The scandal of the German bishop Reinhold Nann, who resigned from the pastoral governance of Caravelí (Peru) in July 2024 and a year later confessed to having entered into a civil marriage, has once again brought the debate on priestly celibacy to the table. His personal testimony, published on a blog, not only reveals an individual drama but also a dangerous narrative: presenting celibacy as a “burden” instead of recognizing it as what it has always been in the Latin Church, a sign of total dedication to Christ and his people.
A resignation that hid more than “health reasons”
When the Holy See accepted Nann’s resignation in 2024, the official explanation spoke of fatigue and depression. But in October 2025, the prelate himself admitted that the real reason was falling in love with a woman and getting married. He even acknowledges that he lives “in grave sin” for not yet having a dispensation from the clerical state. The initial version of “pastoral exhaustion” ended up being a smokescreen to hide the essential: a bishop left his ministry to start a family, but without waiting for formal dispensation from Rome.
The discourse against celibacy
Even more worrying is the message he sends. In his blog, Nann assures that the obligation of celibacy “does more harm than good” and presents it as a cause of frustration and loneliness. These statements are what hurt the Church most deeply: a bishop who benefited for decades from the trust of the faithful now relativizes the discipline that he freely embraced in his ordination.
This is a recurring discourse in progressive circles, especially in Germany, where the so-called “Synodal Way” insists on weakening the tradition of celibacy. The Nann case thus becomes another pretext for those seeking to normalize the idea of married priests, instead of defending the beauty of a ministry totally dedicated to God and the Church.
The ecclesial dimension: damage to credibility
The episode cannot be reduced to a “personal problem.” The resignation of a bishop to get married, accompanied by accusations against the hierarchy and criticisms of celibacy, weakens the moral authority of the clergy as a whole. Even more so at a time when the Church suffers the wound of abuses and needs coherent and firm pastors in their witness.
Nann’s incoherence—abandoning the ministry while maintaining public statements against the discipline he swore to observe—erodes the trust of the faithful and becomes a scandal. The most serious thing is the confusion it generates among simple people, who see how a bishop relativizes one of the pillars of priestly identity.
Defending celibacy, strengthening priests
Celibacy is not an ecclesiastical whim nor a medieval remnant, but a gift of the Latin Church that manifests the full union of the priest with Christ. Suppressing it or relativizing it under the pretext of loneliness is to ignore the spiritual richness that for centuries has borne fruits of holiness and dedication.
The solution is not to weaken the discipline, but to strengthen the human and spiritual accompaniment of priests, especially in situations of mission, loneliness, and pastoral wear and tear. The Nann case shows that, when true support and community life are lacking, a minister can succumb to the temptation to abandon. But it also teaches that relativizing celibacy as a response not only does not solve the problem but multiplies the confusion.
Reinhold Nann’s civil marriage after his episcopal resignation is a personal drama, but it cannot become an argument to undermine priestly celibacy. The Church cannot allow cases like this to be instrumentalized to promote changes that betray its tradition and mission.
The true path is fidelity to the Gospel and the magisterium: supporting priests in their vocation and firmly defending celibacy as a sign of full and radical dedication to the Lord.