Was Peter, the First Pope, Married?

Posted on May 1, 2012 by Father Joe

peter333 QUESTION:

You claim that Peter was the first Pope, and yet Scripture attests that he was married. Since this great apostle could be married, why not all bishops and priests?

RESPONSE:

Restricting ourselves to the Gospels, no doubt you are referring to Peter’s mother-in-law. We read in Luke 4:38-39: “After he left the synagogue, he entered the house of Simon. Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a severe fever, and they interceded with him about her. He stood over her, rebuked the fever, and it left her. She got up immediately and waited on them.” See the story again in Mark 1:30.

The Catholic Church does not deny that Peter was married. However, note her general absence in the New Testament texts. We do not even know her name. We only encounter the mother-in-law, never his wife or any children. Indeed, throughout the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, references are made to Peter’s activities and travels; but, only a vague intimation by Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 that he had a right to travel with his “believing wife.” If it were not for this mention in the epistle, one might suppose that Peter was a widower. Tradition suggests that his wife was martyred. It is peculiar that although the wife would ordinarily have cared for the needs of guests, Peter had to rely upon his wife’s mother.

However, granting that she was still around (somewhere); she evidently assumed a secondary role in his life behind his leadership of the infant Church. Indeed, her insignificance in the biblical witness would seem to provide weight to the supporters of priestly celibacy. Like Peter, bishops and priests might do better to serve God’s people without the distraction of wives and children. Jesus gives his sheep to Peter. Pastors similarly love Christ and care for their flocks. This is the emphasis of Catholic ministry, our family in faith.

This post was never meant to be a defamation against Peter’s wife. I have also edited it to avoid any peripheral discussion about whether or not the tradition can be trusted regarding her martyrdom; given that some authorities speculated that she might have died earlier and/or that there might have been a second bond. It is probably best that we accept the tradition at face value.

Here are early testimonies for the martyrdom of Peter’s wife:

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (died around 215 AD)

(THE STROMATA, 7:11)

So then he undergoes toils, and trials, and afflictions, not as those among the philosophers who are endowed with manliness, in the hope of present troubles ceasing, and of sharing again in what is pleasant; but knowledge has inspired him with the firmest persuasion of receiving the hopes of the future.

Wherefore he contemns not alone the pains of this world, but all its pleasures.
They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, Remember the Lord. Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Thus also the apostle says, that he who marries should be as though he married not, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.

Was not then faith in the hope after death conspicuous in the case of those who gave thanks to God even in the very extremities of their punishments? For firm, in my opinion, was the faith they possessed, which was followed by works of faith.

EUSEBIUS (around 265 AD to 340 AD)

(ECCLESIAL HISTORY, 3:30)

1. Clement, indeed, whose words we have just quoted, after the above-mentioned facts gives a statement, on account of those who rejected marriage, of the apostles that had wives. Or will they, says he, reject even the apostles? For Peter and Philip begot children; and Philip also gave his daughters in marriage. And Paul does not hesitate, in one of his epistles, to greet his wife, whom he did not take about with him, that he might not be inconvenienced in his ministry.

2. And since we have mentioned this subject it is not improper to subjoin another account which is given by the same author and which is worth reading. In the seventh book of his Stromata he writes as follows: They say, accordingly, that when the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, ‘Remember the Lord.’ Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them. This account being in keeping with the subject in hand, I have related here in its proper place.

DISCUSSION

GERRY:

Thanks for all your insights, Fr. Joe. They are priceless! I’d like to let you know that I look forward to reading the “feeds” from your blog site. God Bless!

KARL:

Who would sit in judgment for all the annulments? Certainly the Pope does not have the time and men who cannot keep their houses in order (like those divorced and seeking annulments) certainly should not sit in judgment of each other and their wives.

What would happen to a bishop who abandoned his wife? Should he continue to serve as a bishop? Who would pay for the divorce, alimony and child support settlements? Who would get the Cathedral, the wife?

Anyone who thinks it is wise to have a married clergy is likely naive, foolish or has difficulty keeping their mind off their private parts. Oops, or Orthodox or one of the Uniate Rites.

ALEXANDER ROMAN: As a Ukrainian Catholic, I wanted to take great exception to a comment on that refers to Eastern Catholics as “uniates.” That term is pejorative and offensive – that it is used by a Latin Rite Catholic is not helpful.

FATHER JOE:

Churches of the East do not permit dating priests. They have to be married before ordination. Only single men become bishops. There is a different sense of priesthood between those who are celibate and the ones who are married. The first married Episcopalian priest in the U.S. who became a Catholic priest is now divorced. His wife left him, saying that nothing in the Episcopal church prepared them for what his life would be like. She gave him an ultimatum, leave the Catholic priesthood or she would leave him. He is now a divorced and celibate priest.

CATHOLIC GIRL:

Catholics and Protestants arguing for a married Priesthood (or worse those who propose that Mary was not a perpetual Virgin) miss the point with their literal interpretations.

Catholics are not literalists (although most Protestants are). We hold the Bible as no more or less important as Church tradition and teaching. Remember who put the Bible together – the Catholic Church. Who better to understand and interpret the meaning?

The important part of the message about St. Peter is that he – Peter – represents the Church. Christ was returning to the Father and so he gave Peter a duty as the first Pope and left us with the Church as the visible symbol of his love. He specifically said that he would be with the Church until the end of time and gave it the “keys to heaven,” what they bind on Earth is bound in Heaven.

He knew Peter was not perfect – after all, he denied he knew Christ three times. He did expect and continues to expect that we follow him and that means that unmarried persons should remain celibate – as he did.

Only the Catholic Church has the keys to the kingdom. Pope Benedict says that the tradition will not be changed. The Church isn’t a democracy and those that don’t agree are simply not Catholic. So he’s the boss and that discussion is closed!

MARK:

The Church has never taught the two sacraments are incompatible; neither did Our Lord. That the Church has chosen to promote celibacy in the model of Christ should be sufficient for the discussion.

“In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity.”—St Augustine

FATHER JOE:

It is probable that his wife later suffered martyrdom but her absence from the Scripture texts is still a significant fact. Except for the fact that Peter had the right to bring her along, there is little or nothing that can be cited to show that his wife actually did participate in his most important missionary journeys.

You are right that the sacrament of marriage and that of holy orders are not intrinsically incompatible with each other; although, there is early evidence of tension. Many of the Popes and saints over the centuries have written about celibacy in the priesthood and religious life as if it were the best course to pursue. Could it be said that just as there was an organic development of doctrine, that celibacy for priests reflects a positive evolution in discipline as well, also under the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I think so. Indeed, there is growing evidence that priests who were married during the apostolic and patristic age were expected to practice perpetual continence after ordination.

ANGELA:

I personally believe that leaders of the church should be able to get married if they want; but I think it is great when they are capable of remaining celibate. I guess I feel if God has called you to become a priest, then he has also called you to become celibate since that is in accordance to what priesthood is.

I no longer attend a Catholic church, although I grew up in one. I have met some great priests and some not so great. I have also met some great married pastors and some not so great. It does talk about how it is better for a man to remain celibate unless you are incapable. I believe if a man can do this successfully he will be greatly rewarded.

Unfortunately, if a man is choosing to go into the priesthood and have lust issues, they may want to consider what going into the priesthood really means. He should either first address such issues or consider the possibility that maybe God wants him to be a leader of men in a different way that allows marriage. He should not necessarily change denominations if he feels his faith corresponds more greatly with Catholic belief systems; but there are so many ways to be a shepherd among men and yet be married.

That being said, I still admire the man and woman who can devote their hearts, minds, and souls solely to God and remain pure in heart, mind, body and soul.

JAKE:

Peter was a [expletive deleted] and his wife was well to be rid of him. Peter is well said to be the founder of the ‘mother of [expletive deleted] church’. Women were nothing more than cattle in the [expletive deleted] bible and the men, including jayzus were perverted [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted]. The catholic church is indeed the true church of jayzus. If priests aren’t [expletive deleted] each other, they are [expletive deleted] innocent children and being paid by stupid people to do so.

FATHER JOE:

I must report your IP number (Atlanta) to the authorities for misuse of this forum. Sorry, but you forced my hand.

JAKE:

Peter=child molester
jayzus=[deleted pejorative word for homosexuals]
catholic church=mother of [plural expletive deleted]

FATHER JOE:

Jake=Bigot

LUCIA:

It is an interesting topic and one I am not sure I yet fully understand. It is my understanding that the vows of celibacy from the priesthood all the way to the pontiff are a matter of the disciplines of the Church. Its necessity is established by the Authority of the Church based on the inspired judgments of the Church.

Thus it is possible that the Church can change its mind on this point for its own reasons, or make exceptions to the rule. For example I know that in cases of Eastern Catholics, those from the predominantly Orthodox regions which are now in full communion with Rome, there are exceptions allowing married priests. None of this creates a problem.

So to my thinking, if as Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius relate, Peter was in fact married as an apostle/bishop it doesn’t matter. If the Church then later decided that it would require celibacy of priests and all the clergy in the higher ranks as well then that is the rule. The rule established by the authority of the Church. If Peter was not married as a bishop likewise it remains a discipline the Church has established and maintained for good reason. And one which, in limited cases to which it makes exception.

Do I understand correctly? Thanks.

FATHER JOE:

Sounds like you do. Priests promise celibacy when they are ordained transitional deacons.

MD:

Lucia has the simplest answer but the most profound.

CO:

First of all, the Bible refers to Peter’s mother-in-law. My assumption is that there is a wife and the Scriptures do not tell me different…meaning, he was married. My concern, however, is the belief that he was the first Pope. If you are basing it on the fact that Jesus said that on this Rock I will build my church, and he was speaking to Peter, Christ is the Rock, not Peter. Peter in the original Greek is petros, which in interpreted… “pebble.”

FATHER JOE:

Actually, in common usage the word PETROS could mean more than pebble. The reason why that word is used instead of the more common Greek word for ROCK is because Greek words have gender. Peter is given the male version of the word. In itself it is a transliteration of the Aramaic which makes no distinctions about ROCK. Peter is literally a chip off the old block, Jesus Christ, who is the foundation stone of the Catholic Church. Peter is Rock because Jesus is ROCK.

Filed under: Anti-Catholicism, Apologetics, Bishops, Catholic, Celibacy, Faith, Marriage, Priests, Religion, Sexuality, Uncategorized |

« Economy of Images & Catholic Devotions Faith & Values in the News »

11 Responses

Anaid, on May 11, 2024 at 7:08 am said:

I could be so much in love with a priest that I easily could be his supportive companion for his ministry and feel the exchanged love within our hearts (while keeping distance, to be clear), that would be a sacred love because the Holy Spirit would be present. It is the most beautiful experience, incomparable to anything else. I think a lot of women could do that and guide out of piety as well as love. It is like a vocation (in itself).

FATHER JOE: The focus or vocation in ministry is not love of a priest but the love of God. “Particular” friendships of the sort that you exalt can be dangerous between men and women as they can quickly turn romantic. It is recommended that priests should find their support from other clergy and men for whom there can only be platonic associations. While there are sisterly relationships, the close female friends to a priest are matronly or within the scope of a motherly relationship. However, priests and the women who interact with them should not fool themselves.
javier m veliz, on November 6, 2019 at 7:52 pm said:

Good day Friar Joe,

To say that Peter was not married, or even that his wife was dead, because of her absence in the remaining scriptures is similar to declaring that because Peter was made Pope circa 30/33 AD and died in 64/68 AD, (yet the book of Acts having been written in 80–90 AD by Luke make no mention of Peter as the First Pope or even Primacy) that the Papacy did not exist. Furthermore, if it was common knowledge in the church that Peter was the Pope why was there nothing written about his Papal successors (St. Linus and St. Anacletus) in the Bible when Acts was written in time to document succession?

Secondly: If Peter as Pope was infallible is questionable because it cannot be clearly proven, only suggested by conjecture, that he was not married. Furthermore Galatians 2:11 would suggest that ‘infallible’ Bishop of Rome Peter was confronted by Paul for being just that ‘fallible’.

Could you answer these.

Have a blessed day.

FATHER JOE: The Acts of the Apostles details neither the death of St. Paul nor of St. Peter but we can be assured that they died. The tradition that speaks of beheading for St. Paul and the inverted crucifixion of St. Peter is regarded as reliable. It is within this context that we would also accept the testimony (outside Scripture) about apostolic succession. As for the disagreement between the two apostles, note that at the Council of Jerusalem, after St. Paul has made his case for not circumcising the Gentiles, he convinces St Peter and the matter is over. The debate was not the infallible element; rather it was the summation and the result of the council.
Geri, on April 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm said:

What then about 1st Timothy 3: 1-5 esp 2, 4 and 5? Also 1st Timothy 4: 1-3?

FATHER JOE:

1 Timothy 3:1-5 speaks to a married clergy and qualifications. That is a separate question from that of Peter and his wife. There is growing evidence that the Church ordained married men for ministry but that after ordination they practiced perfect continence with their wives. Children would have been conceived prior to their priesthood. Absolute celibacy would resolve the inherent tensions to such situations.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 speaks to a false asceticism but this is not the case here.

The Church celebrates marriage as a holy sacrament. There was no denial of its value or the gift of children. However, just as the Jewish priests abstained while on duty for the Temple; Christian priests were perpetually on duty and thus called to constant celibacy. The priests and bishops of the Church freely promise celibacy as a way of loving God and serving his people. No one is forced into the priesthood. But God gives his gifts to those who are called. Just as St. Paul admonished, priests embrace a single-hearted love of God. But most people are still called to enrich the Church by their love of a spouse and in the fruit of children.

There is no return to an absolute abstinence of certain foods as under the Jewish Law; however, Catholics do periodically fast and abstain as expressions of prayer and penance. This is not condemned.
Alexander Roman, on June 10, 2013 at 10:22 pm said:

Bless me a sinner, Father! I myself come from a family of married priests. My grandfather, Fr. John, was a married priest with seven children. He suffered arrest and torture under the Soviets and my grandmother was there with him through it all. When they came to live with us in Canada, it was my grandmother who inspired me to pray the daily Rosary and to attend Mass frequently. She was an integral part of her husband’s ministry in many ways (unlike St Peter’s wife, but I like to think that “silence gives consent” and that she was also an integral part of Peter’s ministry).

FATHER JOE: Of course, Peter was more than a simple priest. As an apostle he possessed the fullness of Holy Orders. He was a bishop-priest. Bishops today in the East and the West are celibate.

My grandmother, Irene, came from a family of 14 married priests, each with a doctorate in theology. Her father was a priest who died of pneumonia after working very hard building his new parish church. I was named for her mother, my great grandmother Alexandra, who spent the rest of her days in prayer and charity, living in dire poverty. I also have two cousins who wanted to marry priests and did. They are also integral parts of their husbands’ ministries (one of them is a theology professor who went to Rome for the inauguration, as part of the Canadian delegation, of Pope Francis).

FATHER JOE: No doubt you are a member of the Eastern rites. Married priests of the Eastern rites are permitted by the Church to get married prior to ordination. However, there is some ecclesial tension about such priests serving in North America.

In short, unless someone has experienced the life of a married priest . . . There is no “taking away” from the centrality of Christ in a married priest’s family. The Latin Church has its disciplines and tradition – fine. But in recent years I have come to believe that a married priesthood for the Latin Church would not be out of order. In fact, the Latin Church already DOES have married priests from the Anglicans, Lutherans and Old Catholics, including one former Pentecostal minister-turned-Catholic I know.

FATHER JOE: Yes, the general rule has been relaxed in a few special cases; however, such exceptions are likely always to be very few. While it might sound elitist, Roman Catholicism feels that the Church is best served by celibate priests. Along with many if not most of my fellow celibate priest-friends, we feel that it would be a mistake to relax the discipline. Most priests are very happy with the current rules. Growing classes of men preparing for ordination is evidence that future vocations can benefit from celibacy and no change is either needed or desired. Most of those clamoring for married priests have already left ministry and they would also forfeit the Eucharist entirely by also espousing priestesses.

A future Pope could, if he so wished, change the law in this respect in the Latin Church with the stroke of a pen. Marriage in some Western quarters might be seen to be tied to issues of lust, etc. That is simply, well, silly. Any sexuality that is tied to lust is sinful and immature, period. Those who see marriage as an institution where lust is allowed free rein in cases where people “can’t help themselves” have their own issues of immaturity to deal with.

FATHER JOE: While St. Paul would argue that it is better to marry than to burn, no credible authorities are saying that marriage is purely an antidote to lust. Lust depersonalizes the person and is always sinful. What we are talking about here is “loving passion” and the need for intimacy and the desire for a family. Marriage is a sacrament and a source for grace and holiness. However, the Roman Catholic Church prefers that her priests live out a celibate love focused directly upon God and service. Personally, I do feel that it is a higher form of love, one that has a powerful eschatological dimension, but such an opinion does not degrade the value of marital union. The Pope could relax the discipline in the West, but I think it is highly unlikely. Indeed, I am of the opinion that it would be detrimental to the Church’s spiritual recovery after trusting too much in modernity.

Sorry if I sound judgmental, but I regularly read comments from Latin Catholics that are rather triumphalist in respect to celibacy – and there is no legitimate reason for them to be.

FATHER JOE: Actually, I am somewhat triumphalist in regard to clerical and religious celibacy. And, I think we have every right. Here I define the word as “The attitude or belief that a particular doctrine, especially a religion or political theory, is superior to all others.” The very basis for making this sacrifice is that it is of a higher order and signifies the submission of self so as to be a more effective servant or even a slave to Christ and to his Church. Every normal man who embraces it would have liked to have a wife and children; but he places the demands of the Church before even the most basic of natural rights. He is the rich man who has given away everything to follow the Lord.
okoyefaithful, on March 22, 2013 at 3:18 am said:

You say this post was not meant to defame Peter’s wife, but you’ve done that already in your statements.

FATHER JOE: Excuse me? That is ridiculous. I suspect that you would be equally angry over the fact that many early priests in the Church, while married, opted to embrace celibacy after ordination. They lived marriages akin to the chaste union of Joseph and Mary.

I am surprised that because someone is mentioned once or twice in the bible that means that they are inconsequential.

FATHER JOE: In regard to general salvation history, this is indeed the case. That has nothing to do with human dignity. You and I are not in the Bible at all, and yet we are valued in God’s eyes.

Many women were excluded from mention in the bible, just because they were women. It was the society of that time.

FATHER JOE: That is not true at all. Are you a feminist? There are a number of crucial women, the most important being the Virgin Mary. Other important figures in the New Testament include Elizabeth, Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary (sisters of Lazarus), the woman caught in adultery, the woman who touched Jesus for healing in the crowd, the little girl that Jesus raised from the dead, Pilate’s wife, Salome and her devious mother, the women at the Cross and at the empty tomb, the Samaritan woman at the well, etc. Jesus broke stereotypes and there were many important women, both good and bad.

Think back on the Feeding the Five Thousand passage where the bible writes that there were five thousand men excluding women and children. Are they inconsequential? I leave it up to you to decide. Does it mean that somehow they did not eat as much as their husbands?

FATHER JOE: Jewish society was certainly patriarchal but that was a manner of expression. The main point was the great size of the crowd.

Because Peter’s wife is hardly mentioned, it is fact that either she was inconsequential or that she had died. The way the bible has been written shows that inaccurate. Many women were hardly mentioned in the bible, but that doesn’t mean they were inconsequential.

FATHER JOE: The Bible has secondary characters. Certainly the given emphasis makes this abundantly clear. There are also less significant male figures. You make too much of this and miss the whole point.

The point is that Peter is married, and if he was the first pope, then all popes can get married.

FATHER JOE: That is illogical and absolutely ridiculous. Most popes were not married. Today bishops in the Catholic and Orthodox churches are unmarried. This will not change. Priests make promises and most of us are happy and keep our promises. I suspect that you would have forced St. Paul to get married. No, for the minister, God and his Church come first. The discipline of celibacy is worthwhile and should continue into the foreseeable future. The Church has the right to give specificity to her sacraments and structure. You have no right to dictate to the Church the rules by which she abides. Get over your silliness!
A. R. Buagh, on June 13, 2012 at 10:50 am said:

How do you reconcile 1st Timothy 3:1-3 “This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desire a good work. (verse 2) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, …..?

FATHER JOE: I make some answer to this question with another post, PRIESTLY CELIBACY OF APOSTOLIC ORIGIN. There was a severe shortage of candidates for the priesthood in the Church’s early days. The discipline for celibacy was relaxed to some extent. Note that these men were married prior to ordination, just as in the Eastern model and as with our permanent deacons. Because many were converts from paganism, an emphasis was placed upon “one” wife; in other words, there was to be no polygamy and no divorce and remarriage. There is also evidence that these married men practiced perfect continence after ordination.
Roy Hobble, on May 15, 2012 at 1:59 am said:

I don’t see any reason to denigrate past, or present men for choosing a celibate life in the Holy Catholic church.What we chose is done out of a free will.
Should we, or the Church impose personal preferences on others in regards to the secular world? I think not. I also don’t think it seemly for ministers to impose behaviors of a personal matters on their flocks.To me proper joy stems from free will. The prodigal son who returned to his father was given his father’s best provisions and they celebrated with exuberance.

FATHER JOE: Yes, although we are all called to live a moral life.
Paul Brann, on May 14, 2012 at 10:33 am said:

Dear Fr Joe,
I saw this yesterday:

“By Annabel Roberts, NBC News correspondent

LONDON — A Roman Catholic Church with women cardinals? And priests who are not celibate?

That is the controversial hope of a group of priests who claim to represent the majority of Irish Catholics.

More than 1,000 lay church-goers and priests attended a meeting in Dublin this week to discuss these ideas and others they believe are essential to the survival of the Catholic Church in Ireland.”

It looks like a number of Catholics do not agree with you and the official line, and is using things like the assimilation of married Protestant clergymen and women into the Church yet still being allowed to keep their wives and husbands and liturgy that has sparked this reaction.

Also there are a number of upitty nuns who want their cake and eat it. I’ve always been suspicious of nuns since a group of itinerant wandering slaughtermen formed an order of religious and the Pope of the time allowed then to build a convent and set up the order of “The Gigantic Sisters of Perpetual Revenge”…….My father sent me to their first school in this country where I was indoctrinated into the faith, and through fear and trembling, came to know the awfulness of God.

The warning here is not to believe everything that you read, but there are certainly real troubles in Ireland and I can’t see where it is going to end, but I doubt that married clergy will be the answer.

Best wishes, Paul

FATHER JOE: The troubles are real but what these dissenters want, they will never get.
Paul Brann, on May 8, 2012 at 12:54 pm said:

Dear Fr Joe,
We have already heard of 85 Catholic Priests who were abusing children in Ireland, now we have an ‘association’ of 800 renegades who are defiant against the Vatican, and openly support a heretic priest who calls for an end to celibacy, wants women priestesses and approves of contraception. Why is he a ‘catholic priest’ if his views differ so widely from the Church, and why have 800 others joined to support him? I quote from a report over here:

“While some reactionary fringe groups have contrived to portray our association as a small coterie of radical priests with a radical agenda, we have protested vehemently against that unfair depiction,” continued the ACP statement. “We are and we wish to remain at the very heart of the church, committed to putting into place the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.”

The association also decried the secrecy surrounding the intervention and the questions about due process and freedom of conscience that such interventions raise. “At this critical juncture in our history, the ACP believes that this form of intervention—what Archbishop Diarmuid Martin recently called ‘heresy-hunting’—is of no service to the Irish Catholic Church,” the ACP statement said.

As I see it this all goes back to the Second Vatican Council, and that misguided anti-pope John 23rd. with his damming reforms and secularisation of something scared started the rot that we witness every day.

St Patrick might well have driven the snakes from Ireland, but satan is much more powerful than a few snakes. He’s still alive and kicking over there, and it seems in the Vatican too.

What do you think?

Best wishes,
Paul

FATHER JOE: Actually, if we read Pope John XXIII directly, we would quickly see that his own ideas about reform were a far cry from the liberalism we got after Vatican II. He talked about reapproachment, but not about capitulation. I feel sorry for Pope Paul VI, because he tried to keep the tidal wave of change in check and it proved overwhelming. We are paying a price for abuse, not only during the post-Vatican II years but for the misbehavior of men (and women) formed prior to the reforms. Today, the scandals by priests and the cultural and political attacks by so-called lay Catholics is tearing away at the Church body and witness. I suspect that many of the challenges we face today would have happened anyway. Even the heresy of Modernism first raised its head back when the Church celebrated the old Mass; although there was a greater general degree of fidelity to Church teachings and worship.
john, on May 7, 2012 at 3:42 am said:

Joe, you can make any excuse you want, but for the first thousand years Priests and Bishops had wives. To say Peter’s wife assumed a secondary role is demeaning to Women. Celibacy was about church greed and property rights. Your argument is not honest about this history.

FATHER JOE: Actually, the preference for celibacy was seen in the very beginning, although the Church in her infancy resorted to the selection of certain married men to satisfy ministerial needs. Indeed, as I have written before, there is evidence that the married men were expected to practice perfect continence after ordination. They still rendered support for their spouses and raised their children; but, these men lived increasingly for the Church and less for themselves. The slander about greed and property rights is a gross exaggeration. You are the one who is teaching a dishonest and slanted history.
Paul Brann, on May 1, 2012 at 8:50 am said:

Dear Fr Joe,

Most anti-Catholic antagonists seem to miss the point and get distracted by Peter and his somewhat absent wife……..the whole emphasis should surely be placed on Jesus and He WASN’T MARRIED!……..also St Paul unequivocably states that it’s better not to be married especially for those who can stand it. As for the admonition that a ‘Bishop should be married!’ It was simply an early demand that IF married then a Bishop should only have one wife, that means not multiple wives. I’ve been married and raised a family and run a business, and it’s impossible to do all well or even well enough. Being a Priest, that is being a good and diligent priest and having a family also is a demand too much. As for having more that one wife!!! That really would be Purgatory here on Earth.

Best wishes,
Paul