“A council held at
-J.H. Merle d’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, trans. Dr. H. White, Vol. I (Rapidan, VA: Harland Publications, reprinted 1846 London edition), p.13.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the defining aspects of the Roman Catholic priesthood is the law of celibacy, and as history has shown, it has been the cause of many great scandals in the Western (Roman Catholic) Church not to mention being totally anti-Biblical. This article will deal with the history of celibacy in the Church, how it is completely against Biblical teaching, and the arguments Roman apologists use to defend the doctrine of their Church.
A Little History
As was quoted above, Gregory VII (1073-1085 A.D.; known before as Hildebrand), was the first to enforce clerical celibacy on the priests of the Church. As Philip Schaff notes (emphasis mine):
“Gregory
VII must be viewed not only as a papal absolutist, but also as a moral reformer. It is the close connection of these two characters
that gives him such pre-eminence in history, and it is his zeal for moral reform that entitles him to real respect; while his pretension
to absolute power he shares with the most worthless popes…In his war on Nicolaitism, Gregory was sustained by ancient laws of the
Roman Church, but not by the genuine spirit of Christianity. Enforced clerical celibacy has no foundation in the Bible, and is apt
to defeat the sacerdotal ideal which it was intended to promote. The real power and usefulness of the clergy depend upon its moral
purity, which is protected and promoted by lawful matrimony, the oldest institution of God, dating from the paradise of innocence…The
motives of Gregory in his zeal for sacerdotal celibacy were partly monkish and partly hierarchical. Celibacy was an essential part
of his ascetic ideal of a priest of God, who must be superior to carnal passions and frailties, wholly devoted to the interests of
the Church, distracted by no earthly cares, separated from his fellow-men, and commanding their reverence by angelic purity. Celibacy,
moreover, was an indispensable condition of the freedom of the hierarchy. He declared that he could not free the Church from the rule
of the laity unless the priests were freed from their wives. A married clergy is connected with the world by social ties, and concerned
for the support of the family; an unmarried clergy is independent, has no home and aim but the Church, and protects the pope like
a standing army.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
Volume V, ch.2, part 12
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch02.htm
Thus, Gregory VII had two goals when he decreed the celibacy
of the priesthood. The first goal was to bring about moral reform in the Church. However noble it was, it failed as we
shall see. The second goal was power, absolute power. His aim was to gain control over the people of
As to the moral reform,
it was a complete failure (emphasis mine):
“Pope Pius II., before he ascended the papal chair (1458–1464), said that good reasons
required the prohibition of clerical marriage, but better reasons required its restoration. The hierarchical interest, however, has
always overruled these better reasons. Whatever may have been the advantages of clerical celibacy, its evils were much greater. The
sexual immorality of the clergy, more than anything else, undermined the respect of the people for their spiritual guides, and was
one of the chief causes of the Reformation, which restored honorable clerical marriage, created a pastoral home with its blessings,
and established the supremacy of conscience over hierarchical ambition…The peccant priests were exposed to the scorn and contempt
of the laity, reduced to extreme poverty, or even mutilated by the populace, tortured and driven into exile. Their wives, who had
been legally married with ring and religious rites, were insulted as harlots, and their children branded as bastards. Many of these
unfortunate women died from hunger or grief, or committed suicide in despair, and were buried in unconsecrated earth…The temporal
power was pledged to enforce this legislation. But Eadmer, the biographer of Anselm, sorrowfully intimates that the result was an
increase of shocking crimes of priests with their relatives, and that few preserved that purity with which Anselm had labored to adorn
his clergy…At last, the Gregorian enforcement of sacerdotal celibacy triumphed in the whole Roman Church, but at the fearful sacrifice
of sacerdotal chastity. The hierarchical aim was attained, but not the angelic purity of the priesthood. The private morals of the
priest were sacrificed to hierarchical ambition. Concubinage and licentiousness took the place of holy matrimony. The acts of councils
abound in complaints of clerical immorality and the vices of unchastity and drunkenness. “The records of the Middle Ages are full
of the evidences that indiscriminate license of the worst kind prevailed throughout every rank of the hierarchy.” The corruption
again reached the papacy, especially in the fifteenth century. John XXIII and Alexander VI rivaled in wickedness and lewdness the
worst popes of the tenth and eleventh centuries.”
-Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume V, ch.2, parts 12 and 13
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch02.htm
As
Schaff points out, the celibacy of the clergy has resulted in some of the worst scandals in the history of the Christian Church.
Implications on the Issue of Authority:
It is admitted by historians of all backgrounds that forced clerical celibacy started in the late eleventh century. Also, Philip
Schaff notes the reactions to the papal decree (emphasis mine):
“These decrees caused a storm of opposition. Many clergymen in
Germany, as Lambert of Hersfeld reports, denounced Gregory as a madman and heretic: he had forgotten the words of Christ, Matt. 19:11,
and of the Apostle, 1 Cor. 7:9; he wanted to compel men to live like angels, and, by doing violence to the law of nature, he opened
the door to indiscriminate licentiousness. They would rather give up their calling than their wives, and tauntingly asked him to look
out for angels who might take their place. The bishops were placed in a most embarrassing position. Some, like Otto of Constance,
sympathized with the married clergy; and he went so far as to bid his clergy marry…In France the efforts of reform made by the predecessors
of Gregory had little effect. A
-Philip Schaff, History
of the Christian Church, Volume V, ch.2, parts 12 and 13
http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch02.htm
So, I have a couple questions
for those who believe that the Roman Catholic Church holds to the doctrines of the apostles:
Why do you believe that the Roman
Catholic Church holds to the doctrines taught by the apostles when every historian (and the Roman Catholic Church) admits that mandatory
priestly celibacy began in the late eleventh century?
Why do you believe that the primacy of the pope of Rome was a doctrine
taught by the apostles, passed on to the bishops through succession, and is a doctrine necessary to believe in order to be saved (Vatican
I, Session 4, Chapter 2) when it is obvious from the above cited quote that synods of bishops and many other clergymen ignored Gregory’s
decree?
Biblical Passages that Contradict and Attack Mandatory Clerical Celibacy
All quotes are from the NASB (emphasis
mine):
Matthew 19:10-12
“The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not
to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those whom it has been given. For there
are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also
eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Commentary:
Being voluntarily celibate for the purpose of devoting yourself wholly to God’s work is a beautiful thing. However, Jesus clearly
denies mandatory celibacy because God did not create all men with this gift.
It might be objected that the Roman Catholic Church does not force anyone to become priests. That may be true, but to prevent
someone from aspiring to the highest calling God has made in this world because they weren’t given the gift of celibacy is in effect
trying to play God. Preventing non-celibate men from aspiring to be a minister of God is nowhere found in Scripture like the
prohibition of women being the leader of a church is.
1 Corinthians 9:3-6
“My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not
have a right to eat and drink? Do we have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers
of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right to refrain from working?”
Commentary:
Paul is giving a defense of his apostleship. His detractors were saying that he was a charlatan who was pretending to be an apostle for selfish reasons. Paul lists a number of things that he, as an apostle, has a right to just like all the other apostles. One of the rights that Paul says he has is the right to marry. Clearly, he is already a clergyman with the power to administer the ordinances (i.e. sacraments for those of you who prefer that word), and thus, the Roman Catholic cannot use the objection that is normally made with Peter being married before he was called as an apostle. Thus, it is clear that the New Testament teaches that the clergy can be married if they wish.
1 Timothy 3:2 and 4
“An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one
wife…He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity.”
Commentary:
Here, Paul is saying that clergymen cannot be philanderers or polygamists. However, the implication is that an overseer (i.e.
interpreted as bishop in Roman Catholicism) can be married and have children if he wants.
1 Timothy 4:1-3
“Now
the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines
of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain
from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.”
Commentary:
[Same as Matthew 19:10-12]. It is worthy to note that Gregory VII did force this upon already married clergy and forced them to give up their wives and children as well. Thus, in an official decree, the papacy forced upon the Church the “doctrines of devils”.
Titus 1:5-6
“…appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one
wife, having children who believe…”
Commentary:
[Same as 1 Timothy 3:2 and 4]
The Arguments of Roman Catholic Apologists
1 Corinthians 7:32-34
“But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about
the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.”
Roman apologists use this to justify the celibacy of the priesthood. However, they take Paul completely out of context. Paul is explaining that one who is not married can give himself totally to the Lord’s work. In verse 6, he says that this is a suggestion and “not of command”. He then says in verses 7 and 9, that if a man does not have the gift of celibacy (which not everyone has), then he should marry. Nowhere does Paul forbid marriage to the clergy (although he says it would be beneficial if one has the gift of celibacy).
In Response to 1 Timothy 4:1-3
Eric Svendsen explains:
“Catholic apologists attempt to soften Paul’s teaching here, claiming that Paul had in mind only those groups that see marriage as evil. While this category of people is no doubt Paul’s primary concern, the passage itself has a much broader application than to combat incipient gnosticism. To forbid marriage for any reason is wrong, otherwise Paul’s words make little sense; for if forbidding marriage were not inherently wrong, on what basis is Paul condemning these people?”
- Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Lindenhurst, New York: Reformation Press, 1999), p.168.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:
http://www.straitgate.com/webster/
Suggested reading:
- James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996).
- Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Lindenhurst, New York: Reformation Press, 1999).
- William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995).
On the Celibacy of the Priesthood