As the title says, I am going to criticize churches that forbid clergy from marriage. In order to do so, I want to fairly state the Roman Catholic position on celibate clergy. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says priests are “normally chosen” from celibate men:
All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:12). Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32), they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church’s minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God. (CCC, 1579)
This may surprise some readers, but according to this official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, celibacy is technically not required for priests. It is simply the standard practice for Rome, and it can be changed. All “ordained ministers … are normally chosen” from celibate men who intend to remain celibate. Thus, Rome has taken in married Anglican priests who converted to Catholicism.
Rome’s Basis for Celibate Clergy
So what is Rome’s basis for celibate clergy? The above Catechism cites Matthew 19:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:32. While no Protestant would deny the place of celibacy for some ministers, exemplified by the Apostle Paul, it should be noted that Jesus’ words about “eunuchs… for the sake of the kingdom” in Matthew 19 are not required of pastors or anyone in particular. Rather, Jesus says the decision not to marry for the kingdom is “given” (Matthew 19:11). Celibacy is a gift from God for the purpose of ministry, but it is not a requirement.
Accordingly, Paul says, “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32). Yet Paul does not counsel all men to remain unmarried. Rather, only those who are content in their celibacy should remain unmarried. Paul “wished” that all are celibate, but he said, “each has his own gift from God” (1 Corinthians 7:7). And if the unmarried cannot remain content in their celibacy, they should marry (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Thus, contentment in celibacy is a “gift” from God, and not all men have it. Yet it is important to note that Paul says nothing of pastors here. There has been much confusion here regarding the gift, so to be clear—Paul says celibacy is the gift, not singleness. If you are unmarried without the gift of celibacy, such singleness is not a gift, and you should seek to marry.
Thus, Rome’s Catechism appeals to passages about some people being gifted with contentment in celibacy, but these passages say nothing specifically about clergy. This shows the real issue at hand is Rome’s theology of the priesthood. The Roman Catholic Church’s practice of celibate priests is tied with its view of the priest acting as a representative of Christ (in persona Christi Capitis). According to Rome, the minister is made “like” Christ the High Priest and “possesses the authority to act” in His place (CCC, 1548). The priest represents Christ to the church and represents the church to God (CCC, 1552).
Yet contrary to Rome, even if we were to grant that the pastor/priest acts as Christ’s representative in worship, it does not follow that the priest must be unmarried. This is evidenced by the fact that the Catholic Church does not require all its priests to be celibate—seen both with the Eastern Catholic churches and married Anglican priests who became Catholic priests. What was quoted in the beginning only referred to the Western “Latin Church,” but Rome also has Eastern churches. The Catholic Catechism says this of the differing practice of their Eastern Catholic churches:
In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. This practice has long been considered legitimate; these priests exercise a fruitful ministry within their communities. Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God. In the East as in the West a man who has already received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry. (CCC, 1580)
The Eastern Catholic churches have historical ties to Eastern Orthodoxy, joining Rome in 1596 at the Council of Brest-Litovsk. So it is not surprising these Eastern Catholic churches share the Eastern Orthodox practice of permitting clergy to marry prior to ordination. Thus, Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches allow priests to marry. But there are three caveats: (1) Priests must marry before they are ordained to any Major Order (bishop, priest, or deacon); (2) If a priest’s wife dies, he cannot remarry; and (3) Only unmarried priests can become bishops. A widower can become a bishop, but he must take monastic vows.
In particular to Eastern Orthodoxy, it has two groups of priests, married clergy and monastic clergy. And it is normally expected that unmarried clergy become monks (though not all do so). The Orthodox requirement that bishops be celibate goes back to the 6th or 7th century AD, while the requirement that a bishop take monastic vows goes back to at least the 14th century (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church, [1993], 291). One thing to note here is that even by the admission of Orthodox theologians, their clergy marriage practices do not go back to the early church.
Paul Says Clergy Should Marry
While I applaud the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches for allowing their priests to marry, I must also note their prohibitions on priests marrying after ordination and on bishops marrying are entirely arbitrary. There is nothing about ordination that should bar a pastor/priest from marrying or remarrying if his wife dies. The prohibition on bishops marrying is particularly head-scratching, as the very word for “bishop” (or “overseer”) in the Bible is episkopos (ἐπισκοπῆς). Paul says, “an overseer [episkopos] must be… the husband of one wife… He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church?” (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5).
Now I take the word episkopos to be synonymous with presbyteros (“elder”) based on the parallel passage in Titus 1:5-9, where Paul uses presbyteros (v. 5) interchangeably with episkopos (v. 7) (see also Acts 20:17, 28). I affirm there is only one office of overseer/elder, with some who focus on “preaching and teaching” (1 Timothy 5:17), namely pastors (or what some traditions call priests). This is known as the two-office view of church leadership (a view common to the Southern Presbyterian tradition).
Regardless of whether one agrees with this two-office view, Rome’s Catechism cites these very passages, 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9, in reference to the priesthood (CCC, 1577). So they recognize these requirements are for priests and bishops. Yet they do not practice what Paul says, as he clearly permitted pastors/priests to marry. In fact, the requirements assume a married pastor is the normative practice, seen in that household rule is the measure for church rule. Paul says you know a man will make a good pastor by “managing his household well” and “keeping his children submissive.” How then can Rome know that men will make good priests when most of them do not have households and children to manage? And how can the Orthodox know their bishops will make good bishops if they never managed a family?
If someone wants to argue the episkopos of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 is a bishop, in distinction from the pastor/priest, then we still have Paul teaching a bishop can marry, and is even normally to be married. And if someone wants to argue 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 only speak of a pastor/priest, then that still leaves the pastor/priest as permitted or even expected to marry (and leaves the office of bishop as being an extra-biblical office).
Thus, it really cannot be overstated how wrong the Catholic and Orthodox churches are on this point. And it is an extremely practical point. I know these churches have their reasons, which are especially rooted in church history and councils, along with past concerns about nepotism with bishops. But their practices are still flatly unbiblical. And while these churches have a different view of church tradition than Protestants do, they still esteem the Bible as the Word of God—and thus their traditions are not permitted to contradict Scripture.
Of course, the Catholics and Orthodox will argue their practices do not contradict Scripture (and they will say they can technically be changed). But it still stands that they have spurned the apostolic requirements for ministers. And that apostolic teaching was built on God’s design for man in creation. Nothing has changed about man’s nature since the time of the apostles. While there are exceptional cases of men with the gift of celibacy, most men are gifted with the desire for companionship, sexual relations, and family life. Thus, most men—including clergy—are blessed by a wife as a helper and companion (Genesis 2:18; 1 Corinthians 11:8-9). A wife makes a man holier by preventing temptation to sexual immorality (1 Corinthians 7:1-5). As the Westminster Confession says, “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife, for the increase of mankind with legitimate issue, and of the church with an holy seed; and for preventing of uncleanness” (WCF 24.2).
Both the Catholic and Orthodox churches require their bishops to be celibate, and Rome in effect requires its priests to be celibate (at least in its Western Latin churches). Thus, rather than following Paul’s requirements, they follow man-made rules. As Jesus said of the Pharisees, they make “void the word of God by [their] tradition that [they] have handed down” (Mark 7:13). Accordingly, during the Reformation, one of the first things Catholic priests did when they became Protestant was take a wife. They broke free from man-made restrictions and fulfilled God’s calling to be husbands and fathers in addition to being pastors.
Additional Problems with Unmarried Clergy
Let me mention four additional problems with the teaching of the Catholics and Orthodox on this point.
(1) Many of the apostles, including Peter, were married. Paul says such in 1 Corinthians 9:5—“Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” Cephas is another name for Peter (John 1:42). Thus, the supposed first pope of Roman Catholicism was married. Shouldn’t he set an example of marriage for later clergy? Moreover, Paul says the apostles had the “right” (ἐξουσίαν) to marry. The apostles had the right to marry, but Rome and the Orthodox tell some or all of their clergy they have no such right. Where do they get such authority to bind the consciences of God’s ministers?
(2) The Old Testament priests married. The first high priest, Aaron, clearly had sons, and it was from his biological line that the priests came (Exodus 28:1). The priests were prohibited from marrying a defiled or divorced woman (Leviticus 21:7), and the high priest was required to marry a virgin (Leviticus 21:10, 13-14). But it is quite clear the priests were permitted to marry and produce children (Leviticus 21:15). Protestants still see the OT priests as corresponding to pastors because of the priests’ teaching role in Israel (Deuteronomy 33:10; 2 Chronicles 17:7-9; 35:3; Nehemiah 8:7-9; Malachi 2:4-7). But this is no problem for them, as Protestant pastors marry. On what basis then has this changed from the Old Testament to the New Testament, as Rome must hold?
(3) 1 Timothy 4 says forbidding marriage is Satanic—“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons… who forbid marriage” (1 Timothy 4:1, 3). The Catholics and Orthodox would surely respond that priests and bishops are not required to take office and thus are never absolutely forbidden from marriage. However, God still calls men to office. And if this is the case, then the Catholics and Orthodox pit God’s call to office against God’s call to marry. (And thus pit the the ministry against nature.) But God’s call to marry is normative, seen in God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28). Thus, the vast majority of men are called to marry, but the Catholics and Orthodox say such men cannot be bishops (or priests, per Rome). No wonder Rome in particular has a priest shortage. Combined with the previous arguments that God permits—and even expects most clergy to marry—1 Timothy 4:1-5 should concern those who require celibacy of anyone, including clergy, that they may be following the anti-marriage teaching of demons. Paul says marriage, like food, is “good” because it is created by God, and thus it is to be “received with thanksgiving.” God permits His ministers to marry so long as they receive this good gift with a grateful heart.
(4) Pastors/priests do represent Christ in a sense, in that they proclaim His Word and should model the keeping of His commands. Thus, the pastor is not to be exactly like Jesus in every way (as He is Lord and Savior), but the pastor is to follow Jesus and His teaching. And Jesus nowhere commands His pastors to be celibate. In fact, many of His apostles modeled married life, and their requirements for pastors expect marriage as the norm. They all had the right to marry (1 Corinthians 9:5). So unless a pastor, priest, or bishop has the gift of celibacy (i.e., contentment in singleness), then he should marry. Christ’s shepherds should set an example for the flock. And since marriage is normative for mankind, that means shepherds should normally model godly marriage, not celibacy. The typical pastor should be a husband and father.
Conclusion
The practice of Rome and the Orthodox requiring some or all clergy to be celibate goes well beyond the teaching of the Bible. In fact, it is explicitly contrary to the apostolic expectations for clergy found in the New Testament. Further, it does not follow the practice of the OT priests or the NT apostles. This is ironic, as both Rome and the Orthodox claim they are the true heirs of the apostolic church, not the Protestants. Yet claims of “apostolic succession” do not make a church apostolic, but only following the teaching of Christ’s apostles—which is contained in the New Testament.
Instead of Roman Catholic priests and Eastern Orthodox bishops modeling godly marriage and fatherhood for their flocks, they model celibacy (or worse, sexual sin). Surely Rome is the greater offender here. But I pray both these churches making such requirements for clergy repent of this practice. It is unbiblical and therefore displeasing to God. Until then, let this be clear proof that these churches are in serious error, and one should not be surprised that they follow other erroneous man-made teachings of even greater consequence.
