The list of Popes

[emmline]

My response might be a problem if discussing religion and philosophy on a more general level. But I am simply trying to justify the Catholic Church's position as fitting in well with their belief system. Isn't that all you can ask of them?

Eh bien, understood.

[OnTheMoor]

My response might be a problem if discussing religion and philosophy on a more general level. But I am simply trying to justify the Catholic Church's position as fitting in well with their belief system. Isn't that all you can ask of them?

Eh bien, understood.

Thanks. I do understand Jerry's point though.

[cowtime]

quote: Also, having been married, having raised 6 kids, he feels he is more equipped to be able to counsel his parishioners when it comes to matters of marriage and family. Not that someone who isn't married can't be a great help - but having experience I think does make a difference.


I certainly agree with this. My priest(Episcopalian) is an unmarried woman.
I really am reluctant to ask her advice in matters pertaining to certain problems within the family since I really don't think she can relate/or has the perspective of actual experience when giving advice. There is no way someone who hasn't been there can really relate.


quote: It's easier to be an openly gay man than it was a few decades ago, so many of the would-be priests in the US and other Western countries are choosing to simply live as openly gay men, rather than become celibate priests.

And my church has certainly been in the middle of this debate in the last year.[/i]

[feadogin]

since we honestly don't know the "historical" answer to the question of why priest should or shouldn't marry............

I'm sure that your ponderings were part of it Cynth. I also think it may have something to do with when a priest had to travel a lot, and was not assigned to a parish in one spot for long periods of time (ironically, with the shortage in priests, we're going to be BACK to that situation quite soon if we already aren't in some areas). It was much easier to be a "circuit-priest" if you didn't have any family to drag along with you.

Missy

I am currently working on my Masters' in medieval history, with a focus on the history of the church, so I'll go ahead and address the historical cause.

There were two main reasons for the rule forbidding priests to marry, a rule that did not exist until the Middle Ages. At this time in Europe, starting in the 11th century or so, there was a great increase in lay piety. The regular Catholic people were becoming more religious, and they started to hold their priests to a higher standard of behavior than themselves. Because they wanted to put priests on a pedastal of holiness, as it were, they demanded that priests give up their wives and be celibate. The people considered celibate priests to be more holy and more dedicated to their faith, and thus better able to represent their flock to God.

(Of course, this has been a major issue in the Church since the Donatist controversy of St. Augustine's time, when the Church officially ruled that a priest's personal qualities do not effect his role as a priest).

Another reason that people wanted priests to be celibate was the existence of ecclesiastical dynasties. Basically, there was a lot of nepotism and corruption going on, whereby wealthy priests and bishops were being succeded by their sons instead of giving other people the opportunity to rise in the ranks of the church. Clerical celibacy, it was hoped, would break the backs of these families and open up more opportunites for priests from other families.

Anyway, the church gave in to the demands of the public and ruled that priests would have to be celibate. These were the historical reasons behind clerical celibacy.

As a recent convert to the Catholic church, I asked about the modern reason for clerical celibacy, and I was told basically what Onthemoor has said, that it enables the clergy to devote all their time and energy to God. Personally, I agree with Cynth, though, that there should be two types of priest, married and unmarried. (Aside from the just the Orthodox or Episcopalian priests who become Catholic).

Justine

[Cynth]

Very interesting to hear when this practice started---I would have guessed much earlier. Also, interesting about the ecclesiastical dynasties. I had been wondering this afternoon if there could be some political reason---figuring politics exists in all institutions---so you have answered my question.

[Walden]

Also, interesting about the ecclesiastical dynasties.

John Osteen: successor-- Joel Osteen
Kenneth Hagin: successor-- Kenneth Hagin, Jr.
Oral Roberts: successor-- Richard Roberts
Robert H. Schuller: named successor-- Robert Anthony Schuller
Jimmy Swaggart: heir apparent-- Donny Swaggart
Billy Graham: named successor-- Franklin Graham

Just a few TV preachers who come to mind.

[Lorenzo]

Celibacy had strong connections with holiness and purity in religions long before Christianity. There were three types: Sacerdotal, Monastic, and Institutional. There was common understanding, during the time of Christ, between abstinence (or becoming a eunuch) and purity. Christ mentioned it's usefulness to the disciples:

• Mat 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

An interesting reed--the Britannica gives a well rounded historical view of this necessity in relation to religons worldwide, including early amd middle Chrisitanity. The Essenes largely considered engaging in sexual activity to be impure. Gnostics and Hermeticist typically had an inner circle requiring strict continence. Thus, many important religious movements in the classical world envisioned continence as an ideal and this set the stage for Christian celibacy and monasticism.

[Jerry Freeman]

From the link I posted Jerry,

But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God . But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord without impediment. (I Cor., vii, 7-8 and 32-35.)

It is not a matter of marrying being bad, it is simply about committing yourself entirely to God which you are unable to do if you are devoted to someone else. And it is important to realize that marriage is just that in the Catholic Church, you give yourself to someone else, and they to you.

This, together with some of the information Lorenzo has posted, reminds me of something Thomas Merton reported in one of his writings. Merton was attending a conference somewhere whose speakers included the Zen teacher D. T. Suzuki. "Suzuki rubbed his sides and said, 'Man against God, God against man, man against nature, nature against man ... pretty funny religion!'"

I will stand by what I've said about this, scriptural citations notwithstanding. There's something fishy about the idea that devoting oneself completely to God precludes a married state of life.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[missy]

not to muddy the water - but then you also have groups such as the Shakers where EVERYONE was to be celebate.

Missy

[jim stone]

Yes, I believe Shakers kept going by adopting orphans.

In Benares I met a Protestant missionary, a Brit, who was
a wonderfully good and wise Christian. India seems to
bring out the best in Christianity. He was married, with
two children, and he and his family lived in the Cantonment
area outside Benares, which is where British government
officials and their families lived. I had dinner with them,
the house very English, the wife and children very English.
The rest of Benares is actually rather hellish.

The minister drove me back into the city on his motor scooter.
He told me he wished he could live in the city, be more
among Indians and live as they did, but it would be difficult
on account of his wife and children.

I suppose it matters a good deal what priests are supposed
to do, what role they are supposed to fill,
and I confess I'm not sure what it is.

I don't think that anybody thinks that monks and nuns
should marry--that's part of the defining feature of
being a monastic. So I wonder what the relation is
between priests and monastics, how much a priest
is supposed tobe a sort of monastic.

Note that Buddhism began in a monastic order,
to which the Buddha was deeply ambivalent about
adding women. I don't know when priests emerged,
but they were monastics, so priests don't marry
in Theravada countries, those countires that follow the
Buddha's original teaching. Thailand, Burma,
Ceylon, Cambodia.

The Buddha didn't like nature
very well, I think, and human sexuality is viewed
as a chief way of getting attached to things, which
it is. Nature wants us to get attached, wants
to suck us in to samsara, the wheel of birth
and death. The effort to become enlightened
is a sort of swimming against the stream of
the natural order. So if you really want to be liberated,
being celibate is a considerable advantage.

Later Buddhism, especially after Buddhism
reached China and mixed with Taoism, liked
nature much better. Buddhist priests are
allowed to marry in Japan, Zen coming
from China.

What's interesting is that Catholicism is very
positive about nature, which is God's goodness
flowing over. And human sexuality is a good thing,
God's gift, though it must be enjoyed as part of
its natural function, which is procreation--or at
least efforts should not be made to go about
it in ways designed to thwart its natural function.
In this regard, sexuality and nature are viewed
in a far more positive light in Catholicism and
Christianity than I think one finds
in classical Buddhism.

I suppose what this boils down to, finally, is that,
in Catholicism, sex, gone about responsibily and with
respect for God's wishes, involves children.
That's the real issue, or a good hunk of it, I wager.

So the question is what is it about having children
that thwarts the function of a Catholic priest?
Which leads to the question: what is the
function of a Catholic priest? To which I
don't really know the answer.

[Jerry Freeman]

Let me make myself a little clearer ...

I believe celibacy is valid for those suited to it. However, I think the idea that only celibates are suited to a priestly vocation is not valid at all. In fact, I'm convinced that an overemphasis on celibacy has contributed to some of the Church's most serious problems.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[jim stone]

Let me make myself a little clearer ...

I believe celibacy is valid for those suited to it. However, I think the idea that only celibates are suited to a priestly vocation is not valid at all. In fact, I'm convinced that an overemphasis on celibacy has contributed to some of the Church's most serious problems.

Best wishes,
Jerry

I think it matters what a priest is supposed to do.
What is the role of a priest in the function of
the Church? If one wants to know whether priests
should be allowed to marry and have children,
a good question to ask is: 'What are priests for?'

Let me say that I think that some of the difficulties
the Church has suffered recently flow not so
much from celibacy, but from celibacy and the idea that
homosexuals should become monastics and
priests. That's what you DO if you're a Catholic
with homosexual inclinations. I did research in a Benedictine monastery
once, and it became plain that most of the monks
were homosexually inclined. Nothing at all the
matter with homosexuals being monastics
or priests, but people joining up largely BECAUSE
they have homosexual inclinations and, being
Catholic, don't know what else to do with themselves,
is asking for trouble.

The other problems I'm aware of are loneliness and
alchoholism, which are problems in the Buddhist
priesthoods too, where priests aren't allowed to
marry.

But again, I think a root question is:
What are priests for, what is their real
role in the life of the Church?

[Jerry Freeman]

Jim's comments remind me of an interview with a Tibetan Buddhist lama who became a film director/producer after he was technical advisor for a major movie (The Little Buddha, I think). His movie was called The Game, and it was about the fascination the monks had for soccer. He's still the lama for his monastery, which was the setting for the movie.

Teri Gross, the interviewer asked him about some of the things he did when he was in Los Angeles. "You went to a strip club, didn't you? Why did you do that?"

"I wanted to see what people were doing there."

"What were your impressions?"

He answered, "It was just like the monastery. You have all kinds of ideas and there's nothing you can do about it!"

Best wishes,
Jerry

[jim stone]

yes, he has a new movie out, in fact.

It's sort of like, are priests soldiers, in a way, who may
be sent anywhere at any time, into bad circumstances?
Are they supposed to be quasi-monastics?
What is the relation of priests to orders
of priests, like the Jesuits (many of whom
aren't priests). There is an authoritarian
church structure--how would this work with
married priests with children, who would need
the ability to say No to various assignments.

Is a two-tiered structure of married and unmarried
priests workable? And so on.
What else in the Church would have to
change, if priests, or some groups
of priests, married?

[Jerry Freeman]

As things are now, I believe there are priests who belong to orders and priests who do not. There are priests who are monks and priests who are not. There are Orthodox priests who are married. In fact, there are Catholic priests who are married. I don't see why having some priests that are married would be any problem at all.

There are soldiers who are married and soldiers who are not. They have to be available for duty in faraway places in much more rigorous conditions than would be usual for priests. There are a great many positions in the world where one may be transferred to another place without having much say about it. Most of the people in such positions are married.

For that matter, having the support and inspiration of a spouse can be a source of strength for missions that involve danger and/or self sacrifice. For a religious person, everything comes from God, including such things as a spouse and family, and all things work together for the will of God.

I don't see any serious problems, and certainly none as serious as the ones that exist now with the policy that all priests must be celibate.

As for the two tiered idea, I would not be impressed with a solution that gives married priests less authority than celibate priests. That would be like giving more authority to priests who belong to orders than to those who don't. Doesn't make sense to me. A priest is a priest. If there are other things, like being a Benedictine or having a PhD in theology, those are separate from the essential fact of priesthood.

Best wishes,
Jerry