Origins of the rule on celibacy?

gaf1983

Over on this thread of "Expanding your knowledge of the world" someone posted:

Commander Vimes wrote:

in the middle ages, priests were allowed marry but they kept having children and passing the family house onto them. of course the church provided the priest with that house so to prevent the church losing money, they invented the idea that priests shouldn't marry

Is that true?

The general conclusion people have is that yes, the church didn't want their priests to marry so that they could keep the land when the priest died.
However, I have no sources, so that's all I can say.

Capt'n Midnight

From The Celts - Frank Delaney - Published in 1986 - Page 50
Confessio' / Confession of Saint Patrick

Saint Patrick wrote:

I, Patrick, a most untutored sinner and the lowest of all the faithfull and the most despicable in the eyes of many, am the son of Calpurnius, a deacon who was the son of Potitus a priest, from the village of Bannaventa Berniae, who had an estate near it, where I was taken prisioner.

http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/patrick.html
http://donabate.irishchurch.net/altar.html
http://www.stpatrickfathers.org/Saint_Patrick/St_Patrick_Life.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/northernireland/spring/patricks/life.shtml

hairyheretic

I think that was part of it. Another was with the sheer corruption of the church in the middle ages, nepotism was rife, and it wasn't unusual for high ranking churchmen to promote / appoint their family to good posts.

robindch

> in the middle ages, priests were allowed marry

Priestly celibacy, like many other rules that the church has, derives completely from long-standing tradition. Paul, who had much to do with setting up the institution of the church, says that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife," and "must manage his own household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he care for God’s Church?". All of which means that priestly celibacy wasn't a requirement during the early days, before the church had grown enough to be a major property owner.

Following that, though, the church acquired massive amounts of property and power -- eg, it's the second largest owner of land in Ireland after the state itself -- and, like any good institution, the church has bent over backwards to ensure that this property and power remains intact. Priestly celibacy and the consequent denial of the inheritance rights of children is just one way of doing this.

Formally, the church enacted legal requirements for celibacy in dribs and drabs from the fourth century onwards and by the time of the crusades, it was pretty much a done deal. More info is here.

BTW, the catholic church is not quite as single-minded on the topic as it often tries to make out. Married catholic priests are quite common in Africa, and I seem to remember that the catholic church in the UK took in a few married Anglican priests when the women-priests argument was at its height some years back (and produced an hilariously aerobic excuse justifying it!). Also, the Uniate Church in western Ukraine which is Eastern in rite, but owes its allegiance to the pope, does permit married priests. Not that you'd guess it from the Vatican's publicity machine's curious silence on the topic, though.

Capt'n Midnight

robindch wrote:

Uniate Church

Ta. couldn't remember their name.

40crush41

Asked a Melkite priest about it since Eastern Catholics can marry and he explained that as you said, the west changed since too much of the money from the parish was going to support the priests families and taking away from the church.
I'm not sure on the theoligical reasons for it, besides that they are called to devoting their whole life to God. Still, Eastern Catholic priests are able to handle it, though he mentioned it can be tough at times. I think I remember him saying something of the sizes of the parishes being much larger which could be harder for Roman Catholic priests today, and also I suppose now its so embedded into our tradition that it might not change.

Asiaprod

I am actually surprised that the church never saw fit to allow nuns and priest to marry. Think of the potential there!!!

You could also have pre marrige contracts drawn up like they do do in Hollywood re property. Just a thought, but think of the possibilities:rolleyes:

BrianCalgary

Our local Catholic priest said, "Jesus wasn't married, so we don't marry." A also heard that if a priest has a wife and kids, how can they then tend to their flock properly? I disagree with the whole notion as Paul does say that there are thoses that are to be married and those that are to be single.

Besides I wonder how much of the RC churches problems are a result of this rule?

thetourist

BrianCalgary wrote:

Our local Catholic priest said, "Jesus wasn't married, so we don't marry." ....... I disagree with the whole notion as Paul does say that there are thoses that are to be married and those that are to be single.

exactly ..... not meaning to pick on the priest in question but this type of explanation insulting the inteligence of people who are interested in these things and more or less implies that you have to be "clergy" to understand the bible - i mean that's as clear as a bell in there for anyone to rea- or else he hasnt read it himself - or else he was bluffing and guessing that you hadnt read it yourself ----

--- anyway that was just an aside -- what i was going to contribute is .....

1 Timothy 4
Instructions to Timothy
1The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.

Capt'n Midnight

BrianCalgary wrote:

Our local Catholic priest said, "Jesus wasn't married, so we don't marry."

There's the speculation about Mary Magdalene :v:

Asiaprod

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

There's the speculation about Mary Magdalene :v:

I think the (in)famouse Gospel of Thomas goes a wee bit further than speculation on this issue, not to mention the issues that have been broached around the raising of Lazurus

robindch

> this type of explanation insulting the inteligence of people who are
> interested in these things and more or less implies that you have
> to be "clergy" to understand the bible

Yikes, 'nother history lesson is called for.

It is official doctrine of the catholic church that you need a priest to interpret the church's doctrine for you, and you need a priest to mediate between you and the catholic god. I mean, if you're an absolutist institution, you couldn't continue if your members all ran around the place thinking for themselves without the need for your institution's employees?

The cultural reason for this assertion of the clergy's role (like everything else the church does), is simply to reinforce the church's power and influence in people's lives, so that the church can guarantee its own future. And enough people sign up for this in both the clergy and the laity, so that the whole rattling, groaning edifice does continue from generation to generation. Amazing, but true.

> i mean that's as clear as a bell in there for anyone to read

For the majority of the christian church's existence, the bible was not there for anybody to read, because it did not exist in any local language, but only in the 'official' language of the Koine Greek, and from the fifth century, a second edition -- the Vulgate -- in Latin. Needless to say, you had to be educated in order to be able to read either of these languages and who ran the educational system? Surprise, surprise, the priests did! So who got to control the translation and therefore the interpretation of the holy book? Hmm...

Whenever you encounter religious traditions, Ravilla's simple question, "Cui bono?", is always worth asking

BTW, it's a matter of amusement for people like me that, just as the christian authorities kept their holy book in Greek for as long as possible, so too do Jews still keep the Talmud in Hebrew, Muslims still keep the Qu'ran in classical arabic, Sikhs keep the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi and so on and so on. It's as if they were doing the same thing, for the same reason...

Asiaprod

robindch wrote:

Yikes, 'nother history lesson is called for.

Congratulations, with the exception of "(like everything else the church does, which is your opinion), this is one of your best post. Not for its lack of complexity, for its realistic factual honesty.
Impressive.
There is a lot in there that bears further discussion.

thetourist

robindch wrote:

> this type of explanation insulting the inteligence of people who are
> interested in these things and more or less implies that you have
> to be "clergy" to understand the bible

Yikes, 'nother history lesson is called for.

It is official doctrine of the catholic church that you need a priest to interpret the church's doctrine for you, and you need a priest to mediate between you and the catholic god. I mean, if you're an absolutist institution, you couldn't continue if your members all ran around the place thinking for themselves without the need for your institution's employees?

The cultural reason for this assertion of the clergy's role (like everything else the church does), is simply to reinforce the church's power and influence in people's lives, so that the church can guarantee its own future. And enough people sign up for this in both the clergy and the laity, so that the whole rattling, groaning edifice does continue from generation to generation. Amazing, but true.

> i mean that's as clear as a bell in there for anyone to read

For the majority of the christian church's existence, the bible was not there for anybody to read, because it did not exist in any local language, but only in the 'official' language of the Koine Greek, and from the fifth century, a second edition -- the Vulgate -- in Latin. Needless to say, you had to be educated in order to be able to read either of these languages and who ran the educational system? Surprise, surprise, the priests did! So who got to control the translation and therefore the interpretation of the holy book? Hmm...

Whenever you encounter religious traditions, Ravilla's simple question, "Cui bono?", is always worth asking

BTW, it's a matter of amusement for people like me that, just as the christian authorities kept their holy book in Greek for as long as possible, so too do Jews still keep the Talmud in Hebrew, Muslims still keep the Qu'ran in classical arabic, Sikhs keep the Sri Guru Granth Sahib in Gurmukhi and so on and so on. It's as if they were doing the same thing, for the same reason...

exactly ... !!!


more to the point though i was refering along the lines of "in this day and age" - if you get my drift - i find it as i said insultive in the year 2006 to hear that clergy are still up to the same old tricks that they were up to throughout the middle ages.

my own opinion, without getting into the history of the thing is that it was never god's intention to have the bible interpreted for the plebs by the clergy - i dont really believe that clergy were or are in his plan - jesus was not clergy, neither were the apostles or any of the early evangelists or church leaders - they were appointed to organise - this notion sort of developed over time

if you look in the gospel at the splitting of the curtain in the temple at jesus' death - the curtain seperated the holy from the most holy place - the most holy place was where the high priest went in once a year - splitting that curtain was making the most holy place available to all - saints, sinners and clergy - no one was ever meant to act as a priest( mediator between god and man ) again - because jesus had become the great high priest for all generations, accessable to all

Excelsior

Asiaprod wrote:

I think the (in)famouse Gospel of Thomas goes a wee bit further than speculation on this issue, not to mention the issues that have been broached around the raising of Lazurus

It doesn't. Read it yourself. Jesus was not married is as close to a fact as one can have about him.

Tar.Aldarion

Bumpety bump after seeing the thread in AH.
Are priests actually allowed to marry but just don't or is tradition now the rule?

robindch

> Are priests actually allowed to marry but just don't or is tradition
> now the rule?

Take a look at my own earlier posting on the topic in this thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50739207&postcount=5

Tar.Aldarion

Oh I missed that last paragraph, surely they could have that changed.
I mean some do marry and what is wrong with that apart from some people thought it fitting to forbid it, for a reason which seems stupid to uphold these days, imo.
Meh, Think it is wrong to have to sacrifice falling in love and marrying and such.
Life isn't really great without that stuff, to me.

larryone

BrianCalgary wrote:

Besides I wonder how much of the RC churches problems are a result of this rule?

Alot I would think.

larryone

robindch wrote:

Muslims still keep the Qu'ran in classical arabic,

robindch wrote:

It's as if they were doing the same thing, for the same reason...

Careful here - throughout most of Islam, muslims are encouraged to learn arabic and study the Quran. Islam is not a religion based on the ignorance of the plebs and the arrogance of the learned, but on a greater understanding for all muslims.

thetourist

Careful here - throughout most of Islam, muslims are encouraged to learn arabic and study the Quran. Islam is not a religion based on the ignorance of the plebs and the arrogance of the learned, but on a greater understanding for all muslims.

christianity was also (and still is) meant to be "for the people". It is clear from even a basic reading of one of the four gospels that jesus was not big on religious biggots ( he called them brood of vipers in one place - hot headed stuff for the son of god !!! )
clearly the pharisies live on however and we have that spirit to thank for the middle ages and much of the stuff that lingers on from that time
IMO however any "real" christian - from any of the denominations tends to see all christians as equal and would encourage ordinary plebs to read the bible and seek god etc ... unfortuantly many people dont want to be bothered

BrianCalgary

thetourist wrote:

christianity was also (and still is) meant to be "for the people". It is clear from even a basic reading of one of the four gospels that jesus was not big on religious biggots ( he called them brood of vipers in one place - hot headed stuff for the son of god !!! )
clearly the pharisies live on however and we have that spirit to thank for the middle ages and much of the stuff that lingers on from that time
IMO however any "real" christian - from any of the denominations tends to see all christians as equal and would encourage ordinary plebs to read the bible and seek god etc ... unfortuantly many people dont want to be bothered

And they all replied: AMEN!!!

larryone

My point is that this was not the reason the qur'an was kept in arabic. If you really want to study the bibly properly then you do so by reading it in whatever language it was written in. Alot of meaning, and intention, etc is lost when you translate something too many times. Hence why it was kept in the origional language it was written in. With the Bible, some verses in some of the translations were deliberately mis-translated towards some political end. Sorry for going so far off topic - I just wanted to correct what robindch was saying about "for the same reason"
Didnt quite get your last post there BrianCalgary

Excelsior

Which verses were deliberately mis-translated LarryOne? Can you take a modern translation (Robin there have been some since KJV, by the way ) like the NRSV or my beloved heretical TNIV and show me where the text suffers for being in easily understood English?

While I agree that learning koine Greek and classical Hebrew is the best bet if you want to really get in-depth in Bible study, I think the route that the Christian churches have taken is better. Lots of experts have and continue to study the texts and then they translate them into English for the plebs.

Also, thetourist: great post!

larryone

The most famous mistranslation being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" which was a deliberate mistranslation of "poisoner" to the political end of persecution of pagan religions.
There's other stuff in the KJV - but not alot of it immediately comes to mind.
I think almost any translated prose looses something in the translation.

robindch

> The most famous mistranslation being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch
> to live" which was a deliberate mistranslation of "poisoner" [...]

Haven't come across that one before -- but a quick google shows that there's enough semantic meat in that one sentence for a summerful of demonic barbecues (here for example) -- "poisoner" is just one of the alternate translations of the Hebrew word.

> [...] to the political end of persecution of pagan religions.

In reading the following two sentences following the "thou shalt not...", the "political end" of that bit of Exodus becomes more obvious:

Do not allow a sorceress to live. Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal must be put to death. Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the LORD must be destroyed.

...which seems a pretty clear religious justification of religious violence.

> I think almost any translated prose looses something in the translation.

In the case of the NT, I would say that the KJV manages the opposite, by taking a very mundane, very pedestrian greek text and translating it way above its station. Perhaps political considerations might apply in this direction too?

larryone

thetourist wrote:

christianity was also (and still is) meant to be "for the people"

Yes, but as robindch said above it is official doctrine of the catholic church that you need a priest to interpret the church's doctrine for you...
In Islam you dont.

larryone

And yes, excelsior, this mistranslation did make its way into the NRSV and the TNIV

Excelsior

I've just checked my TNIV (closest to hand as I'm off to church) and it has sorceress. While I acknowledge that the KJV was a shambolic bit of work, the modern translations make no reference to it in their work, which is across denominational and ideological lines.

Citing the KJV as an example is a little bit anachronistic. Besides Paisley's bunch of loonies, I couldn't imagine it serving as a base for Christian life. My church definitely won't be getting rid of our gender neutral NIVs in favour of KJV lest Robin converts and starts coming to homegroup.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

My church definitely won't be getting rid of our gender neutral NIVs in favour of KJV lest Robin converts and starts coming to homegroup.

:eek: :eek: :eek:
If he comes, I will come too:)

robindch

robindch wrote:

> The most famous mistranslation being "Thou shalt not suffer a witch
> to live" which was a deliberate mistranslation of "poisoner" [...]

Haven't come across that one before -- but a quick google shows that there's enough semantic meat in that one sentence for a summerful of demonic barbecues (here for example) -- "poisoner" is just one of the alternate translations of the Hebrew word.

> [...] to the political end of persecution of pagan religions.

In reading the following two sentences following the "thou shalt not...", the "political end" of that bit of Exodus becomes more obvious:...which seems a pretty clear religious justification of religious violence.

> I think almost any translated prose looses something in the translation.

In the case of the NT, I would say that the KJV manages the opposite, by taking a very mundane, very pedestrian greek text and translating it way above its station. Perhaps political considerations might apply in this direction too?

Odd, I kept hearing that the original was "poisoner", not witch or sorceress...

wonder if that has any basis

robindch

> Odd, I kept hearing that the original was "poisoner", not witch or sorceress...

Hmm... perhaps somebody was trying to sell *you* a line?

larryone

Excelsior wrote:

I've just checked my TNIV (closest to hand as I'm off to church) and it has sorceress. While I acknowledge that the KJV was a shambolic bit of work, the modern translations make no reference to it in their work, which is across denominational and ideological lines.

Citing the KJV as an example is a little bit anachronistic. Besides Paisley's bunch of loonies, I couldn't imagine it serving as a base for Christian life. My church definitely won't be getting rid of our gender neutral NIVs in favour of KJV lest Robin converts and starts coming to homegroup.

"sorceress", where it should have been poisoner. Same in my Jerusalem Bible too.

thetourist

larryone wrote:

Yes, but as robindch said above it is official doctrine of the catholic church that you need a priest to interpret the church's doctrine for you...
In Islam you dont.

except that ....

* not everyone believes that the catholic church hierarchy speak for "christians"
* not even all catholics believe or accept the church's official line on this

what i'm saying it that just because a bunch of people (reguardless of who they are ) claim to have a monopoly on interpretation is no reason to tar the entire religion with the same brush - if you do that you might as well say the muslim faith is fundamentaly associated with terrorism ... of course that would not be the truth. What's important is what is MEANT to be; not what IS because certain people (of any religion) will always put their own spin on the truth and the vatican is and has been no exception to that fact.

larryone

My intention was not to tar all of christianity with the same brush, sorry if it seemed like that.

thetourist

no worries - i'll check with my elders to interpret if i should forgive you or not

lostexpectation

so if celibacy was brought in to deal with inheritance of church property if it was abolished today as some are calling for would the same problems re-occur?

larryone

Not if a condition was put in place to the effect that church property remains church property, and cannot be inherited.
But then you would have to get past the incredible stubbornness of the Catholic hierarchy.
When the number of priests drops to an absolutely rediculous level, then they might be forced into a decision on this.


Also - another really big translation mistake, which seems to be in most versions of the bible I've checked out. Leviticus 11:6 states that hares (or rabbits, depending on the version) are ruminant. Hares are not ruminant, they do not chew the cud.

lostexpectation

so why do is it never talked of in that way if thats the main problem? I saw Martin on the politics show a couple of weeks back and yerone treated him with kid gloves.