General Chat

Thank you Joeva - that was an interesting article (even if I did have to read it twice) :-D


It's good to see the factual history behind the reasoning of celibacy. Saves a lot of guesswork. :-)

Can anybody explain in simple English what this lot is talking about. I've been away a few hours and I think I've lost the plot.

GP

I feel as if I am wandering in a Googley Wikpedia kinda place :-S :-S :-S

Thanks for reading John ! To me this is a very plausible explanation of the way that the 'rules' for Priesthood are applied today. :-|

LilyL. I knew exactly what you meant. :-D :-D

Joeva. Have just waded throught your post and it is very interesting indeed. It more or less confirms a couple of things I thought ie it happened less than 1,000 years ago and had nothing to do with early Christianity.

I found Pope Paul VI boring myself. But I kind of think that his jewel in the crown statement and the comment in Bible about making yourself a eunuch is what it is all about.

That people in professional paid ministry should have the same freedoms as church people who are lay. That is, if they want a partner to enhance their ministry, they should have one. And, if they want to be eunuchs, jewels in the crown, whatever, they should be encouraged to stay single and celibate.

Cynthia. Had not thought too much about your point re Sally Army officers, but now I think about it, it is true. I think the two Majors in my valley and the next one are a married couple. And Gideons encourage married people - they always seem to pray (example only) for Joyce (and her husband Len). I have yet to see an unmarried Gideon.

I agree Paula, of course breakups happen in all walks of life, but I think that the breakup of married clergy is more public which makes it perhaps more difficult. John, I was just agreeing that I don't find you boring quite the opposite in fact!

A common critique of theistic religion is the extent to which religious rules and doctrines created by human beings for the purpose of maintaining power and control over others are attributed to a divine source. Pretending that human rules are God's rules help prevent them from changing or being questioned. A strong example of this is the celibacy of priests in Catholic Christianity, as demonstrated by its historical development and lack of consistent adherence.

If there were any divine origin to religious rules, we shouldn't be able to trace their development in human history and how they were conditioned by historical, cultural circumstances. It's no surprise that churches say little about how today's doctrines did not always exist in the past and, in fact, aren't as absolute as they seem. Again, clerical celibacy in Catholicism is a good example of this.


Real Reasons for Celibacy: Land, Purity, Women

Celibacy has not always been required of priests. Defenders of celibacy rely heavily on Matthew 19:12, where Jesus is quoted as saying that "...they have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept this." Here, "eunuchs" is interpreted to be a reference renouncing marriage and being celibate, but if Jesus placed such a high value on celibacy, why were most if not all of his apostles married? It's implausible that unmarried followers could not be found, so it's implausible that celibacy was required.

Over time, rules about sexual abstinence grew from a belief that sexual intercourse makes a person "unclean," based largely on the belief that women are less pure than men and hence constitute a form of ritual contamination. Attitudes about ritual cleanliness have played an important role in religious violence generally; attitudes about the inferiority of women have been important in violence towards them. In fact, the continued existence of an all-male, celibate priesthood cannot be divorced from an accompanying view of women as less moral and less worthy than men.

The denigration of both women and sex was accompanied by a denigration of marriage and family. The Council of Trent, called to combat the challenges posed by the Protestant Reformation, made an interesting statement about the church's position on family values:

If anyone says that it is not better and more godly to live in virginity or in the unmarried state than to marry, let him be anathema.

Another factor in the push for clerical celibacy was the problematic relationship the Catholic Church had with real estate and inherited land. Priests and bishops were not just religious leaders, they also had political power based on the land they controlled. When they died, the land might go to church or the man's heirs — and naturally the church wanted to keep the land in order to retain political power.

Tthe best way to keep the land was to ensure that no rivals could claim it; keeping the clergy celibate and unmarried was the easiest way to accomplish this. Making celibacy a religious obligation was also the best way to ensure that the clergy obeyed. Catholic apologists deny that such worldly concerns were part of the decision to impose celibacy on priests, but it can't be a coincidence that the final push towards celibacy occurred when conflict over land were increasing.


Evolution of Rules on Celibacy

Because of the doctrine that sexual intercourse with a woman makes a man unclean, married priests were prohibited from celebrating the Eucharist for a full day after sex with their wives. Because the trend was to celebrate the Eucharist more and more often, sometimes even daily, priests were pressured to be celibate just to fulfill their basic religious functions — and eventually they were prohibited from ever having sex with their wives. Celibacy was thus somewhat common by 300 CE, when the Spanish Council of Elvira required married bishops, priests, and deacons to permanently abstain from sex with their wives. The pressure this put on marriages was not important and the consequences for the wives would only get worse.

In 1139, the Second Lateran Council officially imposed mandatory celibacy on all priests. Every priest's marriage was declared invalid and every married priest had to separate from their wives — leaving them to whatever fate God had in store for them, even if it meant leaving them destitute. Of course this was an immoral thing to do to those spouses, and many clergy realized that there was little religious or traditional basis for it, so they defied that order and continued in their marriages.

The final blow against priests' ability to marry came through a technicality at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The church asserted that a valid Christian marriage must be performed by a valid priest and in front of two witnesses. Previously, private marriages performed by priests or, indeed, just about anyone else, were common in some areas. Sometimes the only ones present were the officiant and the couple. Banning such clandestine marriages effectively eliminated marriage for the clergy.



Contrary to what defenders might say, there is nothing whatsoever about the nature of the priesthood which makes celibacy necessary or essential. In the 1967 encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, written to reinforce the "Sacredness of Celibacy" in the face of growing calls to rethink it, Pope Paul VI explained that while celibacy is a "dazzling jewel," it is not:

...required by the nature of the priesthood itself. This is clear from the practice of the early church itself and the traditions of the Eastern churches.

The history of clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is thus one of contingency and political expediency. The doctrine of sexual abstinence, supposedly designed to increase priests' purity, is inseparable from the political and worldly concerns of Christianity at a particular time and place in history. That is also why there are so many married Roman Catholic priests in the world.
From HISTORY OF CELIBACY IN CATHOLICISM /PRIESTS/MARRIAGE

Precisely. Now I find mind myself agreeing with Jude.

And if I am boring, Jude, you must be.....

No!!! Perish the thought :-D ;-)

Cynthia I agree with you. However, I think that marriage break-ups can happen in any profession, where one partner does not have the same commitment as the other. Law, Medicine, Armed forces all have their casualties, and have disagreements, some will work together in the tough times and some will just choose to leave. Sadly that is the way of life.

Precisely!

Jude, that is a matter of opinion!

Sorry John, seems more agree with you......your still boring though...lol:)

Would this apply to Nuns aswell that they be allowed to marry.?

People in the ministry do, though, get some time off together. It makes it sound like they never do anything else.
It calls for delegation of time but any minister of any denomination should be able to take time off.
Surely there are not evfening meetings every day of the week?

You have a point there John. I too have known couples who have struggled when one is in ministry and the partner is simply not interested and yes, some have sadly parted.


There have also been couples who have both been ordained and those who are both ordained but into different churches. Bet they had interesting meal time discussions...... :)


Years ago, when Anglican clergy were considering marriage, they had to take their 'intended' to see the bishop and get his permission. It was really a formality but I guess it helped the couple to realise that this was a serious decision to take.


My parents were officers in the Salvation Army and they too, had to have permission to marry and they definitely had to marry a Salvationist because they do work officially as a couple - don't know whether that is still the case though.


Some of the stumbling blocks which any priests' wives will have to face is the fact that the husband's vocation will probably come first in his life - that he is likely to be 'on call' 24/7 - expected to have an ever open door - he will be at the beck and call of his parishioners - he will be out during the evenings at meetings - days off may be interrupted by parish business - etc.etc. If they can overcome all that together, then all will be well....... :-D

LilyL I think it is being conducted amicably.
OK it is an emotive issue so some people are bound to get quite animated about it but that is the beauty of debate.

John, I think one of the main problems is that it is such an important part of the catholic church and is deeply seated in that denomination's whole being.

I agree John, as you say it must be very difficult for a non-christian partener, but even a committed christian couple can encounter pitfalls, as we all do!! We have a friend who although now retired, was a' man of the cloth' whose marriage foundered, and lets just say it made both lives very difficult. On balance, I think it would be a good idea for RC clergy to be ale to marry if they want to, as I think a lot of wouldbe clegy won't commit to the Priesthood because of this anomoly. I suppose it just depends what you believe and how strongly you believe it!

I see a lot of marriages falling apart in the ministry because both partners were not committed Christians when they got married.

And if either partner trains for the ministry, it must be very difficult for the non-Christian. I think often ladies in the past have acted their way through their married lives, listened to millions of sermons, organised thousands of fetes. They have lived a lie, in effect, out of loyalty to their husband.

Nowadays, they are free to leave husband when they want. But not easy for either partner. And how nice it is to see a couple growing closer together in love in church leadership.

And perhaps that might happen more often in the future in RC Church.

I do think it is a pity that a discussion like this which is interesting can't be conducted in an atmosphere of friendly debate and not what is at times clearly personal antagonism. I appreciate that people feel strongly on this particular subject, but we are all entitled to our views on this and other subjects without being ridiculed or shouted down even if those ideas are diametrically different to other opinions. People like me are loath to join in because of this which is a pity. Just thought I'd mention it! For what it's worth I totally agree with you Rambling Rose, you can't tar everyone with the same brush.

I think it's a bit unfair to imply that someone who embraces celibacy is running away from the world or has dubious motives or is 'odd' in some way. Not having sex , not eating to excess, not enjoying luxuries, all a way of seperating oneself from 'distractions' from prayer, contemplation and service to God. It's a far cry from paedophiles or frustrated spinsters ( though those exist in all walks of life ) locked up behind monastery/convent walls going slowly mad with unrequited lust;-)

no one suggests a person who is 'married to their job' and puts all their energy into it is out of touch or odd, it is a choice, it should remain a choice.

I am not against priests marrying...OR against them choosing celibacy ( the latter can be a lot less troublesome to the spirit lol ;-) )