General Chat

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

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!

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.

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

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

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

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. :-)

Very interseting Joeva, I think all is summed up well in the first two paragraphs!

this is supposed to be a "Chat" board - not a contest to see who can rip off the longest piece of text from Google :-S :-S :-S :-S

GP. Love your Avatar. Very distinguished and good-looking.

Who is it?

Prince Philip, I think ;-)

John - Thats me I'm afraid and I'm not marrying you. :-D :-D

GP

Did you actually read it Ann?

It was totally in keeping with the essence of this thread and very interesting as well.


On this sort of subject, it's much better to get the facts straight rather than have lots of comments which are based on supposition and guesswork.


If people find this too heavy for them, there are plenty of light-hearted threads to join in. Please allow some of us to have a discussion on something we find really interesting and about which we have some knowledge. Thank you.

Oooh, can I come please Ann ;-)

Did I actually read it Cynthia? no I certainly did not - it's supposed to be a discussion, if people don't use their own words then the discussion is lost - I may on occasion resort to a line or two from Google, but pages of it!!!! never
We are not in school - it's a CHAT board FGS

anybody can copy and paste
but its better to have ones own opinion than words of another :-D :-D

My answer to the original poster's question: yes, if they wish so to do.

Copies of text from a website can be useful; my thanks to those that contributed such.

As I'm not a catholic, I don't really mind what they do, but I suppose if you're a catholic priest, you'd join the church knowing you couldn't marry?

My Nan who was a devout catholic, so she said, would of probably had a corony if she thought her priest could marry, she'd of lost a drinking partner if he had :-D

Each faith to it's own :-D

pmsl Ann
I have to agree - this should be discussion rather than copying and pasting reams and reams - I can look that up for myself.

A discussion thread should be just that. By all means read up on Wikipedia etc but don't just quote it. Use it as the basis for intelligent discussion and debate - anyone can cut and paste.

Back to the topic - I think the catholic church would find it exceedingly hard to implement such a fundamental change to its very being.

well said errol (did i just agree with a man) :-D :-D