Was celibacy for clergymen a good idea?

[Spilled Spaghett]

From a religious standpoint I don't believe there is any justification for it. God's commandment was to be fruitful and multiply. Such a family also continues to propagate the faith and the church.

From a practical standpoint I want to say yes. The church has such a history of sexual immorality that it makes sense to order the clergy to devote their life to God. Women open up a temptation for sin that undermines their mission. "And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." (Matthew 5:30 NIV) This is especially important when you're in positions of authority. We've seen in history even the pope use his authority just to gain access to women. Being married doesn't seem to remove the temptation either. Anyone with eyes to see will know that married couples are just as capable of sexual sin as celibates. They can have a loving wife and kids, and they will still try to sleep around.

I think the compromise might be that if you're married before you enter the clergy it's permitted. Jesus made it very clear that you should never divorce or separate what God has made one. But I don't know if that creates some weird incentives, and it relies on the church being more strict on enforcing the no divorce rule.

 

[DSP for president 2032]

It's a dysgenic practice. Clergymen are supposed to be the best of us, and we're not letting them reproduce. 100% a power play by lesser men to prevent their betters from thriving.

When natural sexual urges are denied, unnatural ones emerge, I think that's also an unavoidable, uncomfortable fact.

 

[powdered toast]

Mandated clerical celibacy incentivized homosexuals to enter the priesthood throughout the ages because it disallowed men with normal sexual appetites

Homosexuals are officially not allowed to become priests. Neither are men with medical issues affecting genitalia/sexual function. The opposite of what you said is true. One must be normal and intact to be eligible for priesthood. This is to ensure the desire for priesthood comes from a supernatural vocation to suffer celibacy for God's sake, and not a cover for disordered sexuality or as a "my only option in life" choice of desperation.

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question [9] , cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture" [10] .

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

 

[Ethan Ralph's Gunt]

Homosexuals are officially not allowed to become priests. Neither are men with medical issues affecting genitalia/sexual function. The opposite of what you said is true. One must be normal and intact to be eligible for priesthood. This is to ensure the desire for priesthood comes from a supernatural vocation to suffer celibacy for God's sake, and not a cover for disordered sexuality or as a "my only option in life" choice of desperation.

Good thing it's always worked out that way and there's never ever been any homosexual priests

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Good thing it's always worked out that way and there's never ever been any homosexual priests

If everybody followed the law there would be no crime.

 

[powdered toast]

Good thing it's always worked out that way and there's never ever been any homosexual priests

I know I know. But still they are supposed to be vetted before seminary. That being said, all a seminarian has to do is lie.

 

[WielkiWapiesz2137]

Excellent idea, as is everything that separates women from anything of importance. In addition, priests ought to be committed to God, which is not possible when they are bound by the need to maintain a family, and it significantly reduces corruption, which was the original reason it was introduced.

 

[The Ugly One]

Priests could be married before their ordination and remain married. The latins were the ones who introduced required celibacy in the 11th century.

Council of Toledo ordered priests' families sold into slavery in the 7th century. Urban II's 11th C effort is just the most famous.

Augustine did not write that in City of God lmao. He was speaking of sex driven by concupiscence/disordered desire, not all sex

You obviously didn't read it. I did. He is clear: Adam and Eve are the only humans who ever had sex without lust and loss of reason. *All* sex after the fall is tainted. Jerome goes a step further and states a wife is no different than a whore with a single client.

priests ought to be committed to God, which is not possible when they are bound by the need to maintain a family,

Indeed, at the heart of the matter is the Catholic belief that you cannot love God and your family. This is why Augustine, who sent away his common law wife and son to take a vow of celibacy, was the model for Catholics until JPII. The West was always far more neurotic about sex than the East, likely due to their influence.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

Homosexuals are officially not allowed to become priests.

Broadly yeah, but in some cases they might be admitted if they don't have "deep-seated homosexual tendencies". That term isn't defined anywhere so there is some discretion.

With the vocations shortage in most places I think that one's applied fairly liberally when it does come up.

Indeed, at the heart of the matter is the Catholic belief that you cannot love God and your family. This is why Augustine, who sent away his common law wife and son to take a vow of celibacy, was the model for Catholics until JPII.

What are you even reading, that is so insanely false it makes Jack Chick look like a scholar.

 

[Neodanthril]

The best way to evaluate a man's leadership qualities is to examine how he leads his family and how he raises his children. hard to do for a single man.

 

[Bioniclelover]

Pope Urban II's decree at Synod of Melfi.

To be deep in history is to cease to be Catholic.

They were ordered to become slaves/servants of the church (in servitio ecclesiae/in servitutem redigere) , not sold into chattel slavery to the Arabs, did you even read the source you cited?

 

[Ygolonac]

The abuse thing had little to do with celibacy and more to do with parents sending gay kids to the church, rather than be cured, they just became an infection.

On a theological level the arguments made are decent enough, and it was practical at the time for lesser sons of aristocrats not to reproduce to keep primogeniture effective... (As a tangent the constant splitting of inheritance is what screwed the Russian upper classes )

I think it's not an unreasonable expectation for someone who actually believes in God. If you are larping you would put more emphasis on having a family and children in this life. Nowadays, a celibacy clergy is pretty vestigial.

 

[Ygolonac]

From a religious standpoint I don't believe there is any justification for it

I mean, if you read Paul as scripture, there is plenty of justification for it.

 

[powdered toast]

All* sex after the fall is tainted

Yes it has been lessened; but that is not what you claimed he said:

sex, making the coital act fundamentally sinful.

These are not the same things. Sex is a moral good when exercised in the context of conjugal fidelity and ordered toward procreation i.e. within marriage. Augustine did not contradict this at all and would not have without excommunicating himself. Just make better attempts to understand what you read next time.

 

[Agamemnon Busmalis]

I think the compromise might be that if you're married before you enter the clergy it's permitted.

This is the way it is in Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches and was the practice prior to clerical celibacy in the Latin Rite.

Like the Catholic Church, however, they still have a celibate clergy. Bishops have to be celibate so in the EC/Orthodox churches they usually come from monastic orders vs. diocesan priests.

On a theological level the arguments made are decent enough, and it was practical at the time for lesser sons of aristocrats not to reproduce to keep primogeniture effective

Even more practically, you're not paying for their family. I don't think this was remotely a reason at the time it was imposed, but if celibacy was reversed in the Latin Rite the Church would have to raise a lot more money to cover the cost of the priest's family and housing.

Guess the question is whether or not it'd pay off in the longer term.

 

[SmokelessFire]

As others have pointed out, in the Eastern Churchs, married men are usually parish priests and higher clergy are come from monastic orders or sometimes, especially in Orthodox Church's in the West, widowers. I find this to be the best set up, married men can be priests while the higher levels are celibate but specifically chose that way of life. There are some issues of the cost of supporting a full family instead of a single man, as well as the difference in flexibility and time commitment. It also makes them more immobile, so I see the benefits of a celibate parish clergy.

The big molesting stuff wasn't really an old (and young I guess) boys club, old, mothbally decript thing though. Why the child abuse scandal was so bad was because of the institutional cover up and very modern at the time belief that you could therapy the chomo out of a chomo priest.

 

[Spilled Spaghett]

I mean, if you read Paul as scripture, there is plenty of justification for it.

In his letters to the Corinthians Paul makes a very clear distinction when he is giving commands from the Lord and when he is giving his own personal recommendation.

"Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:6-9 ESV)

It's Paul's belief that it is good, though he admits for practical reasons that it's unlikely his church would actually follow his advice. It's my understanding that a lot of his writings were meant to address issues within the church at that time. If you wanted to argue against celibacy you might say that Paul's writings were only meant to address immediate issues and not as long term rules. Ultimately his concern was that married men had two conflicting responsibilities between his wife and God. He just wanted them to stop sleeping around and focus on the mission. Celibacy or not his only concern was to do whatever it takes to get his people to return to God. So the question becomes less about scripture and more about practicality.

 

[Ygolonac]

So the question becomes less about scripture and more about practicality.

Yes, that's why there are quite a few churches with married clergy, no one is being totally unreasonable here. Biblically, pros and cons for celibate clergy are argued, so calling it an indefensible position, even if it's not one you personally agree with because "be fruitful and multiply" is a pretty shallow and ignorant worldview. The implication here is celibate priests are the ones being sinful instead of being unnessicarily strict.

 

[VM_]

It benefited the Roman Church the most since they had a hoard of mostly men actively working to benefit the church, and funny enough created a lot of the foundation of modernity which a lot of people tend to gloss over. It's a lot like the modern girl boss and corporations, slowly killing the nuclear family and global birthrates to benefit the corpos, a practice taken from the church itself prior, a transference of power. Asceticism will always be "true" Christianity in the end, as the Protestant work ethic only benefits the secular powers anyway.

You see a similar practice in the east with Buddhism spreading the idea of celibacy and its religion in order to have a mass workforce working for the benefit of the temples, practicing usury, accumulating a bunch of land and storing mass sums of wealth in their temples at the cost of the people and the state powers, all while being tax exampt. A lot the merchant class benifited from this funny enough. Of course, like in the West, you had kings actively persecute them because of this, but that was only if they weren't working hand in hand with them and they started overdoing it.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Terrible
Was Catholic bullshit to break up clerical dynasties
Downside is chomos all over the church (and they just phucked anyways and arranged the bastard kids with nepotistic sinecures)
Orthodoxy never did this bullshit
Iph you're gonna be Catholic just be Orthodox (the better and legitimate Catholics)