Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
History of Required Celibacy Disproves Catholicism?

History of Required Celibacy Disproves Catholicism?

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:05 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

History of Required Celibacy Disproves Catholicism? 2026-06-06T00:05:58-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: [public domain / PublicDomainPictures.Net]

Sean Luke obtained Masters of Divinity and Masters of Systematic Theology degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He runs the YouTube channel, Anglican Aesthetics, which includes a video, “This ONE Issue Debunks Roman Catholicism” (7-1-25). It’s a clever historical + ecclesiological argument, but I believe that it totally fails in its aim, as I will explain. His words will be in blue.

*****

See the entire four-part debate:

History of Required Celibacy Disproves [the Authority of] Catholicism? [3-11-26]

2nd Reply to Anglican Sean Luke on Catholicism & Celibacy [3-12-26]

Reply to Protestants: Invalid Catholic Authority? [3-12-26]
*

Catholic “Wicked Married Sex”?: 4th Reply to Sean Luke [3-14-26]

*****

2:39 It should be impossible for her [the Catholic Church] to propose or obligate someone to something that is intrinsically sinful.

That’s correct. No disagreement there! Those sort of things are rampant within Protestantism, especially regarding any sexual-related issue, like divorce, abortion, contraception, cohabitation, homosexual issues, etc. All kinds of things that are intrinsically sinful — and were formerly regarded as such by the vast majority of Protestants — are now massively fine and dandy among them. It’s very sad. And it’s a big reason why I left evangelicalism.

3:00 so let’s say you’re married. If the magisterium told you you’re validly married . . . your bishop says you were, and you receive a magisterial decree to leave your wife, abandon your children as illegitimate, would you be obligated to give submission of mind and will? This is the situation of the priests around the time of the implementation of clerical celibacy. . . . So let’s take a look at what happened when clerical celibacy was implemented.

We will examine exactly what went on in this regard. I think Sean raises a legitimate issue for discussion, but that he fails to prove his point due to false premises and conclusions drawn from them.

He begins his documentation of Catholic decrees in this regard with the Council of Pavia in 1022. There were twelve “local” councils held in this town (in northern Italy near Milan) between the 9th and 15th centuries; some presided over by popes and others not. Pope Benedict VIII and Emperor Henry II did preside over this one, and the pope ratified it. But is that the “end of the story”?

No it isn’t. Enchiridion symbolorum (Denzinger) is the standard compendium of the most important Catholic magisterial documents. It’s what all the scholars refer to in discussions of Catholic doctrines, dogmas, and beliefs. I have the latest 43rd edition (2012) right next to my desk, and it was, incidentally, partially edited and translated by Catholic theologian Dr. Robert Fastiggi, who is a good friend of mine (he’s been to my house many times). It’s described on its Amazon page as “a comprehensive source book on authentic Catholic dogma that is magisterially anchored.”

It contains exactly one entry from any of these councils (the one in 850), concerning the sacrament of the anointing of the sick (#620 on pp. 212-213). The 1022 council in Pavia is interesting and relevant in terms of the historical background of the Catholic celibacy requirement, but it’s not nearly as historically or canonically influential or important or “universal” in significance, as Sean seems to think it is, even if technically “magisterial.” Magisterial authority, like the very complex levels of infallibility, has differential importance and application.

Accordingly, Rafał Marek, in his article, “Some Remarks about the Legislative Provisions of the Pavia Council of 1022″, observed in his abstract that its “provisions” were “quite vague and not (at least directly) implemented in Italy” and that “the synodal statute was not received as a binding law and we have no traces of its use by bishops or secular judges.” And in his conclusion he was inclined to believe that the “resolutions of 1022 had minimal effect or even no application at all.”

I submit, then, that this council has very little importance in either the Catholic disciplinary rule of celibacy that was required not long afterwards, nor in Sean’s particular argument concerning Catholic magisterial authority. It’s not — alongside other related decrees — the “silver bullet . . . against the claims of Roman Catholicism for the authority of the magisterium” that Sean alludes to at 0:55 in the video. But it’s not his entire argument, either, so let’s proceed.

8:17 How is it that Rome could declare a marriage retroactively invalid any more than she can declare a tree not a tree? Marriage, remember, is a structure of nature. It was instituted at creation.

It can in the same way that even civil law includes the concept of annulment. Hence, Encyclopedia Britannica, “Annulment”:

legal invalidation of a marriage. Annulment announces the invalidity of a marriage that was void from its inception. It is to be distinguished from dissolution, which ends a valid marriage for special reasons—e.g., insanity of one partner after marrying. The annulment decree attempts to leave the parties in statu quo ante (as they were before the marriage), unless doing so would adversely affect a third person.

In secular law, only the government, through its courts, can invalidate a marriage; and generally only a party to the marriage can seek annulment. Christian canon law also has procedures for invalidating marriages.

The Oxford Companion to Law (edited by D. M. Walker, 1980; “Annulment”) concurs:

Annulment of a marriage is legislative or judicial invalidation of it, as in law never having existed, as distinct from dissolution [i.e., divorce], which terminates a valid marriage.

But there is at least a strong analogical / conceptual biblical basis as well. In Ezra 10:2-11 (cf. 9:1-2), many Israelites sent away the foreign women they had married. They did this not simply because they were foreigners, but because they caused them to become corrupted by the false religions and idolatry practiced by the women, as indicated by Ezra 9:14: “shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations?” These were never legitimate marriages in the first place, because they literally violated Mosaic law (Deut 7:1-4).

This is more or less the same concept as a Catholic annulment: those considered to be wives actually were not so, according to Mosaic law (parallel to sacramentality and canon law in Catholicism), authoritatively declared to be such by a an authority, including separation from these women and subsequent freedom to marry according to Jewish law, precisely because this was not divorce, but rather, annulment.

I’d also note the high and semi-humorous irony of an Anglican objecting to annulment, seeing that Anglicanism literally began with King Henry VIII demanding and being refused an annulment of his marriage from the pope. Nowadays, Anglicans have no use for annulments, since they have caved on the biblical teaching prohibiting divorce. This is one of several moral reasons why I moved from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism in 1990, because I wanted primal, apostolic, biblical morality, not compromises with the modern zeitgeist and calling evil good, which we see (institutionally, not just in practice) in the mainline Protestant denominations, increasingly in evangelicalism, and even in Eastern Orthodoxy, when it comes to contraception and divorce.

Sean notes at 9:15 that he found a “really great” book written in 1905 on this topic and enthuses about “its documentation” being “actually pretty fantastic.” It’s called An Outline of the History of Clerical Celibacy in Western Europe to the Council of Trent, by Earl Evelyn Sperry (Syracuse: The Lyman Press). The author had merely obtained the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy (Ph. B.) at the time of writing. So he was no professional historian, let alone expert on Catholic history. This is typically the sort of substandard academic sources utilized when attacking Catholic Church doctrine. I’m not contending that it renders null and void all of his arguments, or Sean’s derived from them (I’m in the same boat, after all, with my BA in sociology), but it’s important to note the credentials of the one making the claim. Sean didn’t do that, but I did.

Sperry also wrote — so I discovered — a pamphlet in 1917 named, The Tentacles of the German Octopus in America: a classic piece of wartime nativist propaganda. Elizabeth Kiser, in a critical 2018 article about this work, wrote:

According to Dr. Earl E. Sperry, nothing posed a greater threat to the United States at this time than proud German-Americans. While there were many different groups of “hyphenated Americans,” he claims German-Americans were especially dangerous because the German state and cultural feelings of superiority were directing German minorities abroad to retain allegiance to Deutschland. He claims that “they have been taught perseveringly that they are not of us ” and seek to impress German Kultur upon “native pupils” (Protestant Anglo-Saxon Americans). . . .

This pamphlet serves as an example of the dehumanization of German-Americans at this time, reducing the German identity to a slippery sea creature intent on reaching into the United States, as well as the acceptance of nativism as a justified protection against such encroachments.

The nativist mentality is, of course, a strong and recurring motif in anti-Catholic literature. In Sperry’s mind, the Germans were “outsiders” in America, just as Catholics were. He assumed that German-Americans’ first allegiance was to the fatherland, just as Catholics’ first allegiance was to their father, the pope in Rome (over against the best interests of America, etc.). This famously became a big issue — but at length a non-issue — when John F. Kennedy ran for President in 1960, and became the first Catholic to occupy that office. At 9:36, Sean cites Sperry:

Calixtus II was the first Pope to turn attention to this corner of Europe, and the Council of Reims (1120) decreed that the Danish clergy should give up their wives. (p. 38)

Sean seems to think this has some “magisterial” relevance. It does not. Note first of all that it applied only to “Danish clergy.” That’s not magisterial at all. Wikipedia, “Council of Reims” lists some dozen councils held in this city. It mentions one in 1119, but doesn’t mention celibacy requirements. It follows the outline of the 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia article, “Synods of Reims”. Denzinger (2012) again has just one entry from any of these councils: #745 (p. 244) from 1148, concerning the Holy Trinity. Yet this is the sort of “evidence” that Sean brings to besmirch Catholic magisterial authority. He’s shooting blanks and firing at straw men. Thankfully, he does eventually get to ecumenical councils, that have actual relevance to the specific topic he is setting forth.

Sean proceeds to recount various sordid histories of sexually impure priests and tyrant-popes and bishops imposing celibacy during the Middle Ages, and all of the protests, etc. That may be interesting in its own right (and that’s assuming the accuracy of the horror stories), and it’s classic anti-Catholicism “playbook” — but it won’t prove his stated goal, laid out in the first pinned comment: “If magisterial authority is true, then all magisterial decrees cannot be explicitly sinful or destructive to the soul . . . But at least one of its decrees was manifestly sinful and destructive to the soul . . . Therefore, magisterial authority is not true.” In order to establish this sweeping claim and thesis, he obviously has to demonstrate that some truly magisterial binding rule (not the non-magisterial decrees that he has presented up to this point in his video) was intrinsically sinful. He doesn’t ever do so, as I will prove.

He makes the point that there was widespread resistance to the new celibacy requirements. Would we expect any differently? That’s a ho-hum and boring diversion, in my opinion. Why belabor the obvious? But again, this is totally beside the point of the argument that he is — ostensibly — attempting to make. That’s what is called a non sequitur in logic: a point irrelevant to the discussion. At 18:53, with fifteen minutes to go in his video, he finally gets to the First (1123) and Second (1139) Lateran Councils, which are ecumenical and thus relevant to his goal of showing that the Catholic Church universally decreed an intrinsically immoral requirement: thus “debunking” and annihilating its own authority by vicious self-contradiction: so he triumphantly claims. Let’s see if he succeeds.

19:16 In the first Lateran Council in canon 21, you already had an affirmation that priestly marriages were invalid.

We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, subdeacons and monks to have concubines or to contract marriages. We adjudge, as the sacred canons have laid down, that marriage contracts between such persons should be made void and the persons ought to undergo penance. [not included in Denzinger; see the online source I used]

See also:

[sometimes called 3] We absolutely forbid priests, deacons, or subdeacons to live with concubines and wives or to cohabit with other women, except those whom the Council of Nicaea [can. 3] permitted to dwell with them solely on account of necessity, namely, a mother, sister, paternal or maternal aunt, or other such persons, about whom no suspicion could justly arise. [Denzinger #711, p. 240]

There is nothing intrinsically sinful or sinful at all here. It’s laying down the new required discipline or rule (which is not a dogma and can, therefore, change), that these clergy must not marry and must be celibate, per Paul’s repeated advice, seven stated principles in one chapter:

1 Corinthians 7:1 (RSV) . . . It is well for a man not to touch a woman.

1 Corinthians 7:7 I wish that all were as I myself am. . . .

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. [9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.

1 Corinthians 7:17 Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.

1 Corinthians 7:28 . . . Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that.

1 Corinthians 7:32-35 I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; [33] but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, [34] and his interests are divided. . . . [35] I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.

1 Corinthians 7:38 So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.

Thus, the Catholic Church was following the Pauline and inspired biblical wisdom of calling those to the priesthood whom God has already “assigned” to be celibate (7:17), and those who will be — due to being unmarried — free from “worldly troubles” (7:28) and “worldly affairs” (7:33) and anxieties” (7:32) and “divided” interests (7:34). This allows celibate priests to be “anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (7:32) and to “secure . . . undivided devotion to the Lord” (7:35). It promotes “good order” as well (7:35). Concubinage and fornication (implied by “cohabit”) were already long since condemned in the Bible and the Church as sinful.

Therefore, Lateran I required nothing sinful at all and enjoined principles perfectly in accord with the advice of Paul regarding “undivided devotion to the Lord.” It’s all “well” (1 Cor 7:1, 8) and “better” (7:38) and of “benefit” (7:35). Thus, the Catholic Church has survived Lateran I (1123) fully intact and in no danger of promulgating sin. Sean’s argument has not been proven to the slightest degree so far.

Sean then moves on to Lateran II (1139), citing its canon 7, which is not included in Denzinger. But here it is, from Papal Encyclicals Online:

Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.

This is sixteen years after the decree from Lateran I that is included in Denzinger and can thus safely be seen as “magisterial.” It refers back to teachings of Pope Gregory VII (r. 1073-1085), which was 54-66 years earlier, and that of Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099), which was 40-51 years prior, and that of Pope Paschal II (r. 1099-1118), which was 21-40 years earlier. In other words, it’s presupposing that priests and other clergy were familiar with these existing rules, which means that they got married with likely knowledge that what they were doing was impermissible according to the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church, manifested in its popes and ecumenical councils. There is nothing wrong here whatsoever. But Sean tries so hard to find it:

20:32 Okay, so there you then have the a kind of top-down declaration. Marriages are invalid, doesn’t matter.

One can hardly enter into a sacramental marriage, by Catholic precepts, by violating a Catholic requirement. That nullifies the supposed “marriage.” It was against canonical (“contracted against ecclesiastical law”) and papal and conciliar law. They were disobedient. I’ve already shown from civil secular law and the Bible that an annulment is a legitimate thing, and that celibacy is a great and spiritually wise, superior principle roundly endorsed by St. Paul.

21:54 And the logic, as we just saw, of the second Lateran Council is that marriage and sex mark you with a kind of impurity that make you unfit to celebrate the mass.

That’s not what it stated. It’s simply read into it with the usual Protestant prejudice and anti-factual mentality that the Catholic Church is somehow against sex and marriage as “dirty” and sinful things. Of course it isn’t. We’re the ones that regard a valid marriage as a sacrament and indissoluble (both things denied by virtually all Protestants). It gives grace (as all sacraments do). It even helps to save a person in some cases (1 Pet 3:1; 1 Cor 7:13-14, 16). The decree refers to “the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God”. This is opposing concubinage, which is adultery or fornication, and the undertaking of marriages forbidden by the Church.

The Catholic Church had long taught that marriage was holy and good and not sinful (Denzinger #206, 321, 461-463, prior to this time). #206 (p. 76) from the First Synod of Toledo in the year 400, anathematized those who claimed that valid marriages are “blameworthy.” Pope Leo the Great in 458 or 459 stated that marriage was “honorable” (#321, p. 116). The First Synod of Braga in 561 anathematized anyone who “condemns human marriage and despises the procreation of children” (#461, p. 159) or who thinks that “the conception of children in their mothers’ womb is brought about through the activity of the devil” (#462, p. 159) or who holds that “the creation of all flesh is not the work of God but of bad angels” (#463, p. 159). If Sean thinks that the Catholic Church taught differently, then let him prove it through official documents.

25:40 the marriage covenant which cannot be severed by man obligates him to love his wife as Christ loved the church to love his children as the head of his house. Can that obligation ever be revoked? Can his authority ever say, “You know what? Yes, send your wife away.”

It was already done in the case of the foreign wives:

Ezra 9:10-14 “And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken thy commandments, [11] which thou didst command by thy servants the prophets, saying, `The land which you are entering, to take possession of it, is a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from end to end with their uncleanness. [12] Therefore give not your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.’ [13] And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that thou, our God, hast punished us less than our iniquities deserved and hast given us such a remnant as this, [14] shall we break thy commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations?

Ezra 10:10-12 And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have trespassed and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. [11] Now then make confession to the LORD the God of your fathers, and do his will; separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” [12] Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said.”

Those were invalid “marriages” because they were contrary to Mosaic Law. “Marriages” of priests and other clergy undertaken after the Church had required celibacy were also invalid by definition. It seems to me that this was mostly what Lateran II was referring to. Somewhere in the video Sean noted that a man might have to forsake his children and a validly married wife in these “transitional” times of the new rule of celibacy coming in. Jesus Himself sanctioned all of this and more in extraordinary circumstances. He knew Peter was married, yet called him to “follow me” (Mt 4:18-19; Mk 1:16-17) and leave not only his occupation as a fisherman but also his wife:

Matthew 19:27-29 Then Peter said in reply, “Lo, we have left everything and followed you. What then shall we have?” [28] Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of man shall sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [29] And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or lands, for my name’s sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

This passage doesn’t mention “wife” though it does mention “houses” and “children.” But the parallel passage in Luke does do so:

Luke 18:29-30 And he said to them, “Truly, I say to you, there is no man who has left house or wife or brothers or parents or children, for the sake of the kingdom of God, [30] who will not receive manifold more in this time, and in the age to come eternal life.”

So Jesus not only sanctioned the leaving of a wife and children for the sake of extraordinary ministry, He went far beyond that and said that those doing so would “receive a hundredfold” back in this life, and also that he would “inherit eternal life” as a direct result of such heroic self-sacrifice (contrary, of course, to the false doctrine of “faith alone”). This is not even something unheard of. Many people have made such heroic sacrifices, such as many military families, where there is separation for many months and sometimes years. Billy Graham often reflected how his biggest regret was the long periods of time that he had to leave his family, to do his evangelistic crusades. Should he have not done them? I don’t think so.

I would also note the case of Hagar, Abraham’s concubine, that he took because Sarah wasn’t bearing a child (permitted as a custom among the Hebrews of that time; see Gen 16:1-4). She was sent away, with her child Ishmael (Abraham’s son), with God’s consent:

Genesis 21:9-14 But Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, playing with her son Isaac. [10] So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son; for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” [11] And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. [12] But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the lad and because of your slave woman; whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your descendants be named. [13] And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” [14] So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-sheba.

Thus not only Abraham’s concubine, but also his own child, was sent away, with the approval of God. Note also that God provided the needs of Hagar and Ishmael (they weren’t left destitute):

Genesis 21:16-21 Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the child.” And as she sat over against him, the child lifted up his voice and wept. [17] And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. [18] Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” [19] Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the lad a drink. [20] And God was with the lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. [21] He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt. (cf. 16:6-12)

So even if during the times of transition, some priests had to leave a wife and children, it was not something that wasn’t entirely biblical: sanctioned even by Jesus (with promises of great earthly rewards and eternal life). Since that is true, it’s impossible to object to the Catholic Church following biblical models and also suggesting or requiring it. Far from being unarguably sinful; it was exactly right.

And if that is the case, then Sean’s case against the authority of the Catholic Church based on these factors collapses in a heap. To quote the Bible out of context: “and great was the fall of it” (Mt 7:27).

32:49 My contention is that no the teaching authority of the church is always accountable to the word of God. Is always subordinate to the word of God. She always must subject her teachings to the word of God.

Yeah, us too! That’s exactly why I have made many tightly reasoned scriptural arguments that Sean will now have to deal with, if he is interested in a fair, open, honest (as well as biblical and exegetical) debate. Early signs are that he is interested, since I informed him that I was writing a reply and he counter-responded in the combox for this video, “Happy to hear the reply–send them my way when written, if you would.”

So I will do that as soon as this is uploaded, and the “ball” with then be in his court.

*****

Photo credit: [public domain / PublicDomainPictures.Net]

Summary: I critique a clever argument claiming that the way in which the Catholic Church implemented compulsory celibacy for clergy proved that its authority is null and void.

Church (Ecclesiology)

Sexuality and Gender Issues

consecrated virginity

eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom

evangelical counsels

heroic sacrifice

priestly celibacy

undistracted devotion to the Lord

Previous Post

March 6, 2026

NT: 70 Specific Good Works Contribute to Salvation