Does the Catholic Church contradict the bible with its practice of Celibate bishop?

Argument 1: Paul was a bishop and not married. We know he was a bishop because the Apostolic office is described with the Greek word episkope (Acts 1:20).

Was Paul a bishop? There is no doubt that Paul was an apostle. In fact he often introduced himself at the beginning of his epistles as an apostle. He would refer to himself as such to demonstrate his authority “Paul, a bond-servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ,” (Titus 1:1). We know that Peter was both Apostle and elder because he said so, “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder.” (1 Peter 5:1). But is there evidence to say that Paul was a bishop? Broussard says that they are one in the same, but did Paul treat these offices as one in the same? Paul, when he writes to the church at Ephesus, he makes a clear distinction between the office of a bishop “And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers,” (Ephesians 4:11). In the first century, the term “pastor” was used interchangeably with the office of bishop or elder. If the term apostle and bishop referred to the same office, why would Paul make separate them distinctly in his list? Wouldn’t have made sense, if they were the same office to just say Apostles or bishops? But he didn’t.

Though the offices are clearly seen as separate in scripture, I will still attempt to answer Broussards claim that because the word episkope is used in reference to the office of the apostle, it denotes they refer to the same office of the 1st century bishop. The NASB, ESV, ASV, and the RSV do not say bishopric, or anything of that nature in Acts 1:20. However, the NRSV says, “Let another take his position of overseer.” The vast majority of respectable translations simply translate it as “office”. And that’s what the word means in this context. It might surprise you to know that there are not that many different, Greek words in the New Testament, however the meaning can change, depending on the context, gender the suffix and the prefix that is attached to the word. The root here is episkopos, which can denote a different meanings depending on the context. The word is episkope is translated in 4 ways in the NASB, twice as “visitation” once as “bishop” and once as “office”. To help prevent any potential confusion, think of some english words that sound the same, but vary in meaning depending on the context; for example I might say, “I’ve been running,” you would take this to mean, I’ve gone for jog, likely to exercise. However, I might say my refrigerator is running, this does not mean my refrigerator is like’s to jog with me, but that it is functioning properly. I might also say that my nose is running, this does not mean my nose likes to jog or that is functioning properly, it actually means the opposite; likely indicating that I am experiencing a cold or at the very least allergies. You know what I mean, based on the context. This is the same with Greek words; the context in addition to their prefix, suffix and gender, determine their meaning.

Another issues with this argument, is that the Catholic church does not apply this logic across the board. For example Phoebe is called a deaconess (Romans 16:1). Is this to mean she holds the office of a deacon because the same root is used in both Greek words? This is the same logic Broussards uses to prove that Paul was a bishop. However both the churches of Christ and the Roman Catholic church would agree that their was no office of a deaconess in the first century, the churches of Christ appeal to scripture to prove this while Roman Catholics appeal to records concerning early councils. Paul gives clear instructions concerning the offices of a deacon, and in those qualification of a deacons, he states that they must be men and also that these men must have wives (1 Timothy 3:8,12). The Church of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church both understand that everyone is required to be servants (deacons) of God, but only certain individuals can hold the office of a deacon. Just because a similar word was used with Phoebe that is also used with deacons does not mean Phoebe held the office of a deacon. Likewise just because similar word is used with the apostles and bishops does not mean they are of the same office, especially sense Paul lists them as separate offices (Ephesians 4:11).

Argument 2: Denying Paul’s bishopric, also denies that Jesus is the guardian of our soul, because the greek here for guarding is episkopos (1 Peter 2:25). Jesus was and is still celibate, and yet he is still the episkopos of our souls.

I frankly do not understand this argument. The word bishop has virtually lost it’s meaning and is often only referred to men of high rank in certain “high churches” such as the Catholic, Anglican and Episcopal church; and of course the chess piece that can only in angled directions. But the word for bishop is the Greek for episkopos, simply means overseer. One can be an overseer in many ways, for example the word overseer in the first few century was used to denote many different things in which a person had authority. I am glad Jesus is the overseer of my soul; as God, I expect Him to be. Just because He is an overseer in a heavenly sense does that mean he is a overseer in a earthly sense. Jesus is an overseer, one can even say that He is overseer of the universe! However, Peter is not equating Jesus’ role as overseer with the 1st century style of overseer. Again, we are running into the issue that I mentioned above in reference to Phoebe; just because the same word or a similar word is used, does not mean they equate to the same exact meaning. This is what is called in logic the false equivalence fallacy.

Argument 3: The husband of one wife does not mean the husband of a wife. This is simply a limit of how many marriages a bishop can have in his lifetime.

I might agree to this slightly, but I will have to do some more chewing on it. Marriage is for life and the only thing that permits you divorcing your spouse is if he or she commits fornication (Matthew 19:9). If a man has had an unscriptural divorce and remarried in the past (Which is too unscriptural), perhaps this is what this passage is dealing with this to some degree. A bishop should not be a man who had many failed marriages. But to say this is only requirement is odd to say the least. Broussard says that if he was trying to say that a bishop must be married, Paul would have written “the husband of ‘a’ wife,” but sense Paul said “one wife” instead of “a wife”. This seems like an odd thing to say. Just because Paul is giving a limit does not mean that Paul is also saying this is a suggestion and not a requirement. In fact their is nothing else in this list that is a requirement. I myself count 15 qualification for a bishop, 16 if you include the desire for a bishop (1 Timothy 3:1). Paul begins the thought by saying, “must” and then gives a list of qualification. The Greek word their for must is dei, meaning, “it is necessary.” Paul makes it clear that these are qualifications, if some were not, he would have denoted which ones were suggestions, which he is known to do, but he does not here. The remote context does not indicate that this a suggestion; this is a necessity.

Argument 3: Paul strong encouragement of celibacy equates to making the marriage of a bishop, optional.

Paul does encourage celibacy. But, also encourages marriage, Paul says, “But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” (ESV 1 Corinthians 7:2). Marriage is a healthy outlet for sexual desires, in fact most people, both men and women need this outlet. Marriage is the institution, designed by God to express this aspect of our humanity (Genesis 2:24). Paul even condemns those in a marital relationship who deprive their spouses of this act; and he encourages couples to engage in this act regularly to guard from temptation (1 Corinthians 7:5).

Paul does say that if one has the gift (I.e one who does not have a strong sex drive or at the very least a sex drive that does not interfere with his spiritual), that one would experience certain benefits of reaming unmarried. But why would Paul say there were benefits to remaining unmarried? Well one needs to examine the context in which Paul is writing. In verse 26, Paul talks about, the “present distress” in which things are going to be very difficult, and as you read verse 30, you see things are going to be hard on the Christian. This could be a warning against upcoming persecution or perhaps simply the hostile in environment at Corinth, we know that the Jews in Corinth were hostile to the Christians, attempting to use the government to interfere in their spiritual walk (Acts 18:12-17). Whatever the distress was, Paul said at that time it would be better to remain unmarried because your attention can be wholly given to God (1 Corinthians 7:32-34). A Christian can suffer much when distress comes upon him, however when it comes upon his wife or kids, this can be a truly difficult. That is why Paul says for the time it best that they remain single, but he makes it clear that this not a command but a suggestion (1 Corinthians 7:38).

But are their benefits to not being married at all, even if one is not in a distressing situation? Yes. Jesus also seems to indicate that remaining unmarried is difficult and rare. Jesus says speaks of some that “made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God,” though not literally, but in the sense they are abstaining from marriage (Matthew 19:11-12). This seems to have been something that Paul chose to do as a missionary. Paul moved from place to place, all over the Roman empire to preach and teach, having a wife tag along would have been difficult. Or perhaps he simply was remaining unmarried for the present distress, although I lean toward the first interpretation. But does this have anything to do with bishops of the local church? No. Paul would have had to it make clear the marriage clause was optional in reference to being a bishop, but he chose the word dei in reference to the qualifications of the office. Can a Christian make a great missionary, preacher or evangelist being celibate? Yes, of course, they have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God! But that is not the role of a bishop. One thing to consider is that in the first century bishops worked in cooperation with other bishops or that congregation, in fact they were selected from the same congregation they oversaw (Acts 14:21-23); these bishops would not be traveling from place to place or have the same difficulties a missionary would. Therefore, the bishop, not having a wife would superfluous. The second and main thing to consider, is the benefits of having a wife and children. In 1 Timothy 3:1-7, 3 of these 7 verses are concerned with him being married having children, this seems to (1) demonstrate to the church he is eligible to be a bishop; as Paul says, “but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?” And (2) to set the example, Peter says that bishops must rule as examples (1 Peter 5:2); Would it not be important for a bishop to lead the families of his church in how to be a proper husband and father? And finally (3), would not the bishop be able to teach better, if he had the experience of being husband and father who had to raise children and be faithful to God? Why else would Paul emphasize bishops being married men with children in both letters to Titus and Timothy? Why else would Paul make it necessary?