Pope Benedict XVI has defended celibacy among priests, saying it was a sign of "full devotion" to the Catholic Church. Do you agree?

The Pope was speaking at a theological conference before meeting Germany's top bishop for talks about a new crisis over sexual abuse of children.

The Archbishop of Vienna had suggested that the Church should examine celibacy and priests' training. He said, "It requires a great deal of honesty, both on the part of the Church and of society as a whole."

But the Pope said on Friday that celibacy is "the sign of full devotion, the entire commitment to the Lord and to the 'Lord's business', an expression of giving oneself to God and to others".

Is the Pope right to reaffirm celibacy for priests?
Would removing the vow of celibacy make priests less devout?
Does celibacy show a priest commitment to the Catholic Church?
Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry and have families?

A priest dies and goes to heaven, he meets Jesus who asks him to make any request so the priest asks to see the original version of the bible, his wish is granted. . .30 minutes into reading the book he shouts "OH NO!!, the word was celebrate" 

kenn4smile:

Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry and have families?

Good questions. But I thought that's what the other thread ('Should Catholic Priests be Allowed to Get Married?') is addressing? --
{"Must you be a celibate, before you can serve God?  Where did did catholics get the doctrine of mandatory celibacy, for reverend fathers, even when they are conspicuously not keeping to it?"}

Dolemite:

A priest dies and goes to heaven, he meets Jesus who asks him to make any request so the priest asks to see the original version of the bible, his wish is granted. . .30 minutes into reading the book he shouts "OH NO!!, the word was celebrate" 

.

As if.

But they allow masturbattinng?

It is better they remain a celibate. God needs total commitment from pastors.

smile4kenn:

It is better they remain a celibate. God needs total commitment from pastors.

1 Corinthians 7 verse 9 -

New Living Translation: But if they can’t control themselves, they should go ahead and marry. It’s better to marry than to burn with lust.

CEV: But if you don't have enough self-control, then go ahead and get married. After all, it is better to marry than to burn with desire.

Amplified Version: But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire].

@viaro

where is it written that it is compulsory for every catholic tobe a priest?

is sexual abuse restricted to the catholc church alone ?


Even your criminal and kleptomaniac pastos in penterascal chuches who are married also engage in sexual misconduct.

What about the winners chapel pastor who raped a deeper life woman ,was he not married?

The fact is that he acts of sexual misconducts can not be stopped even if the celibacy were to be lifted it would still happen.If you doubt me check the immoral lifestyle of most penterascal pastors.

The best proof of celibacy is that even our lord Jesus practised it.

@chukwudi44

  Don't make this a battle between Pentecostals and Catholics, it won't work that way, what i am suggesting the catholic church do is to have an option whereby a priest who can't remain celibate should be allowed to marry or betterstill denounce his priesthood.

Hello chukwudi44,

I would agree with honeric01 that we don't turn this thread into a battle between Pentecostals and Catholics. It never works that way but only furthers problems. So, let me deal with just onething here:

chukwudi44:

The fact is that he acts of sexual misconducts can not be stopped even if the celibacy were to be lifted it would still happen.If you doubt me check the immoral lifestyle of most penterascal pastors.

There are three things about celibacy in religious matters - please check Matthew 19:12. However, celibacy is a choice, not an institution. Whether someone chooses celibacy or not, does not mean that they automatically are immune to sexual desires. It is for that reason that those who desire to serve God in leadership capacities are urged to marry (1 Tim. 3:2 and Titus 1:6-7) rather than bind themselves to institutions of celibacy.

Chukwudi is not trying to syit up a catholic-pentecostal battle; the point he was trying to make is that celibacy is not the cause of sexual misconduct on the part of a priest since married pastors to fall too as well. It is not a must to be a priest, every seminarian knows this before they entered so there is no excuse.

Anyway, that a priest is involved in sexual misconduct in Germany has spread the whole world, does not mean that that is what all priset are doing too.

The world just like this scandals but overlook their own. the works of good and devout priest don't hit the news; i am not holding brief for the priest abusing kids it is always appalling.

49cents:

Chukwudi is not trying to syit up a catholic-pentecostal battle; the point he was trying to make is that celibacy is not the cause of sexual misconduct on the part of a priest since married pastors to fall too as well.

I don't remember anyone arguing that celibacy was the cause of any sexual misconduct. The issue I responded to in smile4kenn's was whether it was better to remain celibate, whether it is a question of 'total commitment' from pastors or any other Christian.

It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety. It is a choice, and not an institution.

@viaro
Thank you.

what i am suggesting the catholic church do is to have an option whereby a priest who can't remain celibate should be allowed to marry or betterstill denounce his priesthood

there is such a thing as free will in the Church. There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

Another thing people do not know.

THERE ARE MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

A married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry. It is the same with the Orthodox Church and it is how it's been since the time of the Apostles.

I just wish people will actually learn about these things before they speak on it.

link=topic=413090.msg5716368#msg5716368 date=1268894957:

A married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry. It is the same with the Orthodox Church and it is how it's been since the time of the Apostles.

Sorry to ask, but does this make sense to you? i mean the bolded parts?

~Lady~:

there is such a thing as free will in the Church.

There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s).

There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests,

Yes, there is case of at least a pope who resigned (Pope Benedict IX, May 1045) in order to get married - even selling his office to his godfather, the priest John Gratian, who named himself Gregory VI.

amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

That does not even begin to make any sense. Marriages fail not because of any intitutional vows of celibacy. Nada. Zilch. In the case of married priests, how many of them could claim that the successes of their marriages are because of such institutional vows of celibacy?

An institutional vow of celibacy at any level (from priest to pope) does not in itself work any miracles or magic that transform the lives of the vowers. This is why even pope Benedict IX, while holding the office of the pope and before he resigned to pursue marriage, was described in very unfortunate terms with regards to his lifestyle. He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders"; while Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."

The same could be said about any man in any religious, philosophical or non-religious system. An institutional vow does not in itself transform the life of the vower. For that reason (IMO), we read of many scandals both in the Catholic and the Protestant divides in christendom. You may have come across the List of Sexually Active Popes at Wikipedia.

I would rather say that God Himself transform the lives of His people in a way that no 'vows' are able to do.

Another thing people do not know.

THERE ARE MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Some of us actually know that - and we also know that in some cases these 'married priests' in the Catholic church were already married clergymen from other churches before they joined the Catholic church. Besides, in other cases, a few of these 'married priests' are not too happy with the inaccurate designation of 'ex-priests', for they are still priests but only 'ex-clerics'.

A married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry.

It is in this instance the talk about 'free will' becomes meaningless.

honeric01:

@viaro
Thank you.

Cheers, honeric01.

viaro:

Cheers, honeric01.

There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s)

are people coerced to take the oath of celibacy.Are you implying that people are forced to become catholic priests.The fact remains that becoming a priest is something someone freely decides in his mind to do ,no one is forced into it.

An institutional vow of celibacy at any level (from priest to pope) does not in itself work any miracles or magic that transform the lives of the vowers. This is why even pope Benedict IX, while holding the office of the pope and before he resigned to pursue marriage, was described in very unfortunate terms with regards to his lifestyle. He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders"; while Pope Victor III in his third book of Dialogues, referred to "his despoils, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it.

even clergy men in ur penterascal fold has failed to keep their marital vows .FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO SEE THAT REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AS THERE ARE ALSO PREVALENT IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES THAT HAVE MARRIED CLERGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

chukwudi44:

are people coerced to take the oath of celibacy.Are you implying that people are forced to become catholic priests.The fact remains that becoming a priest is something someone freely decides in his mind to do ,no one is forced into it.

Please. Why don't carefully consider what I have stated instead of insinuating what is not there?

Again, I remind you: "One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married".

What that means is not about being forced into any priesthood; rather, I argue that under the vow of celibacy, there is no such thing as "free will" to get married UNDER THAT VOW. If there were any such talk of "free will" under such institutional vows, then no one would be making statements like "[a] married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry" - and there would be no such obstacles in this same "free will" such that any popes of the Catholic church should have had to resign in order to pursue marriage.

This all is not about being 'forced' into the priesthood - but the moment one chooses to become a priest, he knows that he is coming under an institutional vow, and as such he has no grounds to argue the idea of 'free will' under that vow in order to get married and still retain the exact same privileges of the vow of celibacy.

even clergy men in your penterascal fold has failed to keep their marital vows

That is no point there. I have noted indeed that "[an] institutional vow does not in itself transform the life of the vower." And consequently, I noted the "many scandals both in the Catholic and the Protestant divides in christendom". To clear all doubts, I was gratuitous enough to note that any sad report in this regard extends to "any man in any religious, philosophical or non-religious system" - so, this is not just about Catholicism, and I don't know why you're feeling a need to be defensive.

FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW TO SEE THAT REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AS THERE ARE ALSO PREVALENT IN PROTESTANT CHURCHES THAT HAVE MARRIED CLERGY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

This shouting about "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT" is not headline news - for it is no different from what I said earlier:

viaro:

I don't remember anyone arguing that celibacy was the cause of any sexual misconduct.
. . .

It goes without saying that celibacy is not a cause of misconduct or piety. It is a choice, and not an institution.

Now, if "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT", then why impose "celibacy" in the first place?? Just what is the point of your argument, chukwudi44? 

Now, if "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT", then why impose "celibacy" in the first place?? Just what is the point of your argument, chukwudi44?

the answer to the boldened portion is found in the writings of the great apostle Paul

"a unmarried man concerns himself with the affairs of God while a married man is concerned with the affairs of his household'

Jesus is our chief priest. Was he married? NO. Why? Go figure

chukwudi44:

Now, if "REMOVING CELIBACY WOULD NOT STOP ACTS OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT", then why impose "celibacy" in the first place?? Just what is the point of your argument, chukwudi44?

the answer to the boldened portion is found in the writings of the great apostle Paul

"a unmarried man concerns himself with the affairs of God while a married man is concerned with the affairs of his household'

But was Paul 'IMPOSING' celibacy on anybody in 1 Corinthians 7:32?

In that same chapter, Paul had already said: "Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2). That does not sound like he was imposing marriage (or even celibacy) upon anybody, does it?

The same apostle recommends that those wo want to be in leadership positions in the Church should be married (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6).

It's hard to come to the conclusion that Paul was IMPOSING celibacy on priests.

Please allow the RCC Priests to s.h.a.g because, historically speaking, some Popes were not only sexually active during their pontificates, but also practised homosexuality. So, what are we talking about?

    * Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis[23], as well as the Liber Pontificalis[24]. However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[25]

    * Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis[26]: "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)

    * Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[27] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis[28], "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[29]He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[30][31][32][33] (See also Saeculum obscurum)

    * Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[34] Accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[35][36] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[37] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and was said to have sponsored orgies.[38] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[39]

    * Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. He fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[40] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)


Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate

    * Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[41]

    * Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,, and his other gifts of soul and body",[42] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[43] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.

    * Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marc-Antonio Flaminio.[44]

    * Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[45] According to the The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, he was "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes#Sexually_active_during_their_pontificate

Sorry to ask, but does this make sense to you? i mean the bolded parts?

Is the english language too difficult for you?

What part of a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot become married do u not understand?

Ok let me explain. It means that if a man is married before he considers the priesthood, he can become a priest. But if he is already a priest before he is married, he cannot get married. It has been that way since the time of the Apostles.
Peter was married BEFORE becoming a Priest. But amazingly after becoming a Priest, he was celibate. Clearly his wife wasn't being thrown into jail with him, and wasn't moving about the world founding local churches as he was.

There is no such thing as 'free will' in a matter of institutional vows. One cannot take an institutional vow of celibacy and then exercise a 'free will' of getting married while under that vow and then retaining the privileges of the same institutional vow(s).

Ofcourse not, just like a man doesn't have the free will to take a marital vow with another woman when he already has taken a marital vow with one. Such is the institution of marriage in Christianity. Such a person wants to have their cake and eat it too, impossible. The Church takes care of EVERYTHING for the Priest, right from toothbrush to retirement, if a Priest wants a wife, he needs to take up the responsibility of a job to care for his wife.

They have the free will to step down. I think in yorubaland what they call the person that does what you state is Oleoshi.

That does not even begin to make any sense. Marriages fail not because of any intitutional vows of celibacy. Nada. Zilch. In the case of married priests, how many of them could claim that the successes of their marriages are because of such institutional vows of celibacy

You completely miss the point of my statement.

I would rather say that God Himself transform the lives of His people in a way that no 'vows' are able to do.

No one claims otherwise. Infact you only prove my point, that it is not celibacy that causes these men to behave the way they do. It is entirely their character and their unwillingness to allow God to transform them.

If a married man takes a vow to God and his wife, and is unable to keep that vow, would u credit his inability to keep that vow to his wife to the institution of marriage, and all together call for the scrapping of marital vows?
would u suggest that he take on another wife bcus he cannot control his own lust?

It is not the vow that causes him to want another woman, it is his own sinfulness that causes it.

Besides, in other cases, a few of these 'married priests' are not too happy with the inaccurate designation of 'ex-priests', for they are still priests but only 'ex-clerics'

These designations are only from non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics. The Church does not recognise one as an 'ex-priest.' A priest is a priest forever, even if he dies and goes to hell.

~Lady~:

What part of a married man can become a priest, but a priest cannot become married do u not understand?

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the face of the facts on ground, which again makes the talk of 'free will' meaningless.

Ok let me explain. It means that if a man is married before he considers the priesthood, he can become a priest. But if he is already a priest before he is married, he cannot get married. It has been that way since the time of the Apostles.

The apostles did not teach any such thing - the Bible is there and we all can read it for ourselves. It is a clear sign of double standards to maintain the above.

Peter was married BEFORE becoming a Priest. But amazingly after becoming a Priest, he was celibate.

Please where did you get that from? That is pure conjecture that is indefensible. There is no record of Peter being celibate.

Clearly his wife wasn't being thrown into jail with him, and wasn't moving about the world founding local churches as he was.

Is that the 'reason' for your conjecture about an assumed celibacy for Peter? That argument holds no substance.

It is in this instance the talk about 'free will' becomes meaningless

How does it become meaningless?

Is one forced to become a Priest in the first place? Does the person not know that after one becomes a Priest they do not have the option of getting married?
Their free will is exercised when they choose to become a Priest, and it is exercised when they choose to step down from their Office if they cannot fulfill the duty.
I wonder how one would apply it to the President of Nigeria. Does the President not take a vow to? Isn't he expected to live up to that vow? Should we now allow the free will of the President to take place when he doesn't want to fulfill the vow he took? If he no longer wishes to go to Aso Rock, to do anything for the people or to take on the duties of the President, should he not step down? Or should he stay in Office and continue to receive the benefits of the Office of President while not fulfilling his vow?
In case u do not know, the Priest has an Office. It is called the Office of the Priest. So while he is in that Office he has to follow the rules. This is how life works, there are rules to live by.
Apply your logic to a married man. He takes a vow, should his wife allow him his rights as a married man, if he fails to live up to the vow he took to be faithful to her?

What that means is not about being forced into any priesthood; rather, I argue that under the vow of celibacy, there is no such thing as "free will" to get married UNDER THAT VOW. If there were any such talk of "free will" under such institutional vows, then no one would be making statements like "[a] married man can become a Priest, but a Priest cannot marry" - and there would be no such obstacles in this same "free will" such that any popes of the Catholic church should have had to resign in order to pursue marriage

Just as a married man who takes a vow does not have the free will to sleep with other women. This is how a vow works. The free will comes into play before the vow not after it. If u do not want to hold to that vow, then break it. It is the same thing with a contract. When u enter into a contract, u live up to your side of the bargain, there is no such thing as a free will AFTER you enter the contract, while the contract still stands. but to get out of that, one has to break the contract, and in that, there is free will.

It doesn't make any sense whatsoever in the face of the facts on ground, which again makes the talk of 'free will' meaningless

Please explain HOW it becomes meaningless, and show me any such vow on this earth, that allows u free will to do opposite of the vow.

~Lady~:

No one claims otherwise. Infact you only prove my point, that it is not celibacy that causes these men to behave the way they do. It is entirely their character and their unwillingness to allow God to transform them.

I'm sorry I do not 'prove' your point in any way. Please go back and re-read my comments following what you had stated. Celibacy is not the reason for failed marriages, and you had intoned that married priests had suffered failed marriages because of some 'vow' of celiebacy - as if the vow of celibacy is responsible for failed or successful marriages. Sorry, my comments and yours are worlds apart.

If a married man takes a vow to God and his wife, and is unable to keep that vow, would u credit his inability to keep that vow to his wife to the institution of marriage, and all together call for the scrapping of marital vows?

An institutional vow of celibacy in the Catholic church cannot be blamed on any man's wife or the institution of marriage. Thus, the Catholic church or any other denomination that has imposed such institutional vows upon men should take responsibility for their own failure instead of looking for someone else to blame.

would u suggest that he take on another wife bcus he cannot control his own lust?

Was that what I stated or argued? Where?

It is not the vow that causes him to want another woman, it is his own sinfulness that causes it.

But you had supposed that the failed marriages were to be blamed on the vow of celibacy in stating this:[list]

There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail. Maybe one should reconsider breaking a vow made with God?

[/list]
. . . in other words, their failed marriages should be blamed on the vow of celibacy?

~Lady~:

These designations are only from non-catholics and ill-informed Catholics. The Church does not recognise one as an 'ex-priest.' A priest is a priest forever, even if he dies and goes to hell.

Should that not be the more reason why a priest who gets married is still a priest and should suffer no restrictions for getting married after becoming a priest? This is why the argument that "a priest cannot become married" does not add up - because if a priest remains a priest even though he goes to hell, what then is the whole argument that priests cannot get married?

The apostles did not teach any such thing - the Bible is there and we all can read it for ourselves. It is a clear sign of double standards to maintain the above.

I didn't realise that EVERYTHING that the Apostles did was written in the Bible. What does the Bible say about that actually?

Please where did you get that from? That is pure conjecture that is indefensible. There is no record of Peter being celibate.

I think I already posted this, Matthew 19
27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? 28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting.

The Apostles left EVERYTHING to follow Christ.

Is that the 'reason' for your conjecture about an assumed celibacy for Peter? That argument holds no substance.

Really I didn't realise his wife was with him the times he was being thrown in and out of jail and then later on beheaded? Proof of your stance that he was with his wife please?