|
|
|
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.Now, this is addressed to both those who have never been married, and those who have been married but have had their spouse pass away. In either case, it makes no difference because Paul clearly (for all people who are not married) is making the case that celibacy is a worthy practice IF they have been called to it.
However, allow us to look at another letter of Paul's, specifically his first letter to Timothy, and in these verses the rules Paul lays forth for those who wish to aspire to the office of Bishop (1 Tim. 3:1-6 RSV):
The saying is sure: If any one aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible, dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.Now, some non-Catholic Christians will use this passage to say that Paul clearly indicated that bishops must be the husband of one wife in order to obtain that office. And they'll take the latter verse talking about how he must be a good manager of his own household to prove the former. But if we look at these statements in this light, then a couple of other questions beg to be asked:
1)Does this mean that anyone who does not want to be a bishop can have more than one wife?
2)If so, does this mean that Paul condoned polygamy?
I think we can safely say that Paul was not a polygamist, that he was very much in favor for equality between the sexes. If Paul was condoning polygamy, he truly WOULD be the biggest hypocrite of all-time. No, rather something else is being said by these verses.
However, before we go onto that, let it said that Paul himself was a bishop, if not of a particular church but of an entire multitude of churches which he kept in constant contact with. If his letters were not letters of oversight (making him an overseer... aka bishop) then I don't know what they are.
So, now we see that Paul was both a bishop and single, both by his own admission. But didn't Paul just get done saying that a Bishop MUST be the husband of one wife? I mean, this bishop must be a married man and he has to be an example to the people in the then and now for that is obviously a requirement of how to decide if a man would make a good bishop or not (he has to be judged as to how he runs his household).
Isn't this also hypocritical? Well, it is if you take this all hyper-literally, which a few of my non-Catholic Christian friends like to do on selective occassions, in other words when it appears to refute Catholicism. Of course, when the literalism begins to support Catholicism (ie: John 6 and the Eucharist) things clearly become only-symbolic. I'll leave everyone who reads this to notice the irony involved in this.
However, let us not focus on Paul alone here. Through his epistles, we know of at least one other Bishop who lived a lifestyle quite similar to St. Paul himself, Timothy. Paul quite clearly speaks of Timothy's divinely appointed status as bishop of his congregation: "I entrust this charge to you, Timothy my child, in accordance with the prophetic words once spoken about you." (1 Tim 1:18)
In both letters to Timothy, Paul often talks the duties and trials Timothy must endure, and he often speaks about the qualities Timothy possesses, specifically his purity (1 Tim 4:12). And 2 Timothy 2:4 clearly speaks about the single life ("does not become entangled in the business affairs of life").
In addition, Church history clearly states that Timothy was celibate his entire life, and that he was Bishop of Ephesus. The following is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia.
St. Timothy has been regarded by some as the "angel of the church of Ephesus", Apoc., ii, 1-17. According to the ancient Roman martyrology he died Bishop of Ephesus. The Bollandists (24 Jan.) give two lives of St. Timothy, one ascribed to Polycrates (an early Bishop of Ephesus, and a contemporary of St. Iren�us) and the other by Metaphrastes, which is merely an expansion of the former. The first states that during the Neronian persecution St. John arrived at Ephesus, where he lived with St. Timothy until he was exiled to Patmos under Domitian. Timothy, who was unmarried, continued Bishop of Ephesus until, when he was over eighty years of age, he was mortally beaten by the pagans.So it's not like I'm making this up. This is ancient Church history. And I doubt they would have made this up either to suppport the 'celibate priesthood'.
Besides, there are quite a few role-models within the Church who would seem to indicate that in the service of God, celibacy is a worthy and holy goal. We have Paul, Timothy, Jeremiah and even Jesus Christ Himself! And also, let us not forget the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19:12 (RSV)
For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.This is truly a clear indication from Jesus Christ, that those who wish to be celibate in their pursuit of service to God, should feel no pressure to conform the whims of society, and to the temptation of the flesh.
Well, for those of you who hold Paul in high-esteem, do not worry. He is not being hypocritical here. When Paul talks about a man being the husband of one wife, he is clearly referring to the fact that if a man wishes to be bishop that he must not have been divorced (or a polygamist), because God clearly hates divorce and polygamy is not moral. A bishop must be on solid moral ground for his community, and if it does not start in the home of those who are married, it will not develop in the community. So, if a man who wishes to be bishop IS married, he must never have been divorced AND he must manage his household well. This is reasonable criteria, but it does not rule out those who are single and celibate.
Why? Because Paul himself was single and celibate, and given the wording of the letter to Timothy there is no reason to assume that Paul was excluding himself. Paul constantly refers people back to his own actions, using himself as an example for the people. If this verse supports ONLY married men, then Paul has disqualified himself.
So, in all actuality, Paul does not exclude single men. He does however place additional qualifiers on men who are married. And if one reads Paul's letters even more closely, it is fairly obvious that Paul desired the celibate life for those who would lead the Church (2 Tim 2:3-4 RSV):
Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him.The crux of the whole matter is, that if certain non-Catholic Christians are so opposed to the Roman Catholic discipline of celibacy for those who voluntarily accept it, that they take the polarized view of forcing all their clergy to BE married. For if any of their clergy are not married, they are in conflict with what has already been quoted by the non-Catholic person who wishes to undermine the Catholic position. This then boils down to case of the teapot calling the kettle black.
And the point here is. The Catholic position does not take an either/or position, like the non-Catholic would have it, based on any doctrine. Rather it is a discipline clearly supported by Scripture. It is sound practice, for a man cannot have two masters, and if he wishes to serve in full capacity for Christ, he needs to devote himself entirely to these matters. As a discipline, it could easily be changed, allowing both, which is already actually the case within the Catholic Church.
So in summary, Paul is not a hypocrite. It's just that a hyper-literalism has invaded the message and hidden its truth.
