Clerical Celibacy & Clerical Homosexuality
Upcoming Speaking Engagements
BEHIND DIOCESAN DOORS

Now Available!
Vol. 2, Verse-by-verse through HEBREWS: A Study Guide. An expositional commentary on Chapters 7-13 by Ron Merryman

Clerical celibacy has always intrigued me. I suppose the same for many non-Catholics. The idea that a man living in an unmarried state is somehow more qualified for spiritual ministry than one in a married state seems skewed. It certainly is not the biblical model.

For example: the Apostle Peter without question was a married man. Matthew 8:14 is clear in all texts including The Confraternity Edition, sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church. It reads: And when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed, sick with a fever. And he touched her hand, and the fever left her...” (Mark 1:29-34 and Luke 4:38-41 record the same facts).

Paul, in defending his rights to receive remuneration for ministry and to live as the other Apostles, indicates that they, too, were married men: Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife EVEN AS THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, AND THE BROTHERS OF THE LORD, AND CEPHAS (Peter)? 1Corinthians 9:5 (NASV).

The writer of Hebrews clearly states, “Let marriage be held in honor AMONG ALL and let the marriage bed be undefiled.”Hebrews 13:4 (NASV).

The New Testament contains no prohibition of marriage. Nor does the Old; Levitical priests, including the high priests, married without threat to their spiritual duties.

Whence then the idea of celibacy as a preferred and exalted state for the clergy in the West?

Many of you who know me or have sat under my teaching are aware of my intense interest in history, particularly the history of the Church. Here is a very brief synopsis of what you will discover if you study the origin and progress of monasticism in the West.

Though a few church figures in the second century felt the unmarried state preferable, none felt it a requirement for ministry.

“Christian” monasticism of any proportion first expresses itself in Egypt in the person of Paul of Thebes (ca. 250-340 AD). He belongs to the hermit-type; that is one who lives alone as a hermit. Please note that he was not born until the middle of the third century! He is best known for the man who converted under him, Anthony of Thebes (ca. 251-356 AD). Anthony lived in the desert as a hermit, but enjoyed a wide following in the cities where he preached. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria and friend of Anthony, wrote a biography in which he idealized the hermit and his lifestyle.

Note, Folks, that these men lived in the late third and early fourth centuries. The monastic way of life had a long track record among pagan cultures, but found little headway in Christian circles until centuries after the demise of the Apostles. Here are some examples of a mania that characterized these strange men who chose to live alone under the delusion that such was more Christian than that of urban and/or married life.

• Isidore of Alexandria, an anchorite (one who lives on a pole or platform away from society), touched no meat, never ate enough, and often burst into tears of shame, that he who was destined to eat angel’s food in paradise should have to eat material stuff like other mortals.
• Macarius the Younger (according to his disciple Palladius) once lay six months naked in the desert exposing himself to the gnats of North Africa until he was so badly stung that he could only be recognized by his voice. Why? Because he felt guilty about killing a gnat!
• Sozomen, a 5th century church historian, tells of a certain ascetic named Batthaeus who chose to live on liquids as opposed to solid foods in such extreme abstinence that eventually worms crawled out of his teeth.
• Symeon the Stylite (stylites live on poles or pillars) spent thirty-six years praying, fasting, and preaching from a pole 30-40 feet high, ate only once a week, and not at all in fast times.

As you can imagine, ascetic “holiness” as such was incompatible with cleanliness: indeed, it delighted in filth. It is but a step from this mentality to beastly degradation. But above all, aloneness was an ideal, and the face of a woman was to be shunned more than the devil himself!

Hermitic ascetics lived alone. The next step historically is what is called “cloister” or “cenobotic” monasticism. I define this as monasticism where individuals chose to live alone together (!) in a monastery. They could be described as groupies living the life of aloneness in a commune (!) with others.

And if one commune flourishes, why not a satellite elsewhere. And then another, and another. Thus the evolution of monastic orders in the West like the Benedictines, the Cluny Movement, the Cistercians; then later travelling orders like the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Augustinians (whose most famous member, perhaps, was Martin Luther), and the Jesuits.

The basis and pattern for all monastic orders was laid by Benedict of Nursia (480-547 AD). He is most famous for the monastery established in 529 AD on Mt. Cassino, Italy (WWII veterans well remember the battle for Mt. Cassino in 1943). Both the monastery and “The Benedictine Rule,” sort of a handbook for prospective monks, became the pattern for practically all monasteries that follow in the Roman Catholic tradition.

But what of the secular clergy, parish priests, who do not answer to a monastic order, rather to the local bishop [who in turn answers to an archbishop, and he to a Metropolitan (predecessor of a Cardinal), etc., in the hierarchical ladder of the Roman ecclesiastical system]? When exactly were parish priests forbidden to marry? Precisely when were deacons and archdeacons required to be celibate?

Though opposition to this ascetic practice can be documented throughout the course of church history, it is quite clear that from the Synods of Carthage, 390 and 401 AD, candidates for the office of bishop and up were required to take the vow of celibacy. And in the fifth century, those for the sub-diaconate also.

The Roman Church insists that priestly celibacy is voluntary.

Voluntary in my dictionary is defi ned: 1) proceeding from the will or from one’s own choice or consent, and 2) unconstrained by interference: self-determining.

Let me pose a question: do you or any of your friends know of a Roman Catholic priest or anyone in the pecking order of the Roman Catholic hierarchy that is married and as such still retains his ecclesiastical offi ce with all the privileges thereof? Can you name one? I think not because clerical marriage is a major, major NO-NO in that system. AND COMPARED TO THE CURRENT SCANDAL OF PEDOPHILISM AND HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD, MARRIAGE IS APPARENTLY VIEWED AS WORSE!

The only thing voluntary in such a closed system is that he who voluntarily marries must understand that he has involuntarily lost the rights of his office. He is OUT. Period. Canon law demands it. Why? Because marriage is viewed as a less holy state than that of the celibate.

Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustine, and Jerome, big names with tremendous infl uence in the fourth and fifth centuries, and thereafter, contributed greatly to this viewpoint. They all extolled the virtues of celibacy. Jerome idealized monastic virginity and expressed an absolute contempt for marriage. The idea that marriage was a less holy state than celibacy won the day.

Thus the celibate life became the high watermark of “spirituality” in the Middle Ages. Monasticism flourished and the monastic ideal epitomized the apex, the summum bonum, of spirituality.

The very idea flies in the face of what scripture teaches both about marriage and true spirituality.

Paul specifies that “forbidding to marry” would be one of the signs of a coming apostasy, described as “a departure from the faith,” that is, a departure from true Christian doctrine, 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

The taboos of asceticism are only a pretentious show, a self-made religion of the flesh based upon commandments and teachings that are man-made. Listen to Paul’s words to the believers at Colossae:

Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind...

If you have died with Christ to the elementary principles of the world, why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, “Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!” (which all refer to things destined to perish with the using)-- in accordance with the commandments and teachings of men? These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fl eshly indulgence.

Who is man to flaunt his spurious idea of marriage in the face of Him who said, “It is not good for man to be alone,” and thus made marriage His own divine institution! That marriage is necessary to the full development of the human character and absolutely essential to the virtue and well being of society is part of the Creator’s wisdom and foreknowledge.

When Jesus said, “Some have made themselves eunichs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” (Matthew 19:12), he was addressing the Twelve who, as we pointed out, were married! Celibacy is the exception, not the rule.

Make it the rule and you have the present and long term fi asco that the Roman Church faces: clerical homosexuality, pedophilia, priests who are sexual predators, millions spent on covering up the scandal, plus who knows what under the tip of this iceberg.