Talk:Clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Christianity Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism Low‑importance Clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles

The contents of the Viri probati page were merged into Clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church on April 12, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I added a few of the references that were implied. DaveTroy 10:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will abide by whatever my fellow-editors decide. Please express your opinions. For my part, I think that it is highly inappropriate to link this article with one that considers sex without ejaculation but with multiple orgasms to be one form of sexual continence. For the Catholic Church, clerical celibacy means more than just being unmarried. The link even suggests that the continence of the Catholic clergy could include having sex without ejaculation with people with whom, by definition, they are not married! I think the link would only be suitable for an article entitled "clerical celibacy (Tantric sects)"! Lima 19:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the link is inappropriate. Majoreditor 02:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph makes plain the meaning of sexual continence.

Sexual continence is a lifestyle in which one refrains from all sexual contact even while married. In the Early Christian Church of the West, sexual continence was required of deacons, priests and bishops. Sexual continence is a form of the virtue of chastity (to refrain from sexual contact outside of marriage) but is not necessarily the same as celibacy (the unmarried state). Sexual continence is distinct from celibacy in that one can be continent within marriage but celibacy is the unmarried state.

Lima, you have cherry picked one line at the end of the article under the heading "Other Uses of the Phrase". As you know, there are many phrases that have multiple uses. This article refers to the primary use as outlined in the opening paragraph.

The concept of sexual continence is an important one for understanding clerical celibacy which has its origins in the practice of continence. If the sexual continence article is inadequate, then let improve it. But the concept of sexual continence in the early church should not be obscured because you are uncomfortable with on line at the end of an article.129.74.228.5 03:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an article detailing differences between the Eastern and Western traditions of the Catholic Church, the term "Roman" is problematic. Eastern Catholics are not properly considered "Roman" Catholics. In Catholic parlance "Roman" is an ambiguous term, sometimes refering to the whole of the Catholic Church and sometimes refering to just the Western rite of the Catholic Church. So, "Roman" should be avoided.EastmeetsWest 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I believe the writer is talking about non Latin right churches in union with Rome, (thus Roman Catholic), as opposed to 'Orthodox' churches, who consider themselves Ecumenical (Catholic), but are not in union with Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.192.47 (talk) 05:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Cholij's latest work contradicts his earlier work - do we include that?InfernoXV 19:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Of course, with source directly consultable, like his first work, or at least accurately reported and cited. Lima 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that even though early church councils discussed celibacy it did not become enforced until later years when inheritance rights became controversial. According to the priests the land they worked on belonged to them and thus could be inherited by their children. To stop priests from giving church land away to their children (as well as for them to focus on God rather than family affairs), it was decided that priests should not marry at all. Nice or in evil (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is astonishing that this article makes NO MENTION of this aspect of the celibacy practices -There is a good summary of them here

http://www.libchrist.com/bible/catholiccelibacy.html - i suspect the vatican has this wiki article on 24 hour edit patrol !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumadoireacht (talk • contribs) 15:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most common criticism of celibacy is that it is an advanced form of male chauvinism, which is related to the notion of patriarchy. Critics of celibacy will commonly interpet it as an expression of the Church's contempt for women. This view has notably been expressed in the book Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven by feminist theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann. ADM (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone expert add a section on the obligations and dividing lines in the church between celibacy and chastity? Monks and I think priests took a vow of chastity ("poverty, chastity and obedience") but could they still be married up to a particular date?86.46.211.37 (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual scandals among priests, especially homosexuality and pedophilia, the defenders say, are a breach of the Church's discipline, not a result of it, especially since only a small percentage of priests have been involved.

The above statment (which is currently in the article) seems dubious, or misleading. IIRC, surveys indicate that most priests fail to consistently adhere to their vows of celibacy. Don't have a source; IIRC, I heard it on NPR.--Elvey (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some discussion of the gene pool idiocy of making the brightest men and women celibate -though there is always some leakage(lol) -two common surnames in ireland are macanaspie and macentaggart --son of the bishop and son of the priest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tumadoireacht (talk • contribs) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic or other Christian or Abrahamic religions are not unique in their prohibitions of sex for religious orders and the commonality underlying this is not addressed, rather the traditional drivel is regurgitated and in a narrow largely catholic context. The Vestal Virgins, for example, typify the thinking of the primitive mind in this respect and it can be traced right back to primitive animistic cults. The holding of sex as impure is a special case of the sexual otherness of the religious worker. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul wishes others to be "as I am" - but does not say he is celibate. He may mean "content in whatever circumstance you are in - be that married, widowed or single" - as in the rest of the chapter. See also 1 Cor 9:6, where he says that he and Barnabus have the right to material support and to take along a believing wife ... then says they have not used the right to material suppport, but notably does not say that they have not used the right to take along a believing wife. Interestingly if it were not for the single mention there of Peter's wife accompanying him we would probably assume Peter to be single.

Not quite OR - it is all in the commentaries somewhere!

Regards, Springnuts (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What commentaries? For a selection of (Protestant) commentaries, see this website on 1 Cor 7:7, and this on 1 Cor 9:5. They all interpret these verses as indicating that Paul was living a single life, even if some suppose he may once have married. Esoglou (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement made in the article: The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, without exception, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate" is erroneous. If a priest converts to the Roman Catholic Church the church may place him as a priest, in most cases it will be within the Byzantine Rite Catholic Church, which is still under the directive of the Pope. Also the church will accept an Anglican priest who is married and chooses to convert. ^[1]

It is blantantly wrong to state the the priests in the Easter Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches may not marry. While a priest may choose to remain single, the greater number and vast majority of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Priests are married. Monks do remain unmarried, as do nuns in both religions. To quote from your very own Wikipedia article on the Eastern Orthodox Church: With the exception of bishops, who remain celibate, the Orthodox Church has always allowed priests and deacons to be married, provided the marriage takes place before ordination. In general it is considered preferable for parish priests to be married as they often act as counsel to married couples and thus can draw on their own experience." ^[2] And the Oriental Orthodox Church follows the same dogmas set forth by the First Eccumenical Council in 325 AD which rejected the idea that all priests should be chosen from a pool of the unmarried, as was the emerging trend for the West.

Pzzldmom (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that in those churches a married man may be ordained a priest, not that an ordained priest may marry. Not the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may be more than simply permission for a married man to be ordained. There is a sense, according to Greek Orthodox priests I have spoken with that the wife of a priest exercises a priestly ministry of her own (amongst women in particular). In other words, that they are ordained as a husband and wife team. This is why the man will not remarry if she dies. Just FWIW - others will know far more, but that is what I am told. Regards, Springnuts (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Although speaking of the wife as "ordained" is inexact and the comment is of less relevance in this article on clerical celibacy in the Catholic Church than in the general article on clerical celibacy. The reason why the man will not remarry if she dies is the same reason why in the Eastern Orthodox Church an unmarried man who is ordained a priest will not marry. Esoglou (talk) 21:14, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou, You make a valid point, although I am not sure it goes quite far enough, and I think Springnuts may have gone beyond what we hold as an Orthodox belief. While every single church would hold their Matushka, or Presbytera in the highest regard, they are certainly not regarded as a priestly "team." The priest of the church is the only one who would be able to perform any of the sacraments. However, most of the married women, or young women of the church would look to the priests wife as a role model. But, to be more precise in what you said, Esoglou, a married man not only would be ordained, but there are by far more married priests than single priests, and it is the preferred status of a priest. In fact, while I do not have an exact number available but do have a good educated guess, I would wager that less than 5% of the entire clergy is unmarried priests. Monks, of course fall into another realm altogether. It is only in a church that is far outlaying, not have enough money to support a priest and his family and not be able to procure funds from the diocese or several churches that support one travelling priest that would have an unmarried priest.Pzzldmom (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. Once ordained, whether as an already married man or as a celibate travelling priest, they cannot marry, in the sense of getting married. Esoglou (talk) 17:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany all politicians of german parties in Bundestag support to open celibacy for married priests. In January 2011, german CDU politicians Erwin Teufel, Norbert Lammert, Annette Schavan, Dieter Althaus, Bernhard Vogel published an open letter in German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. They want to open catholic celibacy for married men. Also german president Christian Wulff support this.

• Merkur:Christian Wullf says catholic church should think about celibacy (german)
• Zeit:CDU politicans over catholic celibacy (german)
• Tagesschau:Katholische Kirche soll Zölibat überdenken (german)

That should be part of article. Michael Francois (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the view of six German politicians (out of hundreds) is enough to change the discipline of the Latin Church. Esoglou (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it isn't only the view of six conservative catholic politians in Germany. It is the view of all German parties. We have here in Germany no party in Bundestag, which support clercial celibacy in roman catholic church. Michael Francois (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

and also pope Pope Benedict XVI supported in February 1970 to open catholic celibacy for married priests. Michael Francois (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• CatholicHerald:As a young priest Benedict XVI ‘called for the Church to investigate priestly celibacy’

As a young priest Benedict XVI ‘called for the Church to investigate priestly celibacy’. Michael Francois (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't politicians, even of many countries, that decide canon law, nor theologians, especially if they are only calling for a study of the matter. I think views such as those mentioned are no novelty and have been aired for centuries. Esoglou (talk) 18:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Tageschau:Theologen wollen Reform der katholischen Kirche (german)
• Zeit: Dutzende katholische Theologen begehren auf (german)
• Focus:144 katholische Theologen fordern Abschaffung des Zölibates (german)

Over 140 catholic theologians of German, Austrian and Swiss universities support in February 2011 an open letter, in which they want to open catholic clergy for married men and women. 92.252.102.129 (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more worthwhile. Go ahead and put it in the article. I don't think anyone will object in any way. Esoglou (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• until March 3, 2011 over 260 catholic theologians signed that memorandum Church 2011.
• Memorandum Church 2011 92.252.93.210 (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

at the end of memorandum over 310 professors signed that memorandum. 188.118.139.189 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"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, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth." 1 Timothy 4:1-3.

32.104.18.240 (talk) 02:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

> The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, without exception, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate.

For roman catholicism it is simple, since their priests can never marry and cannot become widowers, but what about the ortodoxy?

Let's say a young man finishes theology school and marries before ordination to full priesthood. He then proves talented, diligent and popular during his decades of priestly service. He wants to become a bishop and his superiors would like to make him into a bishop, so he could do more for the district, but cannot, because the wife is still dishwashing in the kitchen (and she is no longer pretty after having given birth to several kids and raising them).

I would assume suspicious cases of said wife happening to stand under a falling brick or eating arsenic in her soup are somewhat regular occurances, especially in places like Greece, where lethal violance against women is not taboo (see Zorba). Say what you want, but people did most terrible things to become Popes during the renaissance, for example. Human ambition is limitless and often overrides morals. I wonder how the orthodox world in general deals with this dilemma, where the widower rule essentially encourages talented priests to get rid of their wives, if they are to climb higher in the hierarchy? 91.82.39.212 (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An anon editor has removed the paragraph discussing the recent Coptic papyrus without an edit summary. Normally, I would treat this as vandalism, but I am allowing it to stand, because personally I was inclined to remove the paragraph already. The authenticity and validity of the papyrus has been legitimately called into question by many authorities. The plain fact of the matter is that this is a non-event in the worlds of Scriptural scholarship and Christology. I already added a passel of sources which discredit it and I could add many more, including the Vatican's own. It would violate WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV to retain such a paragraph. Elizium23 (talk) 10:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Springnuts (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An awful lot of this reads like Jesuitical casuistry; that is, it attempts to backdate celibacy to the early years of the church, when in fact, celibacy did not become an issue until much later, and it cites, without quoting, the texts used by the reformers of the sixteenth century in a transparent attempt to SEEM fair while withholding important texts. It also discusses Wills' arguments quite unfairly (and from a weird distance – the "said policy" etc etc) and incompletely, emphasizing the conspiratorial tinge to the book without seriously addressing its main substance: that celibacy for priests was a late innovation, and that the model of a monk for an ordinary cleric was a disaster which has lately haunted the church. The discussions of peadophilia in particular deal with the subject only glancingly, and in a question-begging and logically incomplete manner. A policy of celibacy tends to attract those who are sexually confused, and who therefore hope that rigorous discipline will school them to not have the desires they do have; it doesn't work. I think the poster who alleged that the Vatican trolls this article to keep it "pure" , though he or she exaggerates, has nevertheless got a point: the article reads like one I once read in a Catholic dictionary of the Bible, which transformed an entry on the brothers and sisters of Jesus (mentioned specifically in the NT) into a meditation on the perpetual virginity of Mary. In exactly the same way, this article has been skewed in the direction of current Vatican policy, and does not offer a neutral or unbiased history of the topic. It would be nice if Mr Wills would offer his expertise in cleaning it up. We live in hopes. Theonemacduff (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This thread at Catholic Answers reveals that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has responded negatively to the question of whether married deacons are bound to observe perpetual continence, that is, abstain from sexual relations with their wives. I am not sure if the letter, which bears a protcol number for verification, is published or acceptable as a Wikipedia source, but there you have it; in light of the current assertion which casts doubt on this position, I think it bears mentioning alongside what was recently added. Elizium23 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of changing the polemical heading. If there had been a condition of imposing complete continence on married deacons (and also on married priests such as former Anglicans), it would surely have been well known long before now. Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have decided to remove the new addition as failing WP:SYNTH because while it references a reliable source for the first assertion, it makes assumptions and does not provide sources for e.g. "The Vatican has not publicly commented". Elizium23 (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This new section is veering into problems with WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENT. First, undue weight. The coverage of clerical celibacy has been covered extensively for hundreds or thousands of years. Surely a section on someone who has been leader of the Church for less than a month can be reduced to a sentence or so. Right now, it is roughly the same size as the parent section on "After Vatican II", which covers a 50-year period. Now as to recentism, can we not agree that nothing has changed in the Church since Francis was elected? He has not issued any encyclicals and, if I am to read this article correctly, he has not even spoken about celibacy since his election! All his comments were made as Cardinal Bergoglio. So I protest the inclusion of large paragraphs on his views, presented so soon and before anything at all has changed. Please reduce it to a sentence and upmerge to the "Vatican II" section. Elizium23 (talk) 05:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I admit that I didn't think it would be controversial when I entered the information because, regardless of the time Francis has been pope, he is THE pope, and so his views on the subject are supremely important to the Catholic Church, more important than any other individual's in the world: one reason his past remarks in the book have received such extensive news coverage. Naturally, the decision should be made by consensus and I'll certainly respect whatever that consensus is after other editors weigh in. (To be fair, if it is reduced, readers can read more detail in the reference.) NearTheZoo (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS-did go back and pruned the section slightly, cutting out remarks that only reiterated points already covered in this article.NearTheZoo (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several hundred other popes whose views are not mentioned as well, simply because they haven't made it an important part of their papacy. Unless Pope Francis makes this a significant part of his doctrine or papacy, I don't think he should be mentioned at all in this article. the church has had this view for over a thousand years, and Pope Francis as of yet hasn't tried to change it. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The section serves only to wave a flag that the discipline might (who knows?) be changed by Francis. The only prudent course is to wait and see. Nothing has transpired since March to justify the inclusion of this section.Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is raised, in a most unsatisfactory and confusing way, in the last para. of the section "Exceptions" which I have recently edited in order to show the current status questionis so far as concerns the magisterium of the Catholic Church. I propose deleting all reference to the topic in this article because (1) the treatment of what is, anyway, an amorphous topic, is confused and misleadingly keyed into the entirely different situation of the Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia before 1989 where married men of Latin rite were clandestinely (and, to some extent, dubiously: see, e.g., under Felix Maria Davidek) ordained as priests in the Byzantine rite (which permits the ordination of married men); (2) the cited reference is anonymous, incomplete and inadequate; (3) it is only a theoretical exception and not an actual one (contrast the topics discussed in the previous paras of the section); and (4) as recently as 2005 it was rejected by the Synod of Bishops as a topic for consideration (a point I made in my last edit to the article). Ridiculus mus (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not oppose your proposal, but I suggest that you consider also the possibility of moving the mention, minus the reference to the unclear Czechoslovak matter, to under "Since the Second Vatican Council". Esoglou (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, Esoglu. Done. In course of the edit it seemed to me the treatment of the topic in the section "After the Second Vatican Council" was inadequate, so I have expanded it. Frankly it strikes me as more than odd that the first detailed exposition of the Church's teaching appears only after "the celibacy debate" section - but that reflects the lopsided way the article happens to have developed. Ridiculus mus (talk) 14:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Canon law (Catholic Church) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926192741/http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf to http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100727041154/http://www.zenit.org:80/rssenglish-29058 to http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-29058
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701075118/http://www.vatican.va:80/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926192741/http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf to http://www.vanimo-diocese.com/download/pastoral_letters/2005-Pastoral-Paper-On-Priestly-Celibacy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022044253/http://zimmerman.catholic.ac:80/p-celibacy.htm to http://zimmerman.catholic.ac/p-celibacy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clerical celibacy (Catholic Church). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110211083432/http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390 to http://www.memorandum-freiheit.de/?page_id=390
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_24061967_sacerdotalis_en.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://zimmerman.catholic.ac/p-celibacy.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In October 2019, most of bishops at Amazonassynod said, married priests should be allowed in Roman Catholic church.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amazkatheneu (talk • contribs) 12:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be the church's case with the celibacy policy.2601:447:4100:C120:88F0:1D3:2AE2:B988 (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yiannic2020, Orthodox bishops are drawn from the celibate ranks, usually monks. Also, no apostolic church will permit an ordained man to marry. You've got it backwards. Married men can be ordained - Catholics, EO and OO can agree on that. Ordained men can't marry - just ask a cleric whose wife has passed away, he'll be celibate for life. Elizium23 (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23 I understand this, you are correct - however, bishops were not the topic in question, it was priests, who are certainly permitted to marry in the Orthodox church (before ordination). The article originally read: "The Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches, in general, rule out ordination of married men to the episcopate..." which is clearly incorrect. Yiannic2020 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The episcopate" is bishops, dude. That is the topic. Elizium23 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]