Vatican reaffirms value of celibacy for priests


Just wondering why the focus on celibacy when Peter, whom the Catholic church claims was the first pope, was married?


And Jesus, our Lord, King, and High Priest–whom the Pope represents– was celibate.


Does that mean Peter didn’t represent the Lord because he wasn’t celibate?


Peter left his family to follow the Lord and then preach God’s word.


Peter’s married state has nothing to do with the prudential and disciplinary decisions by the Vatican on the celibacy of priests. The decision was made for the Latin Rite for good cause, and is being upheld for good cause.

The arguments against celibacy are unconvincing because they are not based in a desire to wholeheartedly serve the Church. There is no need for a married priesthood and the gift of celibacy ought not to be taken from our priests.


This dove-tails nicely into the women priest thing:

Some of Christ’s chosen apostles were married
Some were not
Therefore, the validity of the Sacrament of Holy Orders does not stand or fall on celibacy and thus, the authoritative Church may govern one way or another as she sees fit.

All of Christ’s chosen apostles were male
No apostles were female
Therefore the validity of the sacrament of Holy Orders does stand or fall on gender and thus, the Church has no authority to rescind Our Lord’s choice of apostles and ordain women.


I didn’t say anything about taking if from the priests. I’m only wondering why it is required despite the fact that Peter was married.


St. Paul was celibate. Jesus was celibate. In heaven, we will be celibate. In modelling themselves after Christ and the next life in heaven, the celibacy of the priesthood is a beautiful sacrifice.

More about why celibacy is biblical here:


The several Scriptural warrants, including our Lord’s own teaching and practice, point to celibacy as the higher good.

This was recognized very early in the Church. When people were appointed to the presbyterate (our word for Priest), if married, they were expected to live in continence henceforth. One of the canons of the Council of Nicea addresses this very point.

The Eastern Churches will ordain a married man to the priesthood, but once he is ordained, he may not then marry. Their bishops must be celibate. So clerical celibacy is not just a “Catholic” thing. Moreover, married clergy in the East refrain from their conjugal privileges on the day before they celebrate the Eucharist.

The Church embraces the higher good in response to the call of Christ to “come up higher.” He offers this gift to us for the building up of the Church and for the good of those who are able to receive it. Jesus himself says that this gift is for the few.


No apostles were female but wasn’t it Aquila and Priscilla who expounded unto Apollos the way of God more perfectly?


If you say so. Then, so what does that have to do with the price of tea?


We only know that Peter was married because of mention of his mother-in-law. The Scriptures tell us nothing about his wife or children. It is entirely possible that his wife had died and he was childless.

Jesus answered Peter about the commitment of following him in religious service, so it appears Peter was free to do so:

Luke 18:28-30: And Peter said, “Lo, we have left our homes and followed you.” And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”


I support it, so do all of the priests I know. So what’s the problem?


I don’t say so. You can find it in the book of Acts. It was you who brought up the issue of not ordaining women. God will use whomever he chooses to fulfill His purpose. Who are you to say whether or not that person can be a man or not?


Priscilla and Aquilla were also Montanist heretics.


You’re right. I can’t argue with your point.


Be careful. How many priests do you know vs. # of priests worldwide?


I meant by ‘you say so’ meaning I didn’t recall the passage, but accepted your testimony on it. I was agreeing with you. (Is it a full moon tonight?)

In the Church there are Sacraments which have form and matter.
In the Eucharist the matter is bread and wine. Use beer and a slice of pizza, and you don’t have a sacrament.

In the sacrament of Holy Orders the matter is a baptized male. Use a baptized female and you don’t have a sacrament.

That is why. If one does not believe there are such things as sacraments, that is an argument for another thread.


It’s not us. It’s Jesus. In Catholic Sacramental theology, Bishops receive Apostolic authority (“go and teach all nations”) and sacramental faculties as established by Christ (the Last Supper, Easter night, Pentecost). They are entrusted with the authority to define the teaching.

Any faithful, well instructed, Christian – Priscilla & Aquila – has the authority to teach defined doctrine. It does not make them priests or Apostles.


I’m sure the person who claims Aquila and Priscilla heretics can explain himself/herself. What are you talking about?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit