younger priests. His numbers matched previous estimates by sociologists who put the numbers of gay priests between 10 and 60 percent.
from US News.

This could explain the changing attitude of the RCC to homosexuality and it has changed.

Thanks for this. I think a lot of gay men become priests, maybe hoping it will sublimate their aberrant desires, with all of their training and duties and studies and such. But it seems to me, it would be worse for them, for gay men to be around other gay men in such close proximity with each other, day in and day out. However, I have heard of a few gay priests who really were good priests and kept themselves celibate and performed their duties with fervor and kindness and compassion.

 

[Buzzard]

]]
balshan said:

This could explain the changing attitude of the RCC to homosexuality and it has changed.
=========================

as it was in the Days of Sodom
so shall it be

thank God there are a few Lots in Sodom
but unfortunately
"And Lot went out, and spake unto his sons in law,
which married his daughters, and said,
Up, get you out of this place; for the Lord will destroy this city.
But he seemed as one that mocked unto his sons in law."

 

[RayneBeau]

Well, there will not be an answer from scripture on that, as there is no office of sacerdotal priests in scripture. Neither is there mention of transubstantiation or the "power" of any NT priest. The ONLY mention of priest in the NT is the priesthood of the believer. So all of the rcc priesthood is a sham anyway, and celibacy wasn't made mandatory till 1139 a d.

So then, although we live in the here and now, we limit ourselves greatly if all our learning is observed in the present. Because if we investigate the past, with the understanding that history is often the key to understanding the present, and if in the past people died for standing up against transubstantiation, is it possible this could happen again?

 

[RayneBeau]

Your wafers rot. My Lord does not rot.

The circle idols are mute and powerless to save the lost. My Lord speaks to His people and is powerful to save.

Many Roman Catholics make claims of miracles performed by the many idols of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Eucharist, all based on their beliefs, rather than on the Bible and just plain common sense.
Isaiah in chapters 40-46, represents perhaps the most thorough biblical contrast between the Almighty God, who created all and upholds all, vs. the vain idols. Roman Catholics need to read those chapters (Isaiah 40-46), and ask themselves whether the Eucharistic Christ is the true and living God, or more like the useless idols worshipped and fashioned with men's hands.

 

[RiJoRi]

Many Roman Catholics make claims of miracles performed by the many idols of the Roman Catholic Church, including the Eucharist, all based on their beliefs, rather than on the Bible and just plain common sense.
Isaiah in chapters 40-46, represents perhaps the most thorough biblical contrast between the Almighty God, who created all and upholds all, vs. the vain idols. Roman Catholics need to read those chapters (Isaiah 40-46), and ask themselves whether the Eucharistic Christ is the true and living God, or more like the useless idols worshipped and fashioned with men's hands.

But their "church" in which they place their complete trust (would that they trusted God like that!), tells/teaches/indoctrinates them to believe that they are incapable of understanding God's Word. ?
If you think about it, of course the RCC would teach them that (as do many cults) – that is how the RCC keeps power and control over its peeons.

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"

 

[pilgrim]

Nowhere does Scripture say that church workers like elders and overseers must be celibate and unmarried--in fact, for both, Paul writes that they should be the husband of only one wife, with respectful children and well-run households. That is the opposite of what the RCC teaches and does.

1 Cor 7: 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.


36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, BUT HE WHO DOES NOT MARRY HER DOES BETTER.


Why are Protestants unfamiliar with this ^ Scripture passage? The Catholic Church has put it into practice.

 

[Atemi]

Why are Protestants unfamiliar with this ^ Scripture passage?

We just do not choose to ignore the very clear context:

vs 26 "Because of the present crisis..."

The Catholic Church has put it into practice.

No. Catholics do not practice that.

 

[pilgrim]

We just do not choose to ignore the very clear context:

vs 26 "Because of the present crisis..."




No. Catholics do not practice that.

Oh? What is the OP again?

 

[Atemi]

What is the OP again?

Coerced celibacy of a tiny minority of Catholics by no means amount to Catholics "practicing" what Paul was teaching.

 

[Bonnie]

1 Cor 7: 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

this isn't about clergy being celibate and unmarried since Paul also exhorts women to be celibate and unmarried, as well.

36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, BUT HE WHO DOES NOT MARRY HER DOES BETTER.

And why did Paul write this....? Care to tell us? But DO note vs. 36, at the end--marriage isn't sinning, is it?

Why are Protestants unfamiliar with this ^ Scripture passage? The Catholic Church has put it into practice.

I am thoroughly familiar with this passage--as well as its context. Like this, which you omitted:

25 Now about virgins: I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. 26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

DO note that Paul said this was NOT a command from the Lord, but his own judgment. ALSO, Paul was talking about EVERYONE, not just the clergy. Should everyone in the church have remained unmarried back then? Should NO ONE have gotten married? Because Paul was talking about everyone in the church, not just the clergy.

But DO note that he did reiterate that it is NO sin to marry. Got that? NOT A SIN.

Now, it is Catholics who seem to be unacquainted with the following verses:

Titus 1--

Appointing Elders Who Love What Is Good​

5 The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you. 6 An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. 7 Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. 8 Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. 9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.

Elders are officials in each church. We have them. They are good men.

To continue:

1 Timothy 1:

Qualifications for Overseers and Deacons​

3 Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)...7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.

Are Catholics acquainted with THESE verses? OR do they gloss over them, in favor of the verses YOU quoted? Do their priests ever teach about these verses? I mean, Peter was married....wasn't HE a priest, in the RCC's eyes?

So, your church is actually disobeying what God spoke through His servant, Paul. Why is it so disobedient?

 

[Ric]

According to the rules, laws and regulations of the Roman Catholic Church, must a man be celibate in order to be fully ordained as a Roman Cathoic priest endowed with the power to perform transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church?

No.

 

[balshan]

1 Cor 7: 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.


36 If anyone is worried that he might not be acting honorably toward the virgin he is engaged to, and if his passions are too strong and he feels he ought to marry, he should do as he wants. He is not sinning. They should get married. 37 But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin—this man also does the right thing. 38 So then, he who marries the virgin does right, BUT HE WHO DOES NOT MARRY HER DOES BETTER.


Why are Protestants unfamiliar with this ^ Scripture passage? The Catholic Church has put it into practice.

Why are RCs ignorant of the scriptural requirements for leaders, why do they not put that into practice?

Why are RCs ignorant of 1 Cor 5:11, why do they not put that into practice?

I could go on and on about the ignorance of the RCC about scripture and what they don't put into practice.

 

[balshan]

Oh? What is the OP again?

You have forgotten already?????????????????

 

[pilgrim]

And why did Paul write this....? Care to tell us?

Didn't the Holy Spirit inspire him to do so?

 

[balshan]

Didn't the Holy Spirit inspire him to do so?

So you don't know?????????????

 

[Bonnie]

Didn't the Holy Spirit inspire him to do so?

I notice that you failed to answer my question; why is that? Plus, you failed to note ALL of what Paul wrote here. He was talking about ALL Christians remaining unmarried, not just male clergy, in that one passage. So, your church doesn't even know how to read in context, or take ALL of the Scriptural witness into consideration. Instead, it flagrantly defies Paul's guidelines for overseers/elders in the church--why is that?

 

[ziapueblo]

According to the rules, laws and regulations of the Roman Catholic Church, must a man be celibate in order to be fully ordained as a Roman Cathoic priest endowed with the power to perform transubstantiation in the Roman Catholic Church?

Actually, most Eastern Catholic priests are married. Thats the norm. The norm in the Latin Church is celibacy.

 

[Atemi]

Actually, most Eastern Catholic priests are married. Thats the norm. The norm in the Latin Church is celibacy.

What was the norm for the Apostles?

 

[ziapueblo]

What was the norm for the Apostles?

Not sure. We know that St Peter was married. I think it's safe to assume that some may have been. I'm Orthodox by the way. 90% or more of our priests are married.