Where in the Bible does it say a priest cannot marry?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

My question is how come preists are not allowed to marry? Doesn't Paul say it would be good for them not to marry if their gunna be a missionary like him so they can foucus entirely on God?

And then he says if they cannot contain themselves then let them marry in 1 Corinthians 7:1-9?

Also in the Old Testament preist were allowed to marry a woman but only a virgin. Please help and tell me where it DIRECTLY says a preist now a days cannot marry!

-- Jason Baccaro (LegendsRborn@aol.com), May 06, 2003

Answers

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

The celibate priesthood is a Church discipline (regulation) for priests in its Latin Rite. It is not a doctrine. It is not a belief of the faith. It is not determined from the Bible. It is determined by the Church, using its own God-given authority. As a Church regulation, it is open to change by the Church at any time, unlike doctrinal truth which was given to the Church by God, and which cannot be changed.

Incidentally, the first passage you quoted from does pertain to "ministers of the Church" - priests. The second one you quoted does not. That was a recommendation given by Paul to the Christian community at large, based on his erroneous belief that the second coming of Christ was imminent. In any case, whatever regulations or recommendations existed in Apostolic times or in Old Testament times, there is no reason to expect that the needs of the Church today would necessitate the same regulations.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

In a round about way, Christ said it best when he proclaimed "You cannot serve two masters". You might think that's a stretch, but really the sacraments of marriage and holy orders are mutually exclusive. In each, the recipient is called to give fully of himself for the betterment of himself, the sacrament, the church, and the world in general.

I know this doesn't answer your question, but I felt compelled to throw in my two cents.

Dane

-- Dane Peters (dgk_dane@yahoo.com), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Dear Jason,

Was Jesus married?

He IS the model for the priesthood.

It is simply a discipline and a very wise one in my opinion.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Quite a few of the disciples were though... those being the full-on humans that he left in charge.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

OperaDiva

oooops. you've just stepped outside sola scriptura.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), May 06, 2003.



Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Dear Operadiva,

Indeed. And some sister Churches, fully in union with the Holy See, embrace a married priesthood. The umbrella is large, filled with those who accept the teachings of Christ, seek unity with His direct successors and embrace their time-tested disciplines.

Celibacy is a gift to be cherished, not begrudged. It can be very freeing when seen for the opportunities it sometimes presents.

But remember OD it is a free choice, in the case of the priesthood.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

"oooops. you've just stepped outside sola scriptura." Oh pooey. Well ya know, I'm sure Jesus said more than what was in the bible. Almost like "reality tv" where you see 30 minutes from three days ;)

"But remember OD it is a free choice, in the case of the priesthood." Oh I don't disagree. I'm not saying that celibacy is a bad thing, I just think married priests would have another perspective to offer, which would be equally as valid and helpful as the celibate priest.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

drats! I forgot my HTML again !

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 06, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Nowhere in scripture, Jason. I agree on what Paul said to you.

Unfortunately, Paul is not the Pope or a high Church official to institute changes.

3 cases about choice in marriage of ministers of the church in scripture ( note that scripture does not use the word priest (Greek hiereus, hebrew cohen) for them but over seer (Greek episcopus= bishop) and deacon(diakonos= servant)

case one : Jesus. Printer-Friendly Page Bookmark this Page

Matthew 19:12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[ 19:12 Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

For Jesus, being unnatached was a better way to preach about the Kingdom of God ( Heaven). He saw the end coming soon.

Case 2: Paul. Corinthians 7

Marriage

1Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry.[1] 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Case 3: Paul about bishops and deacons

1 Timothy 3

Overseers and Deacons

1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,[1] he desires a noble task. 2Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him with proper respect.

8Deacons, likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. 9They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), May 06, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Seems to me, I remember a whole chapter in the Bible that refers to how a Bishop should treat his wife. Wish I could tell you where I saw it, but it's been some time back and I didn't bookmark it. I believe it was in one of the New Testament letters, but can't remember which one. Paul is right when he says that Celebacy in the Priesthood is a choice by the church, not a doctrine.

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 07, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

QUOTE: Quite a few of the disciples were [married] though ... those being the full-on humans that he left in charge.

COMMENT: This appears to imply that Jesus was celibate perhaps because he was not a "full-on human." If that is the concept that was intended by the author of the above quotation, I'm afraid that I have to point out that it is a heresy. The mystery of the "hypostatic union" tells us that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, not part human and part divine. In a single divine Person, He had two natures, perfectly united.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

PS: Oops! Shouldn't have used past tense. Instead, "Jesus IS both fully human and fully divine, not part human and part divine. In a single divine Person, He HAS two natures, perfectly united."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 07, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

No, that wasn't my intent. He didn't get married because it wasn't what God (the Father) had in mind for him. He was a good obedient kid.

I see we like to debate. Good :) Me too.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Yes, I did just use the "Royal 'We'". Too much old english lit as a child.

-- OperaDiva (solosoprano@juno.com), May 07, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Leon,

1 Tim 3 speaks about Bishops and their requirements.

-- Rico (xricoxsuave@aol.com), May 07, 2003.



Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Thanks Rico

I thought I had seen it before:

-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 07, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Here's an article on the history of mandatory clerical celibacy. The viewpoint is liberal and anti-celibacy.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), May 12, 2003.

Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Sorry. Don't know what happened to the link. Probably an HTML typo. Trying again.

http://www.ejhs.org/volume2/walsh/walsh1.htm

http://www.ejhs.org/volume2/walsh/walsh1.htm

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), May 12, 2003.


Response to Where in the Bilble does it say a preist cannot marry?

Jmj

Thank you, Stephen, for correctly identifying the point-of-view of the linked article (liberal/anti-celibacy). It comes from something called the "Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality."

The home page (www.ejhs.org) reveals that the contributors are unknown on the orthodox Catholic scene. I really don't have any trust in their ability to give us an accurate essay on this subject. I note that they even quote from the rag known as the "National [non]Catholic Reporter." And on the third of the three "pages" of the essay they conclude:

"In this section, we have demonstrated that the dismantling of mandatory celibacy would mean that the Church would have to rely on the power of the gospel for its moral authority and would have to supplant an old sexist anthropology with one that was gender pure. Such a reversal of history, such a self divesting of power and prejudice, is not likely to come from those who benefit from maintaining the status quo. It will only come through enlightenment born of authentic prophecy."

Uh, no thanks.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.


You won't find "priests cannot marry" in the Bible. It isn't there. The custom / practice of priestly celibacy had never been universal until the abuses of married clergy forced the church to impose celibacy, at least in the Roman Rite. Married priests have been allowed in most of the Eastern rites in communion with Rome since apostolic times. One may argue at great length pro or con as to whether celibacy is relevant to the twenty first century church. Personally, I would like to see priests have the option to marry, but I wouldn't bother to mount a campaign to that effect.

-- Thomas P. Owens (mushware@yahoo.com), May 13, 2003.

In the Latin Rite at least, the emphasis is not on enforcing celibacy in the priest. It is in calling unmarried men to the priesthood. Why? Because Jesus Christ is unmarried and celibate. The more Christ-like a priest is, the purer his vocation.

Men who marry are not called, that's the best point of view; although marriage is a holy estate. The man who is called to serve Christ marries the Church. He has ONE spouse, not two. His spouse is where his children are. He is robbed of nothing--

Our Lord said clearly to the apostles, all who have left everything behind to follow Him will receive their reward; and it will be a hundredfold. Don't feel sorry for the priest.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 13, 2003.


But don't forget that our Lord called a married man to be the first Pope.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 13, 2003.

Yes, and the married man left behind his wife; but Christ is celibate. Men are called to be exemplars of Jesus to the world, not new Princes of the Apostles. You have your vocation, I have mine. We do not presume to represent Christ to His Church. A priest is. Therefore, he is celibate; as Christ is. He isn't celibate on account of any other thing.



-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 13, 2003.


"You won't find 'priests cannot marry' in the Bible. It isn't there."

Why do you mention this, Thomas Owens? It doesn't need to be "there."


St. Peter had a mother-in-law, 'tis true, but the Bible does not say that he was not a widower. But even if "Mrs. Rock" was alive, that doesn't provide firm guidance as to whether or not married men should be ordained priests today. Jesus gave the Rock's successors the power and wisdom to decide.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


R u pro or against that CAtholic priest should marry? y?

-- Hyacinth Kaye (Hyacinth_kaye_17@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.

In Paul's letters the elders (bishops) were instructed to be husbands of "only one wife" - that is, if they were married, they could be ordained, but if their wife dies, they could not remarry.

Paul was not married, and neither was Peter, James, or John. In fact, there is no evidence that ANY of the apostles were married. Titus and Timothy were not married...

Christians must read not only what people say in the bible, but learn from what they do.

(oh, and, in the Greek original, the word for Peter's "mother-in-law" is also the same word used for "step-mother", that and circumstantial evidence points away from the position that Peter was married. His wife is never mentioned, nor are children. It is weird that his wife didn't wait on Jesus while his mother-in-law was deathly ill...)

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Even if Peter had a mother-in-law, that is not an indication that he was married at that time, only that he had been married at some point in time. He may well have been a widower. In any case, the whole question is irrelevant. The Church has the right to make regulations regarding its priesthood. The Bible doesn't say priests have to have a college education either, but now the church requires it, and it has every right to do so. Likewise the Church has full authority to impose - or change - or eliminate requirements regarding the marital status of priests. The only passages of scripture that are relevant to the issue at all are those in which Christ granted full authority to the Church.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), September 10, 2003.

Just wanted to clarify that Peter was indeed married even as an apostle - he did not leave his wife. And most of the apostles were also married. That's a fact. How do I know? Because Paul tells us so in 1 Cor 9:5 when he says:

" Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

Case closed on that one.

I've always believed that the Church has the right to make such disciplines as she sees fit, so I've never had a problem with celebate priests, but lets not try to rewrite history to to try to say that Peter and most of the apostles were not married or that they left their wives after Jesus ascended in order to start the church.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Just checking on the facts of history, but according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Popes, there were 39 popes who were married. Is this correct?

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


The Bible doesn't say priests have to have a college education either, but now the church requires it

Not to stray off subject, but this is interesting. I was not aware of this. When and why did this become mandatory?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), September 10, 2003.


Yikes! Some will tell about "community property". I wonder.

rod

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


The original text was written in Greek: "adelfhn gunaika periagein" are the words in question.

The Latin version the original text of 1Cor9:5 is: "numquid non habemus potestatem sororem mulierem circumducendi sicut et ceteri apostoli et fratres Domini et Cephas"

"Sororem mulierem"= sister women. "Sorority" doesn't mean "wives". It means "sisters". Mulierem is plural for women. The Latins have a word for wife. It's "uxor". If the original translator from the Greek had thought "adelpha gunaika" meant "wives" he'd have had a simple Latin word to use instead of two open ended and vague ones.

Most Protestant translations take considerable liberties with the Greek and Latin of the New Testament as anyone can see by checking things out on the web. They virtually always twist ambiguities and even clear primary translations towards their apriori theological positions.

Adelpha - is sister, but almost always used as well for "cousin" or female friend as well.

Gunaika - is the base word for "woman", which CAN be interpreted as "wife" but is not the only word for wife. If you go to all Protestant Greek Translations, this is translated as "wife" in Corinthians, BUT, if you check out Matthew 5 the SAME word is used for both "woman" who is NOT a man's wife, (if a man looks at a woman lustfully he has committed adultery...) as well as "wife" (if a man should put away his wife...)

So here we go - Paul who was intelligent enough to know Greek vocabulary uses two words: sister and woman. If he was talking about "wives" there are 20 other words he could have used which are not vague and general. Instead he uses "sister" (which is not a wife) and "woman" which is general, not specific.

An unbiased translator into the English therefore can't just assume that since the second word COULD be "wife" that's the sole meaning, especially as it is modified by the preceeding word "Adelpha".

In the Gospels Jesus and the 12 apostles are said to have been supported by certain women. There's no reason to IMMEDIATELY conclude they "serviced" Jesus and the Apostles sexually as wives or concubines (as is now the vogue spin-translation). For the time it appears they served them as housekeepers, maids, etc. (after all, we're talking Orthodox Jews for whom concubines and whores were clearly forbidden and for whom wives - if that's what they were, have more straightforward names).

-- Joe (Joestong@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Sorry, Joe. I prefer translations from people other than lay theologians. "A" for effort though.

New American Bible (a Catholic translation):

Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas?

Revised Standard Version: Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

I haven't come across a translation that renders this any other way, though it might exist.

You do realize, of course, that the very argument you're using to try to translate the word "wife" into "sister" is based on the reverse logic that Catholics use to explain that when the Bible refers to the Lord's "brothers" and "sisters", it really means "cousins" . . . even though there are Greek words for cousins and it would be really important for the apostles to be clear about the distinction and they chose to use the word "brothers" and "sisters" . . .

I guess it all depends on what you're trying to prove :-)

I must say I've never heard of the "concubine" theory and I don't pay much attention to "spin translations".

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Perhaps we'd better start a new thread...

This thread is about married priests. I agree that married men may become ordained priests in the Church, but once you're ordained, you can't marry and if your wife dies you can't remarry.

Priests in the old testament were of a different order (Levitical) than Christian ordained priests. Just as the whole chosen people (12 tribes) were a "royal priesthood", so too all Christians are priests insofar as we are to offer up prayers and sacrifices to God. However, just as in Israel there were Levites, so in the Church there are men set apart for service...

And married men can be set apart for this service...

Whereas our debate is about whether or not the Apostles after the Resurrection (after being ordained) took wives.

Yes some "Catholic" translations translate the words that way. My question is "on the basis of what hermeneutical criteria?"

I agree with you that many English versions so translate Latin and Greek words. Just as the English language translators change the Glory Be prayer from "in secola secolorum" to "world without end".

Whereas Catholics DO BELIEVE the world has an end...as Scripture makes clear.

Then you'll find some who transmit "Gratia plena" of Luke into "oh highly favored" - in the Greek, thus unwittingly (or wittingly) wiping out the scriptural basis for the Immaculate Conception.

I know these translations exist. I don't know why they were made as they are. I'm willing to learn and be proven wrong.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Actually Joe, I wasn't contending that the Apostles got married after the Resurrection (we have no idea of when the marriages occurred), just saying that (1) they were married, and (2) that they didn't leave their wives to follow Christ - both of which were stated to the contrary on this thread.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


if that's so, then why did Peter ask Jesus "look we have left everything to follow you"? Luke 18:29... Jesus mentions giving up wives... now that doesn't mean necessarily that all his listeners were married. John wouldn't have been. Plus while you can "give up" a wife in the sense of separating from her, I doubt he was telling married fathers of children to abandon their children... rather than telling those who would follow him as eunichs for the kingdom that not marrying and having children would be the price for spiritual fatherhood.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.

Well, Peter only mentions leaving their homes (see scripture below). And since 1 Cor 9:5 indicates that his wife travelled with him, then it's easy to see that Peter was being specific in mentioning his sacrifice and then Jesus expanded his example to demonstrate the true value of the Kingdom of God and indicating that there are those who will actually do such things - such as leaving a spouse because they believed and the spouse remained in unbelief. Jesus was frequently teaching in such a manner.

Peter said, "Behold, we have left our own homes and followed You." And He said to them, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive many times as much at this time and in the age to come, eternal life."

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 10, 2003.


Jmj

Dave writes: "Case closed on that one."
Oh, by no means "closed."

I agree with you, Joe, that St. Paul was not [or was not necessarily] speaking about a "wife" in 1 Corinthians 9:5.

I will also say that, even if a person insists that St. Paul was referring to a "wife," then:
(1) such a person could state only that the Christian leaders were permitted to travel with their wives, but ...
(2) he could not state that the couples were permitted to engage in intimacies. (The verse refers only to an accompaniment of a man and a woman, and we cannot "read into" the verse any more than that.)

As you may have heard when you were studying in Rome, there is a belief within the Church (expressed at least once by the current pope, I think) that the married apostles and their wives agreed to live in continence after the Ascension. I am not sure if this belief is based on Sacred Tradition or on recent research. This belief is certainly in keeping, Joe, with what you have stated above.

You wisely point out the unusual Greek construction in 1 Cor 9:5 (a form of "adelphE gunE" -- literally "sister woman") -- which appears nowhere else in the New Testament. Even more wisely, you point out that St. Jerome (a man far more aware of the true meaning of Greek idioms than Dave or us or modern English translators) rendered it in Latin as a form of "soror mulier" -- again "sister woman."

I believe that we can tell that St. Jerome knew that this did NOT mean "wife" (as we normally mean the word), if we look at the rest of his Vulgate translation of 1 Corinthians. There we see that, in every one of the other fifteen verses in which St. Paul used the Greek "gunE," St. Jerome translated it as "uxor" (the Latin word for wife). But, as you said, he did NOT use "uxor" in translating 1 Cor 9:5. I believe that this was because St. Paul had not meant "wife" -- or, at least, not "wife" as a sexual partner. This, I would say, is borne out by the context -- by reading verse 6, not just verse 5:
"Do we not have the right to take along an "adelphE gunE," as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Kephas? Or is it only myself and Barnabas who do not have the right not to work?"
Do you see it? The clear implication is that the women are accompanying the men to relieve them of certain burdens of manual labor. There is no implication, on the other hand, that St. Paul is saying that he has a right to take along a sexual partner."

Dave made much of quoting from two English versions of the Bible that contain the word "wife" in 1 Cor 9:5. However ...
(1) All the men who translated one of the two (the RSV) were Protestants, and ...
(2) The men who translated the other one (the NAB, of 1970) were surely influenced by Protestant English translations.
If, however, we look at a strictly Catholic translation (the Douay [with roots older than the KJV]), we do NOT find the word "wife," but rather the words "sister" and "woman"!

Dave read into 1 Cor 9:5 some things that aren't there, when he said this [with my emphasis added for irony]:
"Peter was indeed married even as an apostle -- he did not leave his wife. And most of the apostles were also married. That's a fact. How do I know? Because Paul tells us so in 1 Cor 9:5 when he says: 'Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?'"

Notice that this verse only speaks about the Christian missionaries' "right" -- not about their practice. It does not say anything about whether or not St. Peter was a widower, about how many of the apostles were actually married, about whether or not any of the men mentioned actually made their journeys in the company of a woman -- wife or otherwise. The verse only mentions their right to be accompanied (a discipline that must have been approved of by the first pope, St. Peter).

Joe, you rightly stated this:
"Most Protestant translations take considerable liberties with the Greek and Latin of the New Testament as anyone can see by checking things out on the web. They virtually always twist ambiguities and even clear primary translations towards their apriori theological positions."
I think that I have just shown that, in similar fashion -- because of an "a priori theological position" -- Dave "take[s] considerable liberties" in (mis)interpreting 1 Cor 9:5, reading things into it that are not actually present.

Dave also chided us with these words: "... lets not try to rewrite history to try to say that Peter and most of the apostles ... left their wives after Jesus ascended in order to start the church."
This implies that some Catholic(s) has/have claimed that the apostles fully abandoned their wives. But no Catholic has said such a thing. If a wife stayed behind, a temporary separation for missionary journeys does not entail desertion. If a wife came along, her voluntarily living in continence does not entail abandonment. And that brings me to my final point -- a theory about what St. Paul could have meant by "adelphE guNE" -- if someone insists that the woman/gunE in question was a "wife."

Many of us know that, when the Church speaks to couples who are "irregularly joined" (e.g., ostensibly invalidly "remarried" after divorce), she says that, if they cannot separate, they must live chastely -- "as if brother and sister." Here we have the word "adelphE" -- sister -- again. So, if St. Paul meant "wife" by "gunE" in 1 Cor 9:5, then "adelphE gunE" could mean "a wife living as a sister" (chastely, in continence).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 12, 2003.


John writes, "Oh, by no means "closed." = Oh yeah it is :-) At least it is in the minds of those who aren't trying to support the celibate agenda.

The fact that Douay is an English translation of the Vulgate rather than a translation from the older, original Greek manuscripts simply compounds the original error, one that was recognized and corrected by the Catholic New American Bible.

Dave

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), September 13, 2003.


Dave,
The appropriate thing for me and everyone else to do is to ignore your weak comeback, in light of the fact that I Joe and I made about ten other points to which you had no rejoinder. [The existence of the NAB (from original languages) is irrelevant, in light of what we pointed out -- "adelphE gunE" vs. just "gunE" elsewhere in 1 Cor, etc., etc., etc.]

In short, it would have been wiser and more gallant for you to have just eaten humble pie this time. You can't wipe out a grand slam with a little bunt.

We have no "celibate agenda." Unlike you, we are not "avocating" here. We are merely observing historical events and seeking to understand how and why they came about.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), September 13, 2003.


Dave, the background point in all this, is "there are lots of translations" - so where does the buck stop? Where did I and John and others get such kooky ideas? I mean, who ever heard of a "celibate agenda"! :-)

Well, I for one got the kooky idea that "sister woman" doesn't mean "wife" by reading the original Latin (with the Greek on the facing page).

Then, I recall reading it in Spanish, Italian, and other language translations, while not ever recalling "wives" in 1Cor9:5.

So it seems that English is the problem. Now where do you go from here? I mean, what makes the King James' version better than any other version? What makes the Gospel of Thomas or Peter non- scriptural, while the letter to Philemon is Revealed truth from on high?

Answer: You go to the teaching authority of the Church (Jesus after all sent out his apostles to "make disciples of all nations" not "go, write this all down and hand out copies".

Has the Church per se translated, interpreted, and taught that Peter and all the apostles were married? If so, and since Levite priests got married all the time, and marriage has always been held as sacred in the Church...why wouldn't St Jerome translate alepha guniaka as wives? Just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense.

The Church has taught that celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine, that it's well within the Church's perview to allow married men to become ordained... and generally the Church always gives men great leeway on non-doctrinal things.

So there is no "de fide" issue here on the Catholics' part. Our fundamental faith in "the ways things are" won't be shaken if celibacy is ever relaxed.

But if your precious translations should ever be challenged on technical grounds... then suddenly sola scritura crumbles. After all, someone has to do the translations *(unless all Protestants are going to become fluent in Koine Greek) - and that means someone has the authority to determine what is what, approve it, and promulgate it.

mmmmmm. sounds' kinda like a teaching authority which is not the bible itself to me!

So, while I am reasonably well instructed in biblical studies I am always ready to cede to higher authority. Would you be?

If not, then could you really claim that "scripture" is your guide? Wouldn't your true guide be your own conscience based not on scripture itself or faith itself, but on your own whim and a priori reason?

Thus, for example, if you simply can't understand the concept of transubsantiation - or the Incarnation - or no divorce and remarriage... then rather than submit to any authority, you just find a bible or bible-exegete who you DO feel comfortable with, and go with it.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), September 14, 2003.


I think that priest should be able to marry so that they do not feel the sexual urge to rape children

-- mike muller (www.mike@hotmail.com), October 16, 2003.

The "sexual urge to rape children" is not a heterosexual urge - so allowing men to marry women isn't going to "cure" those men who have this type of mental and moral illness. And it is an illness - unless you believe in the whole homosexual ideology which holds that any urge is OK because you happen to have it and can't say no to it....

I find it also interesting that the News Media hasn't made much a deal out of all the married Protestant clergymen and women who are married yet who have abused children.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), October 16, 2003.


It seems to me that in this day and time, that people have heeved any good Christion morals rigt out the window! I for one, am for the good,and sacred institution of marriage of for one, that both parties are of the same faith. That is very important. Then, they both need to know without a should of any doubt, that they are both in love (and that too is very important), and getting married just because one needs a place to stay, or because oneor the other pittis the other. There are alot other negitive reasones that people get married. And another thing, ask yourselves this question: do I really and trully love this person?. Then, ask each other the same question. Get the under-standing from each other just what is exspected. There is so much more to be considered. I say all of this because, I'm in a sit- uation that I don't want. Before anyone gets amrried, they need to talk to one another. Get a solid grown with each other, and stick with it. And, never leave God out of your lives. Always include Him! Things will go a whole lot bettr when, ro if you do! God Speed.

-- Jean Alston (jAlstonm@aol.com), December 08, 2003.

I think a priest should be able to marry. He is human. That is why there is so many problems. A decon can marry. I don't think it is so wrong to love someone and marry. Also if you think he would not do good in his work you are wrong. A brain surgeon operates on someone and he is married does he do a good job yes he does and he is married. You think about your job when you are doing it. A priest can still think about god and still have a family. I think it is wrong.

-- Nancy W (Nancross@optonline.net), April 17, 2004.

Nancy, The sexual abuse problem has been found to be homosexual in nature. There is no evidence that celibacy causes heterosexual men to become homosexual. For more information on what has been found out about the crisis so far, see: National Review Board, John Jay & Audit Reports



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.


The sola scriptura crowd needs to explain these passages.

1 Cor 7

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: 33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Matthew 19 12 "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it".

Priests are the ones mentioned in these passages. Paul was chaste after hearing Jesus' call. Catholic priests follow in the footsteps of Paul and they listen to the words of Christ Himself.

It is not a commandment but is a sign of devotion to God. My hats off to them.

-- David F (notanaddress@nowhere.com), April 17, 2004.


Jesus Christ himself was celibate and chaste. It was fitting that priests should be chaste.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), April 17, 2004.

Married men sexually abuse their own children, so this has nothing to do with celibate.

In a recent documentary on Popes and the Vatican, it was noted that priests used to marry. I believe it was in the Middle Ages when the ruling came that priests can no longer marry because when a priest died he left his money to his family and not the church. The family inherited the land, as well.

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 17, 2004.


MaryLu,
Realize that it has been the custom for many priests and bishops in the Western (Latin) Rite to be celibate from the earlist days of Christianity. It is not necessarily a 'middle ages' thing. What happened in the middle ages (1022 A.D.) was that for priests in the Western (Latin) Rite, celibacy became mandatory.

For a history of celibacy in the Catholic Church see this site.

In the Eastern churches there have always been some restrictions on marriage and ordination. Although married men may become priests, unmarried priests may not marry, and married priests, if widowed, may not remarry. Moreover, there is an ancient Eastern discipline of choosing bishops from the ranks of the celibate monks, so their bishops are all unmarried.



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), April 17, 2004.


Thank you, Bill!

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 17, 2004.

Thank you, Bill!

May God bless this forum and all of its well-informed participants. Amen

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), April 17, 2004.


The answer is how you view a priest's vocation and ties to Christ. We as Catholics firmly believe that Bishops and Priests are "in persona Christi" when performing the Sacraments and other things. This does not mean they are Christ, but they are Christ's visible ministers and successors to the original Apostles. Priests and Bishops are echoes of Jesus Christ, and so they reflect him as a person. He was celibate, and so Priests reflect this in persona Christi. In the same way, with Eucharistic blessing, forgiveness of sins, and other things, Priests act in the person of Christ. Imitation of Christ is the key to salvation. Hope this helps

-- Andrew Staupe (stau0085@umn.edu), April 17, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ