Curt Jester has a post on how the provision that allows married Anglican and Episcopal clergy to be ordained as Catholic priests has been misinterpreted and leads people to false expectations and conclusions about the nature of priestly celibacy. He in turn links to a married priest's explanations of this topic. I find one of the Bible verses that Fr. Ryland quotes particularly informative:
When He called His successors, the apostles, “they left everything and followed him” (Lk 5:11). Later, Peter reminded Jesus, “We have left everything and followed you.” Then he asked, with typical candor, “What then will we have?” (Mt 19:27). Jesus replied, “There is no one who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, who will not get back very much more in this age, and in the age to come” (Lk 19:29, emphasis added).
I find this interesting, because I always found it a bit troubling that Jesus should require his followers to leave everything--family included--to follow him. Rather the way I think that the Martha and Mary story is a bit unfair, since Martha was, indeed, shouldering her share of the burden of having guests while Mary was indulging, in a way, by listening to Jesus's teachings (I do of course understand that Mary was right to be attending to her soul. . . or that's the way it's been explained!) However, unlike my perception, that they were to leave wives that they already had, the implication here is that the apostles were leaving the possibility of marriage--leaving it before it was a reality for them. That is, vowing celibacy. This also clarifies the passage in which the righteous young man is told by Jesus to leave behind his family and all of his possessions to follow Jesus. When the young man says that he cannot do this, it seems like a failure on his part, albeit an understandable failure from the perspective of most of us (I dare say). However, read in light of the above passage, it seems likely that he was unable to leave his family because, unlike the apostles, this man may have already had a wife. This is speculation, of course, but it makes me feel better for his sake.
Now, if someone could help me out with Martha, who was likely an oldest child. . . ;)
10 comments:
Peter, however, had a wife during the time of Jesus' ministry. At least, he had a mother-in-law (Lk. 4:38).
It does seem terribly odd today to consider that some married men and women gave up their spouses to serve God as celibates. Right now I'm reading The Family That Overtook Christ about the family of St. Bernard of Clairvaux. He had two siblings to went to religious life after having been married (and only a few short years!)
I've read of many saints like this, but usually it was a mutual decision and both spouses (usually married as the result of an arranged--even forced--marriage) entered some form of religious life. After reading of so many like this, I was surprised to find a husband and wife pair who were canonized even though they remained married and lived as husband and wife! (I forget who they were, unfortunately...)
So Peter had a mother-in-law. Hmmm... I'm going to have to look that up & see if there are any notes on the translation. Perhaps "mother-in-law" is an approximation? Or perhaps he was a widower? Anyway, thanks for visiting & chiming in! :)
In regards to the Martha/Mary story, I read it as a call to service. Individuals are called to service in different ways and it is not for us to judge one's call to service as "better" or "more appropriate" than other calls to service based on tradition and/or gender roles.
Jesus wasn't scolding Martha for serving the guests, as tradition required, but he scolds her for chastising Mary's temporary(?) rejection of the role in favor of heeding her call by God. Perhaps Martha's call to service was more traditional and Mary's more radical for the time. Every person, then, is called to service differently - sometimes those calls fit with tradition and sometimes they don't.
Bringing it to today...we must be careful when society's dictates or notions of appropriateness prevent us from living in the presence of God as we are individually called to do.
Of course, that's just my reading.
-C
Relating to the young man who was unable to follow Jesus...I thought it was because he was a rich man who was unable to part with his possessions. There was no mention of family. Am I thinking of the wrong young man?
-C
Nope--same young man. But I always found him sympathetic--kind of an example of how most people really are in this life. So this is pure speculation on my part--an effort to redeem him. Let's face it--not everyone is a hermit. Not everyone really leaves all their material possessions behind to follow Jesus. According to the "rich young man" parable, then, we're pretty much all doomed. Whoopee.
I did see Jesus's comment to Martha as a reprimand for not taking time to listen herself. I don't see it as a call to service--rather the opposite, actually. But the thing about society's dictates makes sense to me. I guess you could apply that to the call to motherhood, eh?
Just so you know the rich man story appears in 3 of the Gospels, Matthew 19:16, Mark 10:17, Luke 18:18, and each one says that the man walks away sad, because he had great wealth. Nothing is said about a family at all.
To me it seems obvious that Jesus found the one thing that the rich man couldn't give up. And as with most rich men, that was material things. Others of us have other flaws that prevent us from being with God.
If it was meant to apply to everyone, Jesus would have told the same thing to everyone he met, not just this one man.
For example, in Luke 10:25, Jesus is also asked this same question by a man who was trying to justify himself by limiting who he considers to be his neighbor. The result was Jesus's parable of the Good Samaritian.
-John
P.S. As to the Mary-Martha thing, I can see a bit of your point too. Jesus did say that Mary made the "better" choice, which would not be taken from her. However, he didn't tell Martha to stay and listen. After all, someone had to make the preparations. I just think Martha wasn't ready to listen to Jesus (just to dictate what she wanted from him). "..what is better" doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. It actually implies that both are right, only one is closer to the ideal.
Thanks for the verse & #s, John. And for shattering all of my illusions about that story!! ;) I'm not sure what to think about the "Jesus didn't mean this for everyone," though. There are a lot of things that Jesus is reported as saying to only one person, or one group, or on one occasion. I'm not sure that means we're not supposed to generalize. We do have to assume that he went other places and said similar things to others, and that the events and teachings that are being reported in the gospels are representative of Jesus's entire ministry. At least, I think that's what we're meant to understand. Perhaps the same could be said about the rich young man that you say about Martha and Mary--his was one path that many choose. Not the ideal path, but his choice didn't necessarily mean he was excluded from the Kingdom, just that his path would be harder in some ways (you know, that camel thing) and less direct (by way of Purgatory, perhaps). I know that on other occasions, though, Jesus did say to leave family behind. I conflate things, unfortunately. I always found the OT made for the best reading. At some point, I hope to correct this discrepancy!
On a totally different topic, I know that Peter's wife was supposed to have been martyred after the Resurrection sometime, but that may be legend. Do we have any reason to think that Peter's wife was still alive when he became an apostle? Perhaps he was a widower? Or is this one of the things that can be easily exploited in the non-celibate clergy argument?
Checking back in: about those choosing religious life after marriage (in days long gone), of course it always had to be a mutually agreed upon thing. As depicted in this life of St. Bernard, the marriages were vital, freely chosen ones, not in any way arranged or undesired. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a deep surrender, it would be escape from a bad situation.
I don't think evidence of apostles or other priests who married in the early days of the Church contributes much to an argument for married priests in the current setting, personally. It's not as if anyone argues what happened in history. There's so much greataer weight in the practical concerns and the theology of celibacy (not to mention the authoritative directives from the Vicar of Christ!)
Post a Comment