Why are Monks and Priests Pure and Celibate?

[Tarheeler]

Try Revelation 14:4 - not a command as such but a basis for judgement? To me (as a non-believer in any case) this was obviously intended (along with almost the whole of Revelation) to be figurative. But if you want to avoid lifelong celibacy then you presumably must also take the final battle, hell...etc. etc. as figurative.

I'm Jewish. The book of Revelation isn't in my Bible.

 

[Tumah]

Well spotted! I hope there is no law about not reading posts carefully before you reply.

In fact, I suppose, the Jewish priesthood was, by definition, a dynasty - but surely there are indications in the prophets that that dynastic exclusivity would end?

It has not yet ended. There are still priests today. I'm a redeemed firstborn.

Even suggestions that non-Jews would become "priests"

It doesn't say that non-Jews would become priests, it says that non-Jews would serve G-d.

and that "eunuchs" (presumably those who were so for the sake of "the Lord") would be blessed (Isaiah 56:1-11)?

That doesn't seem like a good presumption. If that were true, then why are they receiving these comforting words in the same category as the non-Jew? There is nothing in the passage that suggests this.
Just the opposite, the chapter starts off praising the one who follows G-d's commandments.
Then it goes on to say that the non-Jew shouldn't say, "[what's the point of keeping G-d's commandments?] G-d separated me from His nation[, so why should I join them?]".
And the eunuch shouldn't say, "[what's the point of me keeping G-d's commandment?] I'm a dried tree [and will have no continuity after I die anyway]"
G-d answers each of them according to their problem. To the eunuch G-d says, you will have continuity. And to the non-Jew G-d says, you can join the nation.

Its obviously saying that the eunuch was in the wrong before.

Jeremiah (a priest and prophet) was, by all accounts, celibate - but obviously Hilkiah (Jeremiah's father) wasn't.

By what accounts? All it says is that he shouldn't marry and have children "in this place". This place being Anathoth, since the children born there were destined to die (see Jer. 11:21-23).

Even if that weren't true, the fact that G-d commanded Jeremiah to not marry and have children would indicate that G-d wanted everyone else to get married and have children. Otherwise Jeremiah wouldn't need his own separate command for that.

So maybe it wasn't that different - in principle, though admittedly a world apart in practice.

Seems pretty different.

 

[buddhist]

In my opinion I think it must be due to the passages in the Bible which state that "Only Pure and Virginal Men will be Saved" and "Only Pure and Virginal Men can stand before the Lord" and also that supposedly after the Apocalypse, the Pure and Virginal Men will become the Kings of the Earth.
But they do have a problem, because if ALL the Men on Earth became Pure and Virginal then the human race would die out. So maybe that is why they do not TELL Men to be Pure and Virginal but they simply set the example.
A kind of I'm alright Jack kind of attitude.
Do you think sex with women is Wrong? When you hear words like the Original Sin and the Forbidden fruit?
If not then why are there so many passages in the Bible telling Men to be Pure and Virginal?
Making it sound like you will only get to Heaven and you can only stand before The Lord if you have not had sex with a woman.

Buddhist monks voluntarily uphold purity precepts because it reduces their attachments to this world; detachment is a necessary requirement to attain higher states/worlds or the ultimate state - nibbana.

 

[Deeje]

I think that many people think that because there is no evidence that Jesus ever married then priests and other religious workers should do the same.

Since Jesus was Jewish, there was no prohibition on priests marrying and having children. And since Christianity had no earthly priesthood, those who were to rule in heaven with Christ, whilst still on earth, could still marry and have families.

Celibacy was not advocated or demanded, nor was a monastic existence, which ran contrary to Jesus' instructions go out into the community to preach about God's kingdom in all the world. (Matthew 10:11-15; Matthew 24:14; Matthew28:19-20) Rather than taking vows of silence, shut up behind walls and engaging in rituals, Jesus advocated an active preaching work.

However, the Bible says that a bishop should be the husband of one wife so why the Catholic church says bishops must be unmarried is questionable. Like many other things, they prefer to follow their own traditions over the teachings of the Bible.

That is correct. The early Popes were married. So somewhere along the line, someone decided to change the church's position on celibacy and to introduce an earthly priesthood complete with grand temples and royal garments and headgear. Original Christianity had none of that. There were no Nuns or Cardinals or Popes in original Christianity...these were a complete departure from what Jesus started.
"Bishops" were nothing like what we saw emerge from Christendom. They were ministers who served the congregations, assisting the shepherds (overseers) to care for the flock. All that hierarchy was added later when power corrupted the whole institution.

 

[metis]

Paul stated that not to marry and to dedicate one's life to God is the ideal.

If a person wishes to be celibate, that's their choice and also the choice of their denomination or religion.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

In my opinion I think it must be due to the passages in the Bible which state that "Only Pure and Virginal Men will be Saved" and "Only Pure and Virginal Men can stand before the Lord" ...
Do you think sex with women is Wrong? When you hear words like the Original Sin and the Forbidden fruit?
If not then why are there so many passages in the Bible telling Men to be Pure and Virginal?
Making it sound like you will only get to Heaven and you can only stand before The Lord if you have not had sex with a woman.

I honestly feel that taking a vow of celibacy is breaking a tradition far older and of greater import than any sexually-related tenet held by any faith. By remaining celibate for a life-time, never choosing a mate, never procreating - you have basically cast aside one of the largest claims to meaning that any creature of this planet has. Before anyone gets all in a huff, I said "one of" the meanings - the "largest" part is my own opinion thrown in to what I consider a hard-and-fast fact. Stated plainly, one of the purposes of life is procreation. So don't go saying that I said one's life can't have meaning without procreation - I didn't say that at all, and never would.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Any idiot can not have sex with women. Millions of them don't do it every day - and I'm sure many never do. Just take a peek inside basements all over the world.

 

[viole]

In my opinion I think it must be due to the passages in the Bible which state that "Only Pure and Virginal Men will be Saved" and "Only Pure and Virginal Men can stand before the Lord" and also that supposedly after the Apocalypse, the Pure and Virginal Men will become the Kings of the Earth.
But they do have a problem, because if ALL the Men on Earth became Pure and Virginal then the human race would die out. So maybe that is why they do not TELL Men to be Pure and Virginal but they simply set the example.
A kind of I'm alright Jack kind of attitude.
Do you think sex with women is Wrong? When you hear words like the Original Sin and the Forbidden fruit?
If not then why are there so many passages in the Bible telling Men to be Pure and Virginal?
Making it sound like you will only get to Heaven and you can only stand before The Lord if you have not had sex with a woman.

Are they?

Ciao

- viole

 

[siti]

Yes, but I was responding to your observation concerning Saint Peter. That Saint Peter was married is neither a contradiction or a scandal.

Never said it was - just pointed out that the first "Pope" did not meet the Church's 1000-year-old traditional "ideal" criteria for the priesthood. If you want to read scandal or contradiction into it that's up to you.

 

[siti]

It has not yet ended. There are still priests today. I'm a redeemed firstborn.


It doesn't say that non-Jews would become priests, it says that non-Jews would serve G-d.


That doesn't seem like a good presumption. If that were true, then why are they receiving these comforting words in the same category as the non-Jew? There is nothing in the passage that suggests this.
Just the opposite, the chapter starts off praising the one who follows G-d's commandments.
Then it goes on to say that the non-Jew shouldn't say, "[what's the point of keeping G-d's commandments?] G-d separated me from His nation[, so why should I join them?]".
And the eunuch shouldn't say, "[what's the point of me keeping G-d's commandment?] I'm a dried tree [and will have no continuity after I die anyway]"
G-d answers each of them according to their problem. To the eunuch G-d says, you will have continuity. And to the non-Jew G-d says, you can join the nation.

Its obviously saying that the eunuch was in the wrong before.


By what accounts? All it says is that he shouldn't marry and have children "in this place". This place being Anathoth, since the children born there were destined to die (see Jer. 11:21-23).

Even if that weren't true, the fact that G-d commanded Jeremiah to not marry and have children would indicate that G-d wanted everyone else to get married and have children. Otherwise Jeremiah wouldn't need his own separate command for that.


Seems pretty different.

Thanks @Tumah - you are, of course, quite correct on all counts. There are other Jewish scriptures that speak of a more general 'priesthood' ("nation of priests") etc. which I (personally) think can be usefully interpreted as being to do with the "temple of the holy spirit" - i.e. an individual rather than a national religious thing (but this is obviously based on a Christian-scripture idea and definitely not a Jewish one). I mentally conflated those ideas with the passage in Isaiah without reading it carefully enough. For that - for misrepresenting what it actually says - I sincerely apologize.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In my opinion I think it must be due to the passages in the Bible which state that "Only Pure and Virginal Men will be Saved" and "Only Pure and Virginal Men can stand before the Lord" and also that supposedly after the Apocalypse, the Pure and Virginal Men will become the Kings of the Earth.
But they do have a problem, because if ALL the Men on Earth became Pure and Virginal then the human race would die out. So maybe that is why they do not TELL Men to be Pure and Virginal but they simply set the example.
A kind of I'm alright Jack kind of attitude.
Do you think sex with women is Wrong? When you hear words like the Original Sin and the Forbidden fruit?
If not then why are there so many passages in the Bible telling Men to be Pure and Virginal?
Making it sound like you will only get to Heaven and you can only stand before The Lord if you have not had sex with a woman.

When a priest takes a vocation he becomes married to the Church. His relationship is to the people in he Church and he is a servant of the body of christ in the Eucharist.

In both Catholicism and Buddbism, "lust" not sex is one of the gravest sins. It turns peoples minds away from god in the former and it is a form of attachment in the latter.

When the priest goes to vocation, most i speak with have a strong relationship with the bodybof christ that they do not feel they are "sacrifcing sex". To even think of sex in that manner is also not catholicism.

Instead of devotion to a wife, the priestis devoted to the Church. Also, the Church isntsola scriptura. A lot of what is taught is by oral traditions they believe comes from the apostles themselves. So celibacy in the bible is absence of lust and sexual promiscuity. It doesnt say one needs to be celibate in the bible to be a priest.

They are acting in the role model of peoplenback when.

As for monks (assuming Buddhist?) Im not familar with cultural reasons behind celibacy. I do know The Buddha set strict instructions for monks that dont all apply to laymen. The cornerstone is non attachment.

 

[Vinayaka]

In Hinduism there are two distinct choices in life. They are grihastyha (householder) and sannyasin (renunciate). Currently in India there are about 4 million sadhus, or monks, which indicates about 1 person in every hundred opts for this path.

Somewhere near the end of teenage years, young men (or women, but it is far less common for women) are encouraged to make a clear decision. By far and away, most choose the householder path. But there is still the few souls around who have completed the karmic cycle to the degree that they want to go for the ultimate ... nirvikalpa samdhi, and end the cycle of reincarnation, in this lifetime. Generally parents, kulagurus, or somebody notices the inclination at a much younger age, and the young aspirant is provided with every opportunity to make the renunciate choice if so inclined.

Within the sannyasin choice itself, there are two distinct paths, one is in a monastery (called maths, mutts, or aadheenams) and the other is to go it alone. In both cases a lineage or teaching order is involved. After certain training is over, (depending on the schools) vows of humility, celibacy, poverty, (and others like secrevcy, loyalty, depending again on the order) are taken and the person is initiated into the Holy Orders of Sannyas. (This can only be done traditionally by another sannyasin)

 

[Milton Platt]

In my opinion I think it must be due to the passages in the Bible which state that "Only Pure and Virginal Men will be Saved" and "Only Pure and Virginal Men can stand before the Lord" and also that supposedly after the Apocalypse, the Pure and Virginal Men will become the Kings of the Earth.
But they do have a problem, because if ALL the Men on Earth became Pure and Virginal then the human race would die out. So maybe that is why they do not TELL Men to be Pure and Virginal but they simply set the example.
A kind of I'm alright Jack kind of attitude.
Do you think sex with women is Wrong? When you hear words like the Original Sin and the Forbidden fruit?
If not then why are there so many passages in the Bible telling Men to be Pure and Virginal?
Making it sound like you will only get to Heaven and you can only stand before The Lord if you have not had sex with a woman.

How do you know that they are actually either of those things??????

 

[Adamski]

They are because they are imitating Jesus as he was as as Paul said if you can it should but most can't

As a catholic I know celibate adult men and women that aren't a religious order but just lay people so they can dedicate thier life fully to Jesus

 

[rusra02]

The Bible doesn't teach only virgins will be saved. Peter and other apostles were married men. Jehovah told Adam and Eve to reproduce. Thus, marriage and children are gifts from God, IMO.

 

[siti]

They are because they are imitating Jesus as he was as as Paul said if you can it should but most can't

I see!

 

[metis]

The Bible doesn't teach only virgins will be saved. Peter and other apostles were married men. Jehovah told Adam and Eve to reproduce. Thus, marriage and children are gifts from God, IMO.

That's true, and I don't think anyone here is disputing that. However, that Jesus was unmarried and that Paul taught that the ideal was to not marry is in your scriptures, so there's precedence for celibacy.

 

[rusra02]

That's true, and I don't think anyone here is disputing that. However, that Jesus was unmarried and that Paul taught that the ideal was to not marry is in your scriptures, so there's precedence for celibacy.

True, but not forced celibacy. The Bible speaks of "the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. They forbid marriage." (1 Timothy 4:2,3)

 

[metis]

True, but not forced celibacy.

No one is forced to be a monk, priest, or bishop. And neither does Buddhism nor the RCC "forbid marriage".

 

[Glaurung]

True, but not forced celibacy. The Bible speaks of "the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. They forbid marriage." (1 Timothy 4:2,3)

Except that marriage far from being forbidden is a sacrament.

That passage is about the various Gnostic sects who taught that the physical world was in and of itself evil. An abominable heresy that the Catholic Chruch condemns as much as you do. No one is forced into taking up a celibate life, nor is it even universally enforced. The Eastern Rite for example maintains married clergy. They can even be found (as exceptions albeit) in the Latin Rite. Heck, my priest is married.

So from wherever you got these mysterious teachings about forbidding marriage, you certainly did not get them from any honest reading of Catholicism.