It's fabulously wide, deep and fascinating, and would explain a lot for you. Wikipedia - Eastern Catholic Churches
Posted on 07/07/2014 10:16:41 AM PDT by Welchie25
The Bible specifically permits married clergy.
Why would the Church prohibit such a basic human right?
I have never claimed the Church’s policy of compulsory clerical celibacy causes pedophilia or homosexuality.
I have argued that the policy certainly helped create an atmosphere attractive to such individuals.
Compulsory clerical celibacy was a policy enacted by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, largely to eliminate corruption, most specifically simony and nepotism, and to enable the Vatican to have tighter control over its priests. There is NOTHING in the Bible requiring such a policy.
Free choice to choose vocations? Not entirely correct. Many older Catholics will recall back in the day many large Catholic families often encouraged a young son or daughter to enter into vocations (with active support of the Church) often at a VERY young age, sometimes as young as fourteen. These youths would then go to what could be called a prep school for the seminary before actually entering into it. Obviously many such teenagers were sexually and psychologically immature and no where near an age appropriate to make such a decision. This policy no doubt was a major factor contributing to the pedophile/homosexual priest scandal.
Of course times have changed and since the scandal and the Church has implemented a very stringent screening process before accepting individuals into vocations which include a number of physical and psychological examinations. According to the pastor of our church, only one in ten candidates actually get accepted into the seminary, and the average of a person entering into the seminary these days is about thirty five.
St. Paul does in fact praise abstinence.
He also has high praise for Holy Matrimony.
He never says compulsory celibacy is a prerequisite for service in the priesthood.
Fact is no one in the Bible ever does. To the contrary, priests were expected to be married family men in the Bible.
By the time of the Lateran Council (1139), marriage for most clerics had been in practice minimized or prohibited for 800 years. The Council of Nicaea (325 AD) had prohibited the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman (so called virgines subintroductae) --- clerics could only be honorably in the same house with a grandmother, mother, aunt, or sister.
In cities, most clerics lived in a shared household with other subdeacons, deacons, and priests, in a monastic-like community: there was no opportunity to court a woman, nor would their superiors permit it. Plus, even for priests who served alone in villages or the countryside, many local synods and many bishops prohibited marriage for all clergy within their provinces or dioceses, in order to avoid the worldly entanglements of dynastic marriage.
Let me explain what I mean by that. In addition to the overall prizing of consecrated virginity in both the East and the West, the West saw celibacy as a way to avoid political entanglements.
Moreso than in the East, the Church in the West had to wage a protracted struggle against secular power. Bishops were often landowners and way too enmeshed with the political nobility. (Look up “Investiture Controversy” and you will see that reforming popes struggled AGAINST this for centuries.) Marriage was very much about the alliance of families, and families were very much about the possession of landed estates.
If a bishop, abbot or prominent priest had sons and daughters, he’d be even more deeply caught up in dynastic marriage politics: marrying this daughter to that duke, and this son to that princess, and forming alliances with powerful families for all the political/economic/social benefits that would accrue.
Trying to secure the independence of bishops from the temporal Powers That Be was a huge job, it took centuries to settle and it’s not what I’d call “settled” even yet. But marriages would force priests and, even more so, bishops, to become even more deeply enmeshed in securing titles of nobility, access to estates and lands, royal alliances and the rest of it for all their children.
The Church in the West was striving mightily to steer clear of that whole web of entanglements. (Not so much in the Eastern Empire, which lasted 1,000 years longer than the Western Empire, and where Church and Empire were much more willingly and tightly interwoven.)
Celibacy --- the avoidance of ongoing dynastic interconnections --- became an honorable way to secure more political independence from temporal power, and hence more power to be “in this world but not of it.”
IN THIS CONTEXT, it came about that the Lateran Council outright prohibited clerical marriage. It has been "in practice" discouraged and even prohibited regionally, but there was too much unevenness of enforcement, and even worse, you had the scandal of priests living with women to whom they were not licitly or validly married. (These are referred to as "concubines" --- those in unlawful marriages.)
The Lateran, a reforming council, said "Let's make it plain, simple and official: clerics are to be celibate, period". They were simply confirming Church-wide what was already the practice established locally by synods and dioceses for centuries.
So it isn't a matter of Rome barging in and breaking up marriages and causing divorces. It was putting an end to clerical dynastic marriages and/or concubinage, on a Church-wide rather than regional basis.
Do you understand that?
What I understand about the RCC is it teaches and practices control.
What was happening prior to the Council is irrelevant.
The issue of can a person serving God be married is the main question. The Bible has no prohibitions on this. However, the RCC goes against the Bible, I guess because of that valued "tradition" the RCC uses to justify its non-Biblical teachings.
Any "atmosphere" that puts men an an authority or power position over boys, is an "attractive atmosphere" for people who experience that kind of sexual attraction and sexual opportunities.
FBI agent: "Why do you rob banks?"
Willie Sutton: "'Cuz that's where the money is."
Second point: you're right that there's nothing in the Bible requiring clerical celibacy -- only strongly recommending it.
Interestingly, we've got more married clergy in the U.S. Catholic church now, that at any time in history, namely our married Deacons. They, like priests, are ordained clergy under Holy Orders. And we have 15,000 married deacons, more than the number of religious priests (14,000) -- those who are in orders like Franciscans, Jesuits, etc.
And of course most of the Catholic priests in the East are married. (I mean "East" as in Beirut, not as in Boston.)
Maybe this was the homosexual agenda to bring down the church.
And in countries such as Greece and Ukraine priests are married.
Why should a Catholic priest in Ukraine be permitted to marry (most are) yet a priest in the US or France is not permitted?
Seems to me the rules of the universal Church are not universally applied.
1955-65 were peak years in the US for teens entering religious life AND getting married. By 1970-80 these rates began to drop, often drastically, and both early-mariages and early-vocations were falling apart.
Many of the boys who were headed toward ordination via "Minor Seminaries" (high schools) in the '40's - '50's were no way mature enough to make a lifetime commitment: ditto the 17-year-old novices and high school newlyweds.
That might have worked in centuries past when society was relatively stable, nobody openly advocated vice, the whole society provided role-models and safeguards, and young people in late adolescence were much more mature.
But no more --- obviously.
So 30-year-old priests who realized they really weren't cut out for celibacy, split when "society" gave them huge encouragement to split --- 1965 - 75 --- they left the priesthood, dated women, got married; and those who stayed were maybe disproportionately those who worked out some kind of homosexual modus vivendi within the structure.
In some places they relly reached a critical mass, i.e. some notorious seminaries. San Francisco. Baltimore. Read "Goodbye, Good Men." That was exceptionally dangerous because they were then in a position to recruit gay seminarians and basically drive out normal guys.
Thus in *some places*, they really concocted a *hell* of a homosexual-clerical subculture.
That's a reasonable hypothesis, I think.
We're still working past the explosions of 1968. Even the perps indicted now are in their '70's - '80's. I think --- hopefully-- we're past most of it by now.
Oremus.
Of course it doesn't. For one thing, the Bible does not make the assumption that the only way you can "serve God" is by being a member of the priesthood. Everybody is called to holiness, not just the clergy.
The Church considers Marriage to be a Sacramental vocation. Married people are not only serving God, they are a sacred image the Church: we call the family an "ecclesiola," a little church. There's a profound equality here.
"However, the RCC goes against the Bible, I guess because of that valued 'tradition' the RCC uses to justify its non-Biblical teachings."
Once again, an argument misdirected because of ignoirance. The Church does not teach that celibacy is intrinsically required for the priesthood. You seem to be under the impression that it does.
The validity of conferring Holy Orders on married men has been recognized from Day One, and is recognized today. If I were a married man and I felt I had a vocation to Holy Orders, I would pursue this either in the Diaconate or, say, aim for priesthood with the Byzantine-Melkites who are also under the Bishop of Rome (the Pope). And yes, people do this. For instance, Fr. Emmanuel McCarthy (LINK), married, father of 12, Catholic priest.
Why don't more Catholic men pursue this? I don't know. It's a calling. The ones I know say they understand themselves to be called as celibates to be Catholic priests. It's part of their calling, as hey see it. Why would you do that unless you were quite sure it was part of your calling?
I am very glad that the Catholic Church has its doors open to celibates who have this vocation.
I feel rather sorry for people who do have a celibate calling, but who in other church groups do not have an honored, recognized way to live as they were called.p> The Church has a provision for *voluntary* celibacy. Voluntary. Highly recommend by St. Paul. Many people choose to live this way "for the Kingdom," as Jesus said. There is nothing un-Biblical about that.
It's fabulously wide, deep and fascinating, and would explain a lot for you. Wikipedia - Eastern Catholic Churches
Answer
In the Eastern rites of the Church it is common for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Further, in the Latin rite there are a few married men, converted ministers from other faiths, who are ordained to the Catholic priesthood. This, however, is not common. Finally, in neither the Latin rite nor the Eastern rites do priests (or deacons) marry after they have been ordained, except in extraordinary circumstances.
The reasons Latin rite priests can’t marry is both theological and canonical.
Theologically, it may be pointed out that priests serve in the place of Christ and therefore, their ministry specially configures them to Christ.
catholic teaching...not biblical teaching
As is clear from Scripture, Christ was not married (except in a mystical sense, to the Church). By remaining celibate and devoting themselves to the service of the Church, priests more closely model, configure themselves to, and consecrate themselves to Christ.
again...outside of Christ being not married, the rest is catholic teaching.
As Christ himself makes clear, none of us will be married in heaven (Mt 22:23–30). By remaining unmarried in this life, priests are more closely configured to the final, eschatological state that will be all of ours.
outside of the first sentence...more catholic conjecture
Paul makes it very clear that remaining single allows one’s attention to be undivided in serving the Lord (1 Cor 7:32–35). He recommends celibacy to all (1 Cor 7:7) but especially to ministers, who as soldiers of Christ he urges to abstain from "civilian affairs" (2 Tm 2:3–4).
Big difference between recommending and forbidding.
Here is where catholic "tradition" takes over from Biblical teaching.
Canonically, priests cannot marry for a number of reasons. First, priests who belong to religious orders take vows of celibacy. Second, while diocesan priests do not take vows, they do make a promise of celibacy.
Third, the Church has established impediments that block the validity of marriages attempted by those who have been ordained. Canon 1087 states: "Persons who are in holy orders invalidly attempt marriage."
This impediment remains as long as the priest has not been dispensed from it, even if he were to attempt a civil marriage, even if he left the Church and joined a non-Catholic sect, and even if he apostatized from the Christian faith altogether. He cannot be validly married after ordination unless he receives a dispensation from the Holy See (CIC 1078 §2, 1).
http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/why-cant-a-priest-ever-marry
Your quotes don't add up to any infringement on freedom, since there is nothing compulsory about taking a vow. You do realize this is voluntary celibacy, right?
You do realize that a person who has vowed celibacy, has vowed it to God?
You do realize that a priest who wants out, can do so with permission (be laicized) or without permission (just walk out)?
In the later case, he faces ecclesiatical penalties; but if he's the kind of guy who breaks his vows to God, why would he give two hoots about ecclesiastical penalties? He's still free to be as unfaithful as he wants.
You do realize that the Church also forbids breaking the Marriage vows in a valid marriage, too --- right? Do you think the Church is wrong to frown on the breaking of those voluntary vows?
This is no offense against freedom, since a person freely makes vows, preistly ones, or marital ones, if he wants to. And if he doesn't want to, he doesn't.
Or perhaps you do not understand that people have a right to make vows, take them seriously, and expect that others will take them seriously.
Is there a Biblical injunction against the clergy being married? And the answer is no.
The RCC, due to tradition, has taken this and has made it a "rule" that clergy cannot be married.
Just one of many man-made rules by the RCC that contradicts the Bible.
Been good chatting with you.
Thanks for the chart.
Interesting to note that nearly all of the churches mentioned in it permit married priests.
Free of worldliness. Yes, more precisely free of corruption.
Here is what Wikipedia.org had to say regarding why the Church implemented the policy:
“...a large number of the clergy, not only priests but bishops, openly took wives and begot children to whom they transmitted their benefices...”
Source: Wikipedia.org Heading: Clerical Celibacy
Bible recommends marriage for the clergy:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober...”
1 Timothy 3:2
"Is there a Biblical injunction against the clergy being married? And the answer is no."
True. As you know, we agree on this.
"The RCC, due to tradition, has taken this and has made it a "rule" that clergy cannot be married."
Depends on how you define "rule." As you know, this is not true, if by "rule" you mean "a doctrine to be observed by the whole church," or, even further, "a dogma of the faith." Go ask NYer about her pastor, a married Catholic priest.
It has only applied to parts of the Church, and never as a matter of unchanging dogma. It's what we call a "discipline." It's not one of the Ten Commandments. It's a non-universal, essentially changeable decretal.
It's no more unreasonable than, "Our seminary does not admit seminarians who are over $10,000 in debt, e.g. carrying outstanding student loans."
"Trappists don't welcome compulsive talkers."
"A married man can become a deacon, but only if his wife agrees."
"Our convent doesn't accept novices under the age of 21."
"Bishops offer their resignation to the Pope at the age of 75."
"Cardinals over 80 can't vote in papal conclaves."
These are simply the rules made by a society which has the authority to govern itself.
If you don't even believe in the priesthood --- which I think you don't --- then why do you want to continually hassle about canon law? --- which,by your theory, the Church can never get right, because the very concepts of priesthood, canon law, and Church are --- to you --- all illegitimate anyhow?
" Just one of many man-made rules by the RCC that contradicts the Bible."(Rolls eyes.)
You evidently think the Church has no right to make rules for its own clergy. Even though Christ gave the Church that authority (Matthew 16:19) and the Church has been doing it since Pentecost.
Bye. I expect to enjoy your company on another thread.
Every one of them, with one exception.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.