Why are Monks and Priests Pure and Celibate?

[HonestJoe]

I don’t think it’s been mentioned but in Christianity at least this has an element of pure economics. For priests who were married when they died, their wives and families would inherit their wealth. For priests who were single when they died, the Church would typically inherit it. The early medieval Church, seeking to grow its financial and political power, obviously had a vested interest in priests remaining single so the idea of priests being celibate and “married to God” was strongly encouraged.

 

[rusra02]

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.

"Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (Priestly Celibacy, 1967), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that “the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles . . . does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers . . . Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities.”—The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (Falls Church, Va.; 1981), p. 204." (RS) I got these mysterious teachings about forbidding marriage from Catholic encyclicals.

 

[metis]

I got these mysterious teachings about forbidding marriage from Catholic encyclicals.

Is it also "mysterious" that Jesus was celibate? Is it also "mysterious" that Paul considered celibacy and dedication to God to be ideal?

What's so "mysterious" about this?

 

[rusra02]

Is it also "mysterious" that Jesus was celibate? Is it also "mysterious" that Paul considered celibacy and dedication to God to be ideal?

What's so "mysterious" about this?

The subject was forbidding to marry. Paul said under inspiration; "We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not?" 1 Corinthians 9:5) Paul could and did serve God without distraction by remaining single, but he was not required to remain single; nor were other the apostles and disciples.

 

[metis]

The subject was forbidding to marry. Paul said under inspiration; "We have the right to be accompanied by a believing wife, as the rest of the apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Ceʹphas, do we not?" 1 Corinthians 9:5) Paul could and did serve God without distraction by remaining single, but he was not required to remain single; nor were other the apostles and disciples.

But no one is required to be a monk, priest, or bishop-- it's voluntary.

Secondly, what's it to you? No one is saying you must be celibate. No one is forcing you to be a Catholic or Buddhist monk.

Thirdly, are you going to try and micro-manage everyone else's business? Should I dictate which church you must attend? Should I dictate whether your minister is to be married or celibate?

Finally, if you don't like the rules for celibacy, then let me recommend that you don't go to a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple-- it's that simple.

 

[Deeje]

But no one is required to be a monk, priest, or bishop-- it's voluntary.

Metis, the point is, you cannot be a married priest in the Catholic Church unless you are an Anglican priest who was already married when you entered the church. That must make Catholic priests feel a bit like second class servants in their own church. If all are priests of God, why the two sets of rules?

There is no prohibition on being a full time minister of the kingdom and being a husband and father. (There was no earthly priesthood in the first century) If Peter was a married apostle, how is being married somehow forbidden to those who desire to serve God in larger capacity?

Do we understand why Jesus had to remain unmarried? He was a sinless man, (the product of a miraculous birth) sent to redeem the human race by offering his life.
AFAIK, firstborn males in Jewish culture remained unmarried till the age of 30. (Their mothers were often widowed so it was their responsibility to care for her needs) That is why Jesus was 30 when he began his ministry. It was obvious that Mary was by then a widow. As he was dying, Jesus gave the care of his mother over to the apostle John. (Though he had siblings, they were not yet believers) His mother's spiritual welfare was obviously his first concern.

And since he was to die only three and a half years later, there was no room in Jesus' life for anything but his mission. Those three and a half years were filled with activities related to his mission. It was never even in his thoughts.

The apostle Paul recommended singleness as there would be no distractions from the difficult task of preaching the gospel in a hostile environment. But there was no prohibition...that is the point.

There should never be a choice between a marriage mate and God. Married men can serve God too.....it's just a little more difficult.

 

[metis]

Metis, the point is, you cannot be a married priest in the Catholic Church unless you are an Anglican priest who was already married when you entered the church. That must make Catholic priests feel a bit like second class servants in their own church. If all are priests of God, why the two sets of rules?

They become priests voluntarily, and they can leave voluntarily, and that would include if they actually felt they were 2nd class citizens..

All religions and denominations have rules, and just because another religion or denomination has different rules than your JW's have doesn't mean they're automatically wrong. After all, there's many people out there who don't believe JW's are "true Christians", and let me just go on record to say that I believe they are, although I'm not too sure about you!

Do we understand why Jesus had to remain unmarried?

Jesus no more had to be unmarried than he had to be married. Yes, being unmarried does help with both time and dedication, which is also why the RCC and the Buddhist monks do this.

The apostle Paul recommended singleness as there would be no distractions from the difficult task of preaching the gospel in a hostile environment..

And one can make the exact same argument in regards to priests and monks.

BTW, if anyone here at RF should be defending Catholics here, it really should be you. The reason I say this is that both the Catholics and JW's here are constantly being picked on by "true Christians" who throw you and the Catholics under the bus almost on a daily basis. You two have more in common than you probably think.

 

[Akivah]

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

That alone proves that Paul is an idiot. G-d's first commandment to humanity is to be fruitful and multiply.

 

[metis]

That alone proves that Paul is an idiot. G-d's first commandment to humanity is to be fruitful and multiply.

Not everyone's role in life is the same, and there are many of our fellow Jews who, for one reason or another, never marry, and I'd be reluctant to call them all "idiots".

 

[Deeje]

They become priests voluntarily, and they can leave voluntarily, and that would include if they actually felt they were 2nd class citizens..

The point was, it shouldn't be a choice if the scriptures do not preclude marriage when serving as an elder (presbýteros) deacon (diakonos) or bishop.(episkopē)

1 Timothy 3:1-5: (Douay)
"A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher,
3 Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity.
5 But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?"

If this is Catholic scripture, then who changed the rules?

All religions and denominations have rules, and just because another religion or denomination has different rules than your JW's have doesn't mean they're automatically wrong.

If the rule change runs contrary to scripture then on whose authority was the change made and for what reason? Shouldn't we ask this?

How many priests in the church have had to give up a role they chose to serve their God so that they could marry and have a family? Its the most natural thing in the world....so why penalize them? It shouldn't have to be a choice....should it?

Did Jesus advocate different rules for different denominations? What would Jesus think of the thousands of denominations there are today?

If we all have one Bible, and claim to follow Jesus Christ, then one set of rules should apply....shouldn't it?
It is very evident that it doesn't.

After all, there's many people out there who don't believe JW's are "true Christians", and let me just go on record to say that I believe they are, although I'm not too sure about you!

I guess Jesus is the judge at the end of the day, thankfully......but there will be "many" according to him, that will claim him as their "Lord", and yet he will tell them that 'he never knew them'. (Matthew 7:21-23) Pretty sobering, that.

Jesus no more had to be unmarried than he had to be married.

Can you imagine the complications that would have arisen if Jesus had married and had kids?

Think of the genetic implications....? A perfect sinless man producing children with an imperfect woman? Imagine if the emotional pull if devotion to his family overrode his mission to lay down his life? As a perfect equivalent of Adam, Jesus would have had no natural cause of death. He would not have aged or become sick. Without sin, death does not occur naturally. Death is the result of sin. (Romans 5:12)

Yes, being unmarried does help with both time and dedication, which is also why the RCC and the Buddhist monks do this.
And one can make the exact same argument in regards to priests and monks.

You are again missing the point, I believe....it shouldn't have to be a choice between the two when it is 'man made' rules creating the separation, not instruction from God or Christ. Different thing altogether if there was a command from God concerning this issue....but there is not.

BTW, if anyone here at RF should be defending Catholics here, it really should be you. The reason I say this is that both the Catholics and JW's here are constantly being picked on by "true Christians" who throw you and the Catholics under the bus almost on a daily basis. You two have more in common than you probably think.

Now that is funny.....we could not be more polar opposite if we tried.

It seems to me that everything Christ said not to do, Catholicism adopted it.....and conversely, everything Jesus commanded is ignored. If Catholicism gets thrown under the bus, its probably because they deserve it. JW's on the other hand cop more flack for less offense than anyone else on this planet. Isn't that what Jesus said to expect? (John 15:18-21) After all, we are very peaceable, preferring to avoid conflict that participating in it. Jesus said we must love our enemies and even pray for them.

Here are 5 main differences that demonstrate how we differ from mainstream denominations......

1) We do not accept the trinity as a Bible teaching. This puts us at odds with the majority who claim the trinity as a foundation doctrine. We can't find it anywhere in scripture. We also believe that it breaks the first Commandment by putting a lesser being in place of God. (Exodus 20:3)

2) We base all of our beliefs on the Bible, not incorporating man made traditions as part of our faith. This precludes all pagan celebrations and beliefs that were adopted by the early Church from Roman and Greek influences. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17)

3) We do not believe that heaven and hell are opposite destinations for everyone. Those chosen for life in heaven have a specific role as "kings and priests" (Revelation 20:6) which means that they have to have subjects and sinners for whom to perform their duties. The two destinations mentioned in the Bible are heaven and earth....not heaven and hell. According to the Bible, hell is a place where everyone goes...it is simply the grave. (sheol, hades) (Ecclesiastes 9:5, 10)

4) We are not alone in believing that we are living in the "end times"....but we have specific beliefs about when the "last days" began and how Jesus' prophesy in Matthew 24:3-14 is being fulfilled. No one knows when these last days will end but we know from the signs that Jesus gave, that it can't be much longer. All of Christ's disciples were told to proclaim "the good news of God's Kingdom in all the inhabited earth as a witness to all the nations" before the "end" would come. So an active preaching work, similar to the one Jesus assigned to his disciples was to be part of that sign. (Matthew 10:11-15; Luke 10:1-3; Acts 20:20)

5) We have no belief in an immortal soul and neither did any of God's people, either Jewish or Christian. That idea came from Platonic Greek influences.

There are more of course, but that is the basics....

 

[Glaurung]

"Pope Paul VI, in his encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus (Priestly Celibacy, 1967), endorsed celibacy as a requirement for the clergy, but he admitted that “the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles . . . does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers . . . Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities.”—The Papal Encyclicals 1958-1981 (Falls Church, Va.; 1981), p. 204." (RS) I got these mysterious teachings about forbidding marriage from Catholic encyclicals.

Everyone already knows that the Latin priesthood has a celibacy requirement. And the Church has always recognised that this requirement is not strictly necessary. (Although it is inescapably justifiable scripturally). The question is how do you honestly equate clerical celibacy with the forbidding of marriage? For goodness' sake, just last year my very sister married her spouse in a Catholic Church. So if marriage is forbidden it's news to that parish.

No one is forced into becoming clergy. No one is forced into becoming a religious. Personally, I'm all for dropping the celibacy requirement for secular clergy but to pretend that Catholicism teaches mandatory celibacy (such as in Manichaeism or Catharism) is ludicrous. Get married, and have lots of babies; you'll be doing well in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

That alone proves that Paul is an idiot. G-d's first commandment to humanity is to be fruitful and multiply.

And a Church that officially forbids artificial contraception is hardly ignoring that injunction. That God gave a command that life should procreate, does not imply that procreation in and of itself is an all-encompassing moral imperative on the individual level. Does Judaism really insist that every single person must breed come hell or high water?

Also, you ought to avoid throwing labels like "idiotic" around. That is unless you think that Judaism is irreproachable. Stones and glass houses you know.

 

[metis]

If this is Catholic scripture, then who changed the rules?

There were different "rules" and, as I mentioned before, the church after a while used Paul's teaching on this in order to solve a problem that had developed.

If the rule change runs contrary to scripture then on whose authority was the change made and for what reason? Shouldn't we ask this?

See above.

If we all have one Bible, and claim to follow Jesus Christ, then one set of rules should apply....shouldn't it?

Then why don't you convert and become Catholic? After all, your "church" is just a relative upstart that cannot trace itself back to Jesus and the apostles.

Can you imagine the complications that would have arisen if Jesus had married and had kids?

All marriages have "complications", and that undoubtedly would include "elders" in your congregation as well as priests and bishops in Catholic congregations. IOW, what you are doing is to try and have it both ways.

It seems to me that everything Christ said not to do, Catholicism adopted it...

Now that's nothing short of bigotry, and the above is truly pathetic and demeaning to any serious Christian. You should be ashamed to have written above, and if you're not, then maybe think it through a bit more. You have not a single Biblical leg to stand on by making such an immoral blanket statement with the above.

Differences in interpretation and application are found throughout Christianity and all other religions, and for you to denigrate the world's largest Christian denomination as you have done above is morally reprehensible. I am not Catholic nor Christian, therefore I disagree with the vast majority of things that the RCC teaches, but I would never stoop to the low you just reached down to.

Matter of fact, on this I believe the RCC has more the moral high-ground. I've been attending mass with my wife for 50 years now, and I never heard once any condemnation of the JW's. Not once did I ever hear or read words from them like you just used above.

The current pope has reached out to other Christian and non-Christian groups to try and seek some common ground and work together for the common good. IOW, he and the church and many other churches are building "bridges", while your JW's have built a "wall" made of arrogance, condescension, and judgmentalism.

I prefer "bridges", and I really think that this was what Jesus was more about.

 

[rusra02]

But no one is required to be a monk, priest, or bishop-- it's voluntary.

Secondly, what's it to you? No one is saying you must be celibate. No one is forcing you to be a Catholic or Buddhist monk.

Thirdly, are you going to try and micro-manage everyone else's business? Should I dictate which church you must attend? Should I dictate whether your minister is to be married or celibate?

Finally, if you don't like the rules for celibacy, then let me recommend that you don't go to a Catholic church or a Buddhist temple-- it's that simple.

I have no intention to micro-manage everyone else's business. This is a religious forum where differing ideas and beliefs are discussed. If my beliefs, based on the Bible, offend you, that was not my intent nor desire, just as I believe it was not your intent to do so.

 

[Akivah]

Not everyone's role in life is the same, and there are many of our fellow Jews who, for one reason or another, never marry, and I'd be reluctant to call them all "idiots".

Given Paul's writings, his Jewishness is in doubt. At best, he was an ignorant Jew.

 

[Akivah]

And a Church that officially forbids artificial contraception is hardly ignoring that injunction. That God gave a command that life should procreate, does not imply that procreation in and of itself is an all-encompassing moral imperative on the individual level. Does Judaism really insist that every single person must breed come hell or high water?

Also, you ought to avoid throwing labels like "idiotic" around. That is unless you think that Judaism is irreproachable. Stones and glass houses you know.

@metis stated that Paul said that celibacy was the 'Ideal'. That is opposite to what G-d said. Paul was ignorant regarding Judaism.

 

[Rival]

Given Paul's writings, his Jewishness is in doubt. At best, he was an ignorant Jew.

His title is 'Saul [his real name] of Tarsus' as he was born there and if anyone knows anything about Tarsus in the 1C. C.E...

It was basically a pagan hub.

 

[metis]

I have no intention to micro-manage everyone else's business. This is a religious forum where differing ideas and beliefs are discussed. If my beliefs, based on the Bible, offend you, that was not my intent nor desire, just as I believe it was not your intent to do so.

No worries.

To me, it's mainly the issue that each religion and denomination have their differing interpretations and applications, so I think it's best to say that people just tend to look at things differently.

Have a nice weekend.

 

[metis]

Given Paul's writings, his Jewishness is in doubt. At best, he was an ignorant Jew.

I don't think he's ignorant because he does have one heck of an imagination that actually does make sense if one agrees with his basic premise. If you're interested, I can explain, but I gotta get outta here shortly.

Shabbat shalom

 

[Deeje]

There were different "rules" and, as I mentioned before, the church after a while used Paul's teaching on this in order to solve a problem that had developed.

Using Paul's 'recommendation' for singleness, is a little different to imposing it as a non-negotiable requirement....don't you think? It was to be a choice between serving God as a married man or serving him with less distraction in singleness.

Then why don't you convert and become Catholic? After all, your "church" is just a relative upstart that cannot trace itself back to Jesus and the apostles.

I wouldn't say that is true for a few reasons. The Roman Catholic Church goes back to Constantine, not Jesus Christ.
I don't recall scripture ever mentioning apostolic succession....that is a purely Catholic qualification.

Jesus also indicated that "weeds" would be sown in the same field as the "wheat" before the plants grew to maturity. It was hard to tell the difference early on but at the harvest time the difference would be unmistakable....they would not resemble one another then. We are living in the harvest time. The separation is taking place as we speak.

All marriages have "complications", and that undoubtedly would include "elders" in your congregation as well as priests and bishops in Catholic congregations. IOW, what you are doing is to try and have it both ways.

You obviously have no understanding of the mechanics of the ransom and who Jesus was. Marriage and children were never in his job description.

Now that's nothing short of bigotry, and the above is truly pathetic and demeaning to any serious Christian. You should be ashamed to have written above, and if you're not, then maybe think it through a bit more. You have not a single Biblical leg to stand on by making such an immoral blanket statement with the above.

Differences in interpretation and application are found throughout Christianity and all other religions, and for you to denigrate the world's largest Christian denomination as you have done above is morally reprehensible. I am not Catholic nor Christian, therefore I disagree with the vast majority of things that the RCC teaches, but I would never stoop to the low you just reached down to.

Metis, do you know much about the Church of England? It is the church I was raised in. My father was brought up in the High Church of England.....it is Catholic to its boot straps. I speak from that perspective having done my research and being appalled at what history relates as to its very foundations. I have nothing good to say about the history of either institution or what they became.

History of the Church of England - Wikipedia

I am not anti-Catholic, but more anti-Christendom....of which Roman Catholicism is the mother and her daughters are all of the same ilk IMO. Please don't tell me that I am a bigot because I speak from my own experience.

Matter of fact, on this I believe the RCC has more the moral high-ground. I've been attending mass with my wife for 50 years now, and I never heard once any condemnation of the JW's. Not once did I ever hear or read words from them like you just used above.

Perhaps you should listen to the way Jesus spoke about the Pharisees......he was not subtle in his condemnation of their obvious hypocrisy. He probably didn't do it in the synagogue but outside, they were fair game.

The current pope has reached out to other Christian and non-Christian groups to try and seek some common ground and work together for the common good. IOW, he and the church and many other churches are building "bridges", while your JW's have built a "wall" made of arrogance, condescension, and judgmentalism.

Again, you should consider the "wall" that Christians had to build between themselves and the apostate Jewish system. No one gave the Christians more grief. Both had God's word, but Jesus showed who had the right interpretation. By their attitudes and actions, the Jewish leaders showed themselves deserving of the condemnation Jesus gave them in Matthew 23:37-39.

I prefer "bridges", and I really think that this was what Jesus was more about.

Jesus didn't build bridges......he forced people to take sides. He still does. (Matthew 10:34-39)

 

[Glaurung]

@metis stated that Paul said that celibacy was the 'Ideal'. That is opposite to what G-d said. Paul was ignorant regarding Judaism.

But Paul wasn't talking about Judaism, his writings were addressed to the newly founded Christian communities. There is no contradiction, Paul explicitly states that you do well in getting married. If you feel that the married life is what you are called to then by all means, find a spouse and get married. Be fruitful and multiply. You're in no way a defective Christian for doing so.

However there are the relatively few souls for whom God may have something else in mind. Procreation is a good thing, but that alone doesn't demonstrate procreation is a moral imperative on individual level.