«Home

Should Catholic Priests Remain Celibate?

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?

Avatar
Newbie
55 answers

A lot of the priests are actually very handsome, however, i do respect the fact that they took vows which preclude them from having s.ex.

On the other hand, i would really find it hard to condemn priests ( speaking of priests, not married males) who keep a girlfriend on the side, even though its wrong because of their creed, yet sometimes people do yearn for the company of the opposite sex. Some in such situations, might actually prefer to marry the gf but cant do so because of the conflict between their conscience.

Its actually easier for women to be celibate, than it is for men, although things might have changed now since women are matching men in the game.

In addition, some people might even prefer the celibacy clause, because if you're used to living your life single, it might not be easy to adapt to living with another person.

So, very hard to generalize as per topic.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Okay. Have a great weekend.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hahaha you just made my day, thanks for the laugh. It is really easy to spot fools.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Good u said celibacy is an instance of 'institutional vow' so I asked you about another instance of 'institutional vow' that of marriage and yet you refuse to answer. It is an actual yes or no answer.

Should a married man have the free-will to sleep with another woman?

Yet you're failed to give me that.

'institutional vow' - celibacy

'institutional vow' - marriage

2 sides of the same coin.

Marriage as an "institutional vow" is  a system - has that system also FAILED? Married people commit the same crimes as Celibates.

Anyone can post anything does not mean that what they posted is the truth. You would be wrong. Hence teh reason why I laugh so much when u guys make fools of urselves. You know nothing that you claim to know, and all you've become is a puppet to someone who posted something on a website, that got it from someone else, who got it from someone else, who got it from someone else, and the list goes on. It's really saddening to see you go.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@~Lady~:

Nope, I'm not inserting my views anywhere, it is there for you in plain English. The Father as used in your sense of calling a Pope or Priest Father, is not the same sense in which the appellation Teacher or Rabbi is used in the Church. It is not the same way in which Paul was Father to Timothy, Onesimus or the Corinthians, and you know it! The Pope stands in a place of worship that Paul never stood in, as far as Biblical evidence and history shows.

Now let me wait for you to also twist the scriptures concerning the CLEAR instruction that forbidding people to marry is a wrong injunction.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who said both takes the same vows? Why can't u just read?

Oh but ur missing the other parts of the saying. Infact this is what Jesus said

8"But you are not to be called 'Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called 'teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

I do not see any of you protesting that the word teacher be used. Infact you use them yourselves

But anyway still, your misinterpretation of this passage can clearly be shown, bcus there are places where the Apostles called themselves father of the church, and the christians their children.  Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers.

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."

Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."

Is the Bible contraditcting? Absolutely not. But your intepretation is contradicting scripture. Stop taking your own view and inserting it in the Bible.

What is Christ talking about? He's talking about the Father in heaven, no one on this earth should be called Father who is in Heaven.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@~Lady~:

Your analogy is inadequate here. "Does a married man have the free will to divorce his wife?" is a better way of expressing the statement, and not "sleeping with another woman", because here we are discussing contracts / legal rights and not moral conduct.

Does a married man have the free will to divorce his wife? Talking about contracts and free will (which is the focus of your own gist), the answer is yes. Moral and spiritual obligations? No, he should rather choose not to because that's another matter entirely.

0
Avatar
Newbie

oh no I understand what you're saying. What you're saying is, u don't want to have logic in this conversation right? You just want to make a statement, and every chance that you're clobbered, you will refuse to answer and then attempt to make it seem like the other person isn't answering your questions. Sorry it doesn't work with me. You will either anwer or you will answer.

Lol nice try, but u did no such thing. All you spoke of was the labeling of Priests who have actually stepped down from their duties of the Priesthood. I'm sepaking of those who still hold to their duties of the Priesthood who never stepped down. I speak of those who still perform their duties as Priests, and that there are distinctions between married and unmarried ones. Big difference my dear.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Hahaha nice try in twisting my words, but u fail miserably.

As all have seen, u speak of an institutional vow, and if u will attempt to make ur case by logic, then by all means it is applied to all walks of life. Unless ur intent is to not have an intelligent discussion, then I can completely understand, not everyone can have one.

If u will speak of institutional vow of celibacy u must speak of the institutional vow of marriage. Why? Because if one doesn't take that of celibacy one will take that of marriage, so you see they are correlated. It's a coin, u can't escape it as much as you want to.

So question again, would a married man have the free-will of sleeping with another woman?

0
Avatar
Newbie

MY OPINION

1.One of the greatest problems of men of God is that of money due to extortion of the church to feed their families and enable them leave in luxury but celibates have no family of theirs and would spend more time knowing God and imparting the word of God than extorting the congregation.

2.They also have no immediate responsibility apart from the work of God and would thus do it better than the married.

Hence i have no problem with celibacy.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Then why do u still hold the position that celibacy is a failed system? if they're not celibate, they will be married, but since the same problem is in marriage and even more so, then celibacy isn't a failed system, and your whole point is null and void.

So the Apostles didn't write books in the Bible?

Or is it that, bcus the Apostles did write books in the Bible, and since you're saying they shouldn't be listened to so much, then parts of the Bible shouldn't be listened to so much?

See I was trying not to laugh at your first statement, but see this one is way too funny I had to laugh. You think that the times back then is the same as it is now, and that we have cases of fugitives back then? What did they use to run, the Honda Accord, I have one it's really fast, a good get away car. Did Peter use a Honda? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

0
Avatar
Newbie

Mat 23:9  And do not call anyone [in the church] on earth father, for you have one Father, Who is in heaven.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I agree your arguments make no sense. The Bible does not teach such an institutional vow - in very fact, quite the OPPOSITE is taught by the apostles. And this should have been obvious to you from InesQor's post in #39. The forbidden to marrying is an instance of "institutional vow" IMPOSED by the Catholic church in direct controversion of the apostles' teaching. The only way to scuttle round this and still try so hard to maintain the indefensible is for you to argue now that "there is no vow" in that regard - you can't pull both strings in a linear course.

In the make-belief 'planet' of the Catholic church. History attests to this.

Both do NOT take the same 'vows' - for in the case of the political office, the President does not indenture any vows of celibacy in the office of presidency in his capacity to serve the people. In the pontificate and Catholic institutional vows of priesthood, the vow is not just to serve people but one of celibacy.

We cannot mix issues here and make them planks of the same dockyard. If the Presidency is predicated upon or involves a case of vows of celibacy, then we could see the relation it might have borne to the case of the institutional vow of celibacy in the Catholic church. So far, nothing ties them together in this scenario - and that analogy is best consigned to the bin.

0
Avatar
Newbie

How u manage to make correlations of things amaze me still.

So bcus I state that Celibacy does not lead to sexual errors, it means that Celibacy is imposed? Wow what logic you have.

Haha nice try. Rather look at the percentage of priests that are celibate and those that have actually erred. See that the percentage is very much low about 1% then u can try to see if celibacy is the cause of the error.

Asking this question is like asking what has marriage achieved in the lives of those who've committed adultery. It holds no grounds.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who cares, a large number of them chase anything in a skirt anyways,

0
Avatar
Newbie

No it is not a deflection, it is entirely a case of u not being able to answer bcus u know that your answer will only give proof to my assertions.

You speak of institutional vow and that it is wrong bcus it doesn't leave room for 'free-will' so I brought an example of an institutional vow of marriage and asked you if a married man has the free will AFTER taking a vow to sleep with another woman. You still haven't answered me yet.

I won't allow you to turn this into a 'where did I imply this?' I am asking you a question, I expect an answer.

If u will not be respectful enough to answer then let me know, and I will quit responding to you.

I also can exercise my free will to stop posting.

I see you're still trying to dodge it. Nice try, answer the question.

0
Avatar
Newbie

I refuse to accept, the post of a father/pope is no where in the bible, i mean where did the catholic derive such words/post from? check through the post/titles (God) recognizes in the bible and you'd find out that pope/father aren't included.

What is the difference between tradition and tradition? please remind me, the bible is the guide to every christian and we should at all times act according to its guidance, a case whereby things not in the bible are being practiced is not really worth accepting as a Christian (Christ-like).

0
Avatar
Newbie

Then there is no vow. You cannot take a vow to be celibate only to want free will to not follow the vow and enjoy the priviledges that come from u taking that vow. It is entirely the case of having the cake and eating it too. It makes no sense.

On what planet does it make sense that a person enters into a contract only to say that they won't fulfill their end of the contract but still want the priviledge?

Because both are Offices that take vows. The vows being different does not make them unrelatable. Point is vows are made in both Offices. If u will not tolerate the President breaking his vow and enjoying the benefits of the Office of President, why would u tolerate a Priest breaking his vow and still enjoying the benefits of the Office of the Priest?

0
Avatar
Newbie

What you're thinking is that married priests enjoy the same priviledges as unmarried priests, they do not.

They no longer have the duties of the Priests, unless in dire circumstances, but as I said it is a mark on their soul.

Aha but he doesn't enjoy the same standing. Maybe one should've studied the subject on hand before diving into it?

0
Avatar
Newbie

That is why it is not IMPOSED on any man. If you know that taking road A leads to place B and you do not want to go to place B, then don't follow road A. We can apply it to all in life, bcus we make choices, that is what our free-will affords us, making choices. Our choices have consequences, if we do not want said consequence then we need not to make said choice. Plain and simple. If u do not want a baby, then don't have sex. If u do not want to get burned then don't put your hand in the fire.

Married Priests and Unmarried Priests have different roles and benefits. The Church does not take care of the Married Priest as it does the unmarried Priest. Married Priests have to work to fend for their wives and families, unmarried Priests don't. Married Priests are stuck in one place to serve the faithful, unmarried Priests aren't. Unmarried Priests can become Bishops, Married Priests cannot. See why I said you should learn about the Priesthood first? There's so much more you do not know.

0
Avatar
Newbie

According to you it is a non-starter in any situation. Free-will is still limited my dear.

no really u didn't. u left me scratching my head wandering what ur talking about.

[quote][/quote]

0
Avatar
Newbie

That's plainly what you had implied by stating this:[list]

Just because some sought married life does not warrant the sort of statement you made about their failed married lives - many people in the Catholic church did not need any such vows to have lived unspeakably immoral lives, as are others outside the Catholic church. Which again underscores my point that failure in this or that issues of life about marriage cannot be blamed on any celibacy one way or another - thus, that statement from you was unwarranted and you should not be seeking to ignore its implicatons.

Perhaps you should first think about communicating so you're not misunderstood. If someone does not understand what I have stated, I could oblige an explanation rather than assume the person is unable to grasp anything.

Thanks for the 'selective reading', lol. Now you're shifting your goal posts. You did not articulate earlier that your statement does not apply to all priests who step down, but rather a bland statement that included all within the purview of your statement: "There are Priests that have stepped down from their roles as Priests, amazingly when they do get married, their marriages fail". Now it has become "majority of them". haha.

Besides, you're still saying the same thing here - that the failure in their marriages should be blamed on their 'vows' of celibacy {"them failing their marriages due to their breaking of their vow to God"}. You did not here blame it on a wonder about anything else but on that institutional vow. If you were actually considering that the vow was not responsible for their failed marriages, you would not be repeating the same argument over an explanation that holds no substance.

I do know how to read - and I can see already that your attempt to pull a fast sleight of hand is not working. If you care to not use analogies that are unrelated to your arguments, this whole stuff would not be necessary.

Your question was a deflection - that was my point in trying to wake you up. Obviously you didn't see it.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Because the free will is exercised upon entering the Priesthood. That is the reason I asked the question (that I haven't seen u actually address)

That if a man takes a marital vow, should he have the free will of sleeping with another woman?

1. The Catholic Church did not impose a thing on anyone.

2. The celibacy system isn't a failure.

3. If celibacy is the reason for the Priests to engage in sexual acts, then why is it that married pastors are actually far worse. Or better yet, why is it, that married people are having affairs or is the institution of marriage a failure too?

0
Avatar
Newbie

Because they are the direct successors of the apostles, whether u wish to acknowledge it or not, it is the truth. It is the only view that can be proven. They carry on the work of the apostles.

So u don't think the Bible is equal in all parts?

That is why the matter of celibacy isn't a of doctrine, it is purely custom, and because it has been so.

There is a difference between Tradition and tradition.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Because the duties of a married Priest and an unmarried Priests are different. Hence you have to learn about the Catholic Priesthood before you start having such a conversation.

I understand, it is possible, but it is only possible if Peter was arrested in his home town. He wasn't. The places he was arrested was no where close to home. Remember the apostles dispersed, and the Apostle that stayed close to home was James in Jerusalem. So the thing is, as Peter was always on the run was it physically possible for him to carry his wife about with him. If he did, where did his wife stay while he was in jail bcus she isn't in jail with him. SHe's in a foreign land, where her husband is a wanted man, what woman would stay there?

ok u guys have to forgive me for writing in short posts like this. I don't know what it is, but posting on nairaland is quite difficult for me. the page sort of jumps as i type

0
Avatar
Newbie

Uh no their failed marriages could be blamed on them breaking a vow with God. That's the reason why that statement talked about breaking a vow made with God, and nothing to do with celibacy. A vow, any vow that is made with God is what I'm talking about. Please read my statements well.

I see you need to learn about the Priesthood. I don't have all the time in the world to teach you. A priest being a priest doesn't mean he can actually take on the duties of a priest. He can be stripped of his duties as a Priest, but just with baptism you cannot undo the mark that is done on the soul one cannot undo the mark that is done on the soul of the man that is ordained. Let me put it like this. You see those Priests who were accused of sexual molestation that were actually guilty, a lot of them were not allowed to fulfill their priestly duties. They are not allowed to celebrate Mass, they are not allowed to head a Parish, they are not allowed to work with the Parishioners, they are not allowed to work with Parishioners children, they could only work in an office as a librarian or something where they have no contact with people. But their title as Priest can never be taken away from them. It is on their soul forever, hence my statement that there are Priests in hell. One Bishop who shuffled Priests in his diocese was punished by the Pope (this is the only case I can remember right now), instead of having a diocese, he gives tours in Rome, but his title as Bishop can never be taken away. But that doesn't mean he is allowed to fulfill the role of a Bishp. Hope that helps u to better understand.

0
Avatar
Newbie

What about the time he went back to fishing after Jesus's death? didn't you read that he also went back to his former job and must have gone back to his wife and kids too.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Who said celibacy is the reason for failed marriages?

Are you clearly reading what I wrote? I think not.

No I didn't intone that they had suffered failed marriages, I wondered why it is among those who got married that majority of them had failed marriages, I actually intoned about them failing their marriages due to their breaking of their vow to God not that they were celibate, go back and read please. Someone seems to have selective reading eh.

What are you talking about? Who is blaming a wife for celibacy? Do you even know how to read?

I asked you a question, usually that comes with an answer.

0
Avatar
Newbie

Lol, I think you're arguing against your own ideas. You had blandly stated earlier that "there is such a thing as free will in the Church", and now you are the same person who is again arguing that "of course not" there is NO free will in this regard?

This is not a matter of a man eating his cake and having it - that is just begging the question. The Catholic church imposed celiebacy on priesthood and should be responsible for the failure of that system. The Bible does not make any such imposition upon any man, and that is why we have observed that leaders in the church are encouraged to have families. The Bible also recognizes that local churches are to take care of those who minister to them (1 Tim. 5:17-18).

The whole argument (in your case) for 'free will' is a non-starter as far as institutional vows are concerned.

I don't know Yoruba (could learn, someday) - but the idea that someone should step down from the priesthood is making a case for an unbiblical nuance.

My apologies.

0
Avatar
Newbie

It still doesn't make sense, just because it's been so does not mean it should be so, why would a married person be allowed to become a priest but an unmarried priest cannot be allowed to get married, it clearly doesn't make sense.

If peter was married, that does not mean he never had intimacy with his wife, being thrown into jail did not stop him from having intimacy with his wife after being released, he didn't spend all the rest of his life in jail after becoming an apostle, being an apostle does not mean you can't get married.

One more thing, why are you comparing being an apostle to being a father/pope?

As a christian, i would consider Christ's instructions and guidance first before any of his apostle and Jesus never stated that those who should be his apostle should not get married and Paul himself never said an apostle should not also get married.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

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.

Was that what I stated or argued? Where?

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

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

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?

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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?

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

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.

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

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

You completely miss the point of my statement.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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 Inbreeding (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 Molests, 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 SinParties.[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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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'

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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).

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.

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 Molests, 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.

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'.

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

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

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:

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.

0
Avatar
Newbie

@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.

0
Avatar
Newbie
Your answer
Add image

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.