Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

How Did Celibacy Become Mandatory for Priests


Claire.

Recommended Posts

How Did Celibacy Become Mandatory for Priests?

Priestly celibacy, or rather the lack of it, is in the news. There have been allegations of sex orgies, prostitution and pornography against Catholic clerics in Italy. On March 8, Pope Francis suggested, in an interview with a German newspaper, Die Zeit, that the Catholic Church should discuss the tradition of celibacy in light of an increasing scarcity of priests in rural areas, especially in South America.

Although some headlines have suggested that the pope's latest comments signal a new openness to priestly marriage, neither of these recent developments – the allegations of sex scandals nor the debate about the tradition of priestly celibacy – should be surprising.

Read more: Live Science

Edited by Claire.
Fixed source url.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a pretty common trap to assume that in order to foster matters of spirit, that one must deny, or even punish the body.

 

What absurdity.  It's right up there with the ridiculous notion that some places on earth are sacred, or more sacred than any other.

 

In my experience, there is no where and no thing that lacks spirit and that is any less sacred than any other place.

 

A turd is sacred, for without it, how will the flowers grow?  Our families and societies train into us, notions of value and our relative place within it.

 

A deep trap, fettered with much suffering and misery... unnecessarily.  truly sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's kind of blasphemy to forbid marriage.  In the old testament the law of Moses says that the priests should only marry virgins and widows,and that the high priest can only marry virgins, but not widows.

I guess what they are relying on is the parts in the gospel where Jesus says it's better not to marry, but not everyone can receive this.  He also says other things like, a man that marries a woman who has been divorced is an adulterer.  I guess because Jesus says he makes priests of people, so it's no longer just the tribe of Levites that were the tribe of Israel who were the priests.  However, he also says what God has joined together let not man rent asunder, as in the mystery of two fleshes becoming one.

  Priests aren't forbidden to marry, it's pretty much the law that they might, so it's blasphemy against Jesus.  Just as Peter denied Jesus three times before the c*** crowed, and he was said to be the cornerstone of the church.  The church denies Jesus over and over.  The way I see it is like that Satan has laid his tares in the field, but they are to stay there until the day of reaping when the tares are separated from the good crop, and the bad is burned with the angels of Satan in Hellfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first few centuries of christianity and even later in some places , priests could marry and have children. Some argue that this dispersed the wealth of the church through inheritances and thus it was disallowed.

 Women were also christian priests for several centuries  especially in the celtic parts of europe.where there was a tradition of wise women and pagan women priests.

This (that priests must remain celibate and unmarried) is an ecclesiastical law and not a doctrine and can thus be changed by the pope at any time. 

 

The Catholic Church also  ordained women for nearly 11 centuries before "virulent misogyny" and politics led to theological rules that wiped out the practice, Gary Macy, professor of Theology at Santa Clara University, said in a lecture Monday at Vanderbilt University.

Paulist Press tuned in to Macy's talk (podcast here) and coverage at California Catholic of Macy's book, The Hidden History of Women's Ordination.

According to Macy, until about the mid-12th century, women were ordained as deaconesses, served as bishops, distributed Communion and even heard confessions. "Women were considered to be as ordained as any man... they were considered clergy.

But, he says, the church by the 12th century

... sought to protect its property from feudal lords by inventing "a separate clerical class." Theologians came to view women as "metaphysically different from other people," so that, by the mere fact of being female, women were considered incapable of being ordained. Canonists adopted the position (that), "Women were never ordained, are not ordained now, and can never be ordained."

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/religion/post/2009/05/67150989/1#.WNzgX2996Uk

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is ample evidence that great energetic accomplishments can be made more potent by abstatiaining from sex.

However, this is not true with all people and also, even for people that it works well for, it will not always be beneficial at all points in life.  We are fluid verbs, not static nouns.

 

The problem lies when something works exceedingly well for one person and that person then assumes that this should be adopted and used by everyone.  Vegetarianism is a great example of this.  Not al blood types respond to food the same ways.  So what works for bringing vitality and health to one individual in terms of cutting out all meat, can render another person sickly.

 

There is not one path up the mountain.  Listen to your self.  Come to know your self.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Married priest would be focus to serve the beliver faith or focus the wife and children needed like more in material or funds.

Edited by Daimond25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr W

The audio of Macy's 2009 talk doesn't play beyond Track 1 (File not found error). Also, your link to the Paulist Press results in a 404 error.

I notice that your defective links come from an 8 year-old USA Today column, which probably partially explains the difficulty. When I did track down something from Macy,  he's argued it both ways at one time or another, first

Quote

“Besides, women never were ordained at all,” Macy said before walking back to his office.

then, maybe not so sure.

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201211/get-facts-order-history-womens-leadership-26594

There is good evidence that women served as deacons well into the First Millennium. However, the sacrament of orders (the making both of priests and of deacons)  may not have yet been formalized, and so it might be fair to conclude that "women never were ordained." There is no evidence that women ever served as "priests" in the Catholic-Orthodox church (yet to be split apart back in the First Millennium).

It is currently held as settled that women cannot be Catholic  or Eastern Orthodox priests, and that that ban in the RC church cannot ever be reversed, since its basis is attributed to God's (Jesus') revealed will. I wouldn't know, Jesus declined to be interviewed for this post.

Deacons are a different office than priests (even though they receive the same sacrament, orders). The first deacons were supposedly created by the first apostles after Jesus had left the building. That suggests that the RC ban on women deacons could be reversed someday, since its basis would seem to be church policy, as opposed to God's revealed will. The matter is currently under study in Rome.

Here's background; the progress of the current study commission can easily be followed via Googlebing.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/catholic-women-deacons-by-2020/

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how the original article implies that early Christians were playing the "victim" card...lol Uh they were literally hunted down and some thrown to the Lions.

As for priests I was told they were a) doing their best to mimic Christ's life on earth...celibacy and B) their duty is to their parishioners and the church....a wife and children would and could take precedence over your church community and family. There could be times when a priest might have to choose between the two.  Not having other entanglements removes that conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard an interesting theory that the main thing that brought it all about was when the wives of the lords and feudal rulers were unfettering too much worldly attention on the priests while their husbands were away dying for God in the foreign lands ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3ye

Quote

I heard an interesting theory that the main thing that brought it all about was when the wives of the lords and feudal rulers were unfettering too much worldly attention on the priests while their husbands were away dying for God in the foreign lands ...

No doubt there was some of that, too.

There is something complicated underlying it, though. The Eastern Orthodox (same church as Rome for the first thousand years or so) allow already married men to become priests, but don't allow already ordained priests to marry.

That would make sense in light of what you're saying: an Orthodox priest is either "already taken" or else "ineligible." That would highlight the question of why the RC's didn't follow suit, and went for simply "ineligible."

Just personally, if the problem were affairs (not something leading to marriage anyway), then ineligibility would seem to be irrelevant, but having another woman in the picture might be an actual deterrent to fooling around.

Oh well, yet another reason why I'll never be Pope :) .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, eight bits said:

Oh well, yet another reason why I'll never be Pope :) .

Ah well ... their lost ... :)

~

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catholic Christians are not the only faith that has celibate priests, Monks in the orange robes in Asia (Saolin ?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2017 at 10:03 AM, Claire. said:

How Did Celibacy Become Mandatory for Priests?

The celibacy canon is not Biblical, first and foremost; however, the Second Council of the Lateran (1139 AD) actually enforced the ban, not just forbade this marriage. In 1139 AD, this type of union became officially invalid. Wives were even sold in the slave market with full blessing from Pope Urban II, before 1139 AD. At any rate, the children became automatically illegitimate.

Edited by Ehrman Pagels 1
emphasis
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, spud the mackem said:

Catholic Christians are not the only faith that has celibate priests, Monks in the orange robes in Asia (Saolin ?)

Shaolin isn't really a religious Center, its a center that is religious ... and celibacy is a personal vow rather than a buddhism edict ...

~

 

Quote

 

Buddhism and sexuality - Wikipedia

Jump to Celibacy and monasticism - Apart from certain schools in Japan and Tibet, most who choose to practice Buddhism as ordained monks and nuns, also choose to live in celibacy. Sex is seen as a serious monastic transgression.

 

 

 

~

 

Quote

 

Celibacy in Buddhism — NewBuddhist

newbuddhist.com › Discussions › Buddhism Basics
Jun 12, 2010 - 14 posts - ‎12 authors

If you intend to stay married, i would not take a vow of celibacy, unless your ... Here, the Buddha is portrayed as rebuking a monk for his views ...

 

 

 

~

 
Quote

 

MN 22
PTS: M i 130
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Snake Simile
 
translated from the Pali by
Nyanaponika Thera
Alternate translation: Thanissaro

 


 

  • access to insight link

~

its more of a cultural principle rather than most, similar to shaving the heads ...

Edited by third_eye
missing link
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Buddhism there sangha a Bhikku/ a monk (/bhikuni [woman]) who take a vow this include celibacy, there are strict rule to become A Bhikku they must become Samanera first to train before able step become a Bhikku and member of Sangha.

there after this there priest (/Pandita) as replacment of Bhikku cause Bhikku sometimes cause vow and strict rule bind them could not come to like military complek or area so this part the Pandita represent a Bhikku to do ceremony and ritual, Pandita able to married, japanese Buddhism actualy a Pandita cause they able to married, if you look in japanese history there Budhist monk / Buddhist Bhikku have weapon and go to wars this certainly break the vow and strict ruler who binds them so they just Budhist Pandita not real Bhikku member of sangha.

There upasaka dan upasika, a lay people who vow to do Pancasila Buddhis and Attha sila Buddhis, regular they get Buddhism name.

Edited by Daimond25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 31/03/2017 at 6:59 PM, eight bits said:

Mr W

The audio of Macy's 2009 talk doesn't play beyond Track 1 (File not found error). Also, your link to the Paulist Press results in a 404 error.

I notice that your defective links come from an 8 year-old USA Today column, which probably partially explains the difficulty. When I did track down something from Macy,  he's argued it both ways at one time or another, first

then, maybe not so sure.

http://www.uscatholic.org/articles/201211/get-facts-order-history-womens-leadership-26594

There is good evidence that women served as deacons well into the First Millennium. However, the sacrament of orders (the making both of priests and of deacons)  may not have yet been formalized, and so it might be fair to conclude that "women never were ordained." There is no evidence that women ever served as "priests" in the Catholic-Orthodox church (yet to be split apart back in the First Millennium).

It is currently held as settled that women cannot be Catholic  or Eastern Orthodox priests, and that that ban in the RC church cannot ever be reversed, since its basis is attributed to God's (Jesus') revealed will. I wouldn't know, Jesus declined to be interviewed for this post.

Deacons are a different office than priests (even though they receive the same sacrament, orders). The first deacons were supposedly created by the first apostles after Jesus had left the building. That suggests that the RC ban on women deacons could be reversed someday, since its basis would seem to be church policy, as opposed to God's revealed will. The matter is currently under study in Rome.

Here's background; the progress of the current study commission can easily be followed via Googlebing.

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/catholic-women-deacons-by-2020/

I dont have sound turned on, so I admit to not listening only reading the source  i read it first/ originally when it came out .  However there are a number of studies especially by groups of women within catholicism which provide evidences for women priests celebrating   masses etc (including some paintings  of women so officiating)

In the celtic areas of europe there is evidence of women priests much later than in other areas and one evidence for this are the letters etc from church authorities in their efforts to stamp it out.  As one article made clear, such is the orthodoxy in modern catholicism that it is just unthinkable that women could ever have officiated and policy has that the y never did.  yet there are numerous written references to women especially in the ealry years, doing the same role as men and being held in the same status and regard as male priests. .  However i take your point there may have been NO ordained priests as such male or female, as we understand the position today, in the early years. 

 

 

 

In 1976, the Pontifical Biblical Commission concluded that there is no biblical reason to prohibit women’s ordination. Women and men are created in God’s image and both may represent Christ as priests. I

I went to  "roman catholic women priests" both then and now, in the belief that if anyone had researched this they would have.  The source shows a lot of the evidences the y have gathered but i remembered these from a few years back

Ghttp://romancatholicwomenpriests.org/RCWP_Resource.pdf

The Louvre possesses the mummy tag of an Egyptian woman, Artemidora, a Christian living between approximately 250 and 350 AD. The tag describes her as a “presbyter,” that is, priest. For photo, see Irvin, Calendars. • A burial site for Epikto, on a Greek island, Thera, from the third or fourth century calls her a "presbytis" which means "priest or presbyter". (Eisen, pp. 123-4) •

In the Catacombs of Priscilla, Rome, the fresco “Fractio Panis” shows a group of women "conducting a Eucharistic banquet". Catholic theologian, Dorothy Irvin believes that the red background and location of this fresco indicates a date close to 100 A. D. “The slope of the shoulders, feminine postures and jaw lines, 2 earlobes, breasts and upswept hair-do’s with forehead curls attest to the femininity of all those seated around the table. (Irvin, Calendars) •

A fifth century inscription carved on the sarcophagus of Leta Presbitera describes "Leta Presbitera" and states: "Of blessed memory Leta the Presbyter lived 40 years, 8 months, 9 days whose husband prepared her burial she departed in peace the day before the Ides of May.” Ides 15th –1 = May 14th. (Irvin, Calendars) •

A Sicilian 4th or 5th century inscription calls Kale the "presbytis" or elder. (Irvin, Calendars) • A fourth century floor mosaic covering the tomb of Guilia Runa is located in the cathedral at Annaba acknowledges: "Guilia Runa, woman priest". T

 

 

iorgio Otranto, director of the Institute of Classical and Christian Studies, University of Bari, Italy believes evidence of women priests is found in an epistle of Pope Gelasius I (late 5th c). In 494 AD Pope Gelasius wrote a letter to the bishops of three regions of southern Italy complaining about the practice of women presiding at the liturgy: "Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong." In summary Otranto concludes, “we may infer from an analysis of Gelasius's epistle that at the end of the fifth century, some women, having been ordained by bishops, were exercising a true and proper ministerial priesthood in a vast area of southern Italy, as well as perhaps in other unnamed regions of Italy.” (Otranto, Notes on the Female Priesthood in Antiquity, Section 2, http://www.womenpriests.org/traditio/otran_1.asp) • The Irish Life of Brigit describes the episcopal ordination of St. Brigit of Kildare by Bishop Mel of Ardagh in fifth century Ireland. Brigit was consecrated by Mel, who, “being intoxicated with the grace of God there, did not know what he was reciting from his book, for he consecrated Brigit with the orders of a bishop.” (Davies , p.33.)

• The evidence in the Celtic Church indicates that women and men were equals in preaching the Gospel, presiding at Mass and at the other sacraments. In the sixth century, three Roman bishops at Tours wrote a letter to two Breton priests Lovocat and Cathern, expressing their outrage that women were allowed to preside at Eucharist. “You celebrate the divine sacrifice of the Mass with the assistance of women to whom you give the name conhospitae* …While you distribute the eucharist, they take the chalice and administer the blood of Christ to the people… Renounce these abuses…! *(mixed houses or double monasteries where men and women lived together and raised their children in the service of Christ) (Ellis, pp.142-144) • In double monasteries, men and women worked as equals. However, the overall

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr W

Personally, I don't think Macy himself is far off the mark. The historical (precedent) issue is pretty much as he frames it:

- Women performed (almost?) all sorts of church functions in the remote past and even later during times of exceptional crisis, which so far as I know, all sides accept as the fact of the matter.

- The question for today's RC church would be whether or not those women were "ordained" (whether as "deacons" or "priests," assuming that the distinction even existed if you went far enough back).

- As Macy seems to appreciate, there is a tension in the modern anti-woman-priest argument: if women "just did" those things, but weren't "ordained," then there is no precedent. On the other hand, if the reason why the women weren't ordained is that there was no such thing back then, then men doing those things weren't ordained, either. Conclude, if so: historically, there is nothing special about being or not being ordained, but that sacramental "specialness" today is the very foundation of current church organization = Big time Oops if it has no basis. Maybe a bigger oops than tolerating package-free priests.

Liberal Macy, then, is juggling hand grenades while his misogynist employers are walking a tightrope overhead. Caution is to be expected, above and below. (Also, I think Macy may well be factually correct that originally the word ordination referred to being given tasks to perform within the community, however each local community saw fit.)

Priests. As noted, for the RC's this is a closed issue. Regardless of the Bible (you were kidding, right?), church history, the definition of ordination, etc. the Gospel is that Jesus chose only male disciples to receive institution instruction at the Last Supper (nicely cutting out John 20 and canonical Mark 16:9-10 wherein a woman was chosen by Jesus as his first apostle). It is a papal finding that this was Jesus' intention and not merely an expedient accommodation to the social norms of that time and place. To overturn that finding would be hugely difficult.

Deacons are what is left in play, and deacons are the play that Papa Frank is making (although as your summary suggests, the recent history of study commissions has been short on effectiveness or influence).

Brigid: is probably the goddess, not a human being, but sanitized as such for the Roman church to close the deal on the first Western bloodless (on both sides) national-scale conversion. The first Christian Irish priests were very probably sort-of-former druids, and Brigid would be a tough girl for them to leave behind. The deal stuck, too: the church purged the rota of saints in the last century, getting rid of those for whom there was no evidence of actually having lived. Except Brigid, for whom there is no such evidence, because she never had actually lived.

As I said, she's one tough girl to leave behind. And not a precedent for anything else, either.

Edited by eight bits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that priests couldn't marry because the Church was trying set them apart from everyone else. They're supposed to be God's acting special people who can absolve sins and such. Setting them above everyone else sort of makes for this idolization of clergy. You can't just pray to God and be forgiven. This guy in a dress needs to do it. And he can only do it because he is holier than thou (or at least that's the way they want it to appear). If he got married and had sex just like everybody else, I guess the argument that he is purer and closer to God than parishioners would wane. Then again, that argument also wanes with allegations of sex abuse that keep cropping up...and how the Church chooses to deal (or not deal) with them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy, Chaos

Bureaucratic organizations are notorious for rationalizing why they do what they do, especially when the actual reason is that nobody currently working there can remember a time when the organization did it differently (whatever "it" may be).

At least the Vatican bureaucracy realizes that priestly celibacy is purely a man-made (and I do mean man-made) church rule, unlike the situation with not ordaining women priests (supposedly the will of God).

Given, however, that there are men who prefer things that way (and not just gay men, either, although historically that has been a factor in church policy), then once such men achieve power, then single-men-only will he hard to overturn, since only men who like things that way will join the clergy, and the leadership comes only from the clergy. A vicious circle kicks in.

I don't think it's much more complicated than that, really.

Edited by eight bits
dis-digressed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2017 at 10:35 PM, Ehrman Pagels 1 said:

The celibacy canon is not Biblical, first and foremost; however, the Second Council of the Lateran (1139 AD) actually enforced the ban, not just forbade this marriage. In 1139 AD, this type of union became officially invalid. Wives were even sold in the slave market with full blessing from Pope Urban II, before 1139 AD. At any rate, the children became automatically illegitimate.

New to me. I'll tell my husband's brother about this. He left the priesthood. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is a sexual being not a spiritual being?

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since Poseidon lost it when he saw Caenis one fine day on a beach i think ...

~

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Likely Guy said:

Since when is a sexual being not a spiritual being?

 

It goes to the concept of a  basic division between flesh and spirit, which preceded christianity in pagan beliefs.  Humans have long realised that  they are part flesh and part spirit (ie self aware consciousness) and that these two aspects often conflict with each other.    Some beliefs try to bring the two halves into a unified whole. Others are structured to keep them separate

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it has always mystified me, that folks can long hold the notion that form is devoid of spiritual nature.

it's right up there with the concept that 'this piece of land, or architecture, or this being, animal/plant is sacred'  where others are not.

it's utterly alien to my experience

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are right - nothing is objectively sacred. Anything claimed to be sacred is only sacred for a certain religion, or certain god, or certain 'holy' person. It is easy for most people to understand that a particular god would want a piece of land or building for himself, only himself - no others permitted. The rest of the land is then up for grabs. Sacred sites can't last forever so the whole idea of sacredness is only temporary in nature.

Even ordinary people can make mundane objects like cars sacred for themselves if they don't allow anyone else to operate their car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.