Is Clerical Celibacy Mandatory?
Orthodox Christians object to the Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests, pointing to the apostolic tradition of married clergy and citing Canon IV of the Council of Gangra, which anathematizes those who refuse to receive communion from married priests. They maintain that celibacy should be voluntary, not mandatory, and see the Catholic position as contradicting early Church practice, where married men were commonly ordained to the priesthood.
Orthodox Christians object to the Roman Catholic requirement of celibacy for priests, pointing to the apostolic tradition of married clergy and citing Canon IV of the Council of Gangra, which anathematizes those who refuse to receive communion from married priests. They maintain that celibacy should be voluntary, not mandatory, and see the Catholic position as contradicting early Church practice, where married men were commonly ordained to the priesthood.
Refutation
In „Contra Errores Graecorum,‟ St. Thomas Aquinas addresses differences in discipline between East and West regarding clerical celibacy. He acknowledges the validity of married clergy in the Eastern tradition while defending the appropriateness of the Western discipline.
„Abomination of Clerical Marriage and Forced Clerical Celibacy in the Roman Church.‟
Aquinas recognizes that both traditions have apostolic foundations. The Eastern practice follows the example of the Apostle Peter, who was married, while the Western practice emphasizes the example of John, who remained celibate. Both are valid expressions of priestly ministry, though they emphasize different aspects of it.
Thomas cites St. Epiphanius, who writes:
„The priesthood is recruited mainly from the ranks of virgins, or, if not from virgins, from monks; or, if ministerial needs cannot be met from monks, from men who abstain from relations with their wives or from men who are widowers after a single marriage. But in no case does the Church accept a man who, after his wife has died, has remarried, even though he is continent; such a man is not eligible to be a bishop, presbyter, deacon, or even subdeacon.‟
This passage demonstrates that even in the East, celibacy was highly valued, and restrictions were placed on married clergy.
Aquinas explains that clerical celibacy in the West developed not as a rejection of marriage but as a disciplinary practice that facilitates total dedication to priestly ministry. He would point to St. Paul’s words: „The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided‟ (1 Corinthians 7:32-34).
The difference between East and West is not in the valuation of celibacy itself but in how this value is implemented in Church discipline. Both traditions affirm the goodness of marriage and the special witness of celibacy for the kingdom. The Western Church, through its discipline of mandatory celibacy for priests, emphasizes the undivided heart of the priest for ministry, while the Eastern tradition allows both paths to priesthood.
Conclusion
While defending the Western practice, Aquinas would acknowledge that clerical celibacy is a matter of Church discipline rather than divine law, which is why the Catholic Church today recognizes the validity of married Eastern Catholic and Orthodox priests. The difference in practice should not be seen as one tradition being right and the other wrong, but as complementary expressions of the same priesthood that emphasize different aspects of ministerial life. Both traditions preserve important values: the East maintains the apostolic tradition of married clergy, while the West emphasizes the special witness of celibacy for the kingdom that Christ himself praised.