Celibacy by C. M. S.

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D.C. · Feb 25, 1915

Celibacy

By C. M. S.

“Rome Never Changes”—No. 14

Celibacy

One of the most peculiar practices of the Roman Church is the compulsory celibacy of its priests, monks, and nuns. It is a practice both unnatural and unnecessary, and one which was not followed by any of the patriarchs. It was never a practice in the Jewish church, and did not manifest itself in the Christian Church until hundreds of years this side the days of the apostles. It is still more peculiar in that, while marriage is one of Rome’s seven sacraments, and all the sacraments are believed to have “the power of signifying sanctity and justice, and of imparting both to the receiver,” the clergy, monks, and nuns are denied the right to receive the blessing which that sacrament confers. See “Catechism of the Council of Trent,” De Sac., pars 2, sec. 10.

Concerning the matter of celibacy, the Council of Trent speaks as follows:—

Whoever shall affirm that persons in holy orders, or regulars, who have made a solemn profession of chastity, may marry, let him be anathema.—Council of Trent, sess. 24, can. 9.

In view of Rome’s two claims, that she is the true apostolic church, and that she never changes, we might be led to expect that the doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy was a doctrine of apostolic origin, and that it was practiced by the apostles and their immediate and all other successors. But what is the fact in the case? Paul claimed for himself the right to marry; and, in making the claim, shows beyond the possibility of doubt that the principle or doctrine of celibacy was unknown in the days of the apostles. He says:—

“Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” 1 Cor. 9:5.

Here is Cephas, (Peter. See John 1:42.) whom the Church of Rome claims as the first pope, used by Paul as one whose example he had a right to follow in the matter of marriage; and not only so, but the “other apostles” also set the same kind of example. Matthew and Luke both speak of Peter’s wife’s mother. The apostles, even “the brethren of the Lord,” were not celibates. The “first pope” (the one whom Rome claims as the first pope) was a married man; others of the apostles were married men; and Paul claims that he had a right to marry,—as much right as the others had,—and he does not condemn them for the example they set. How different is his example and his attitude from that of the Council of Trent, which pronounces a curse upon those who teach that they who have entered “holy orders” have a right to marry. Paul teaches that the ministers of Christ’s church have a right to marry. The Council of Trent declares that they who teach that are accursed. In view of Rome’s claim that she is the apostolic church, has there not been a change, a radical change? What Peter did, Rome now declares her spiritual leaders shall not do, under pain of her anathema. What Paul taught then, Rome declares can be taught now only under her curse. We know of no other church that has changed to such a tremendous degree as the Church of Rome has changed in this matter.

Bungener, in his history of the Council of Trent, says that while the Church of Rome “has made male or female saints of all the persons named or alluded to in the New Testament, and even of some who are not named or alluded to there,—for example, the father and mother of Mary,—she has taken care not to grant the honor to the wife of Peter, notwithstanding the fact that Paul represents her as accompanying the apostle in his painful and perilous journeys.” One cannot help wondering why this blank is left in the calendar of the saints. We can see no reason for the omission except that the Roman Church does not wish to emphasize the fact that Peter (her “first pope,” so-called) had a wife, and that any pope who would follow his example now would be under the ban of her curse. But there is the fact that Rome now prohibits and curses the thing that “blessed Peter” did, and that the other apostles did, and that Paul said they all had a right to do.

The inconsistency of Rome’s position in this matter is further shown in the matter of the qualification of bishops and deacons. What the qualifications of officers are we find in the following scripture:—

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife. . . . One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) . . . Likewise must the deacons be grave. . . . Even so must their wives be grave. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.” 1 Tim. 3:2-12.

That Paul had a definite purpose in specifying these qualifications is seen from the fact that he continues the subject over into the next chapter of his letter to Timothy, and there tells the reason for laying down those qualifications of church officers. He says:—

“Now the Spirit speaketh 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 a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats,” etc. 1 Tim. 4:1-3.

Did the Spirit speak truly? Did Paul’s prophecy come true? Let Rome’s prohibition of marriage among her bishops, priests, deacons, and nuns answer these questions. Paul, through the influence of the Holy Spirit, saw that working of apostasy creeping into the church, and left, for our benefit and enlightenment, his testimony and the testimony of the Spirit against it; for, said he, “The Spirit speaketh expressly.” This is an emphatic expression, and is used nowhere else in the New Testament and only twice in the Old. That which the Spirit warns against “expressly,” and “expressly” declares is an indication of departure “from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,” ought to be expressly heeded by Christians everywhere.

Paul, speaking under the Holy Spirit’s influence, warned the church against the practice of celibacy. He declared that practice to be an indication of apostasy; that it was fostered by seducing spirits; and that as a doctrine it was a doctrine of devils. What the Holy Spirit declared would come did come, and is in the world today, one of the most striking features of the Roman Church. Can the church now turn its back upon the warnings of the Holy Spirit, the testimony of Scripture, and the example of the apostles, and say that what was a sign of apostasy in the days of Paul is now a sign of loyalty to Christian truth? To do so would be to declare the apostles apostates and to put the warnings of the Holy Spirit under the anathema of the church. And logically that is exactly what is done when the Roman Church condemns what Peter and the other apostles did and what Paul taught they had a right to do, and then anathematizes the teaching that the spiritual leaders

of the church may marry. There is in this matter a deadly conflict between the Roman Church and the Holy Spirit. Surely the true Christian ought to be able to decide which is the more Christian of these two contestants.

Paul declares that “marriage is honorable in all,” and does not exclude the clergy from that honor or that right; and Peter shows that chastity and marriage are associated in the believers. See 1 Peter 3:2. If marriage and chastity are incompatible, then God’s institution of matrimony (which Rome calls a sacrament) stands condemned as an unchaste institution. But the Word of God, the teachings of Christ and his apostles, and common sense condemn such an idea. Nevertheless, one of the great cardinals of the Roman Church, Cardinal Bellarmine, declares that “it is a greater evil for a priest to marry than to commit fornication.”—De Monach, lib. 2, cap. 34, Tom. II, col. 375. Whom shall we believe, Cardinal Bellarmine or the Holy Spirit? Whose example shall we follow, that of the cardinal or that of “blessed Peter”?

One of the scriptures which Rome dwells upon and misinterprets in teaching the practice of celibacy is the following:—

“The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: but they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.” Luke 20:34-36.

But this text, if it could be interpreted as Rome interprets it, would unjoint the entire gospel and disarrange the whole plan of salvation. If her interpretation were true, then all who “obtain that world” will have lived single in this world. Only those who have been celibates will have a “resurrection from the dead.” More than that, one who practiced celibacy here would never die, but would be “equal unto the angels” here and now. If that text applies to the practices of Christians in this world, all these deductions are logical and inevitable. But this scripture cannot be so applied. It is a plain and most inexcusable wresting of the scripture so to apply it. The caviling Sadducees, who did not believe in a resurrection, had asked the Saviour whose wife a certain woman would be in the resurrection who had had several husbands in this life. His answer was, as the text plainly teaches, that “in the resurrection” (that is, in the future life) those who have been accounted worthy of the resurrection “neither marry, nor are given in marriage: neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels.” But there is no promise nor prospect that in this life

men and women are to be made equal unto the angels by anything that they may do or refrain from doing. Says the Scripture concerning this matter:—

“What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; and crownedst him with glory and honor.” Heb. 2:6, 7.

To attempt to make the Saviour’s answer to the Sadducees an authorization of celibacy in this present life is a flagrant misinterpretation of our Saviour’s words, a violent wresting of the scripture, which must receive the condemnation of heaven.

Another text which is similarly misused is the following:—

“These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins.” Rev. 14:4, 5.

If this is, as Rome teaches, a divine authorization of celibacy, it puts the stamp of Heaven’s disapproval upon all who have contracted matrimony in this world. Even Adam, who was married by Jehovah himself, would fall under the implied condemnation of that scripture, as would all the patriarchs and most of the prophets and the apostles—and “blessed Peter.” But the text teaches nothing of the kind. It means that that company of the redeemed are “virgins” in a spiritual sense. They have not been defiled by a union with apostate churches.

We have shown that whereas the institution of marriage was God-ordained, was practiced by the most exemplary followers of God in all ages, was recognized by our Saviour, was declared by his apostle “honorable in all,” was practiced by the disciples of our Lord, including Peter, the Church of Rome has forbidden it to her spiritual leaders under pain of her curse; and this the Spirit declared the spirit of apostasy would do. Rome still claims to be the true apostolic church. On that claim, therefore, taken together with her attitude toward marriage, she herself proves that she has changed. Not only so, but in that attitude toward that institution, the Roman Church fulfills to the letter the prophecy of Paul given through the Holy Spirit.

We shall consider in another article the time when this practice came into the church, and the source from which it came.

C. M. S.