www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Question about priesthood and marriage

In another discussion list I participate in, someone brought up some "problems" they had with the Catholic Church, but included several non-Catholic issues (such as how bad a translation the King James Bible is.) I pointed out that several of her issues, like the KJ Bible, were not about the Catholic Church at all.

One thing that came up was her statement:


I misread her, and mentioned that the Eastern Churches never stopped ordaining married men, and she rightly called me on it; since that wasn't her point; and I apologized for my inability to read my own native language.

But it got me thinking . . . was her statement correct as written? Can anyone fill me in?

Thanks,
Dave

That coupled with heavy monastic influence...

I seriously doubt it, unless someone can give me a reference to the original Latin regulations. It's typically not only of a secular mindset (things are done without any reference to the spiritual) but also cocktail-party history.

AFAIC, the only reason for priestly celibacy is because the western church wants all of its priests to "have" (for lack of a better word) this level of sanctity.

MarkosC:

Unfortunately there is a bit of German history where the enforcement of celibacy on already-married and serving clergy caused a near riot in one cathedral city. (I believe it was Mainz.) Marriages were declared null by the bishop and the police had to be called to keep the bishop from being physically harmed by his own clergy within the cathedral--according to the account, they trapped him in the elevated pulpit and wouldn't let him out. This little bit of history was carried in some old books that I had access to, are now long out-of-print, and were printed under the auspices of the Lutheran Church. It is, unfortunately, part of the Latin Church's history.

Another not-so-well-known fact is that the bishops of Scandanavia arrived at the Council of Trent with their wives and children. When they were refused their seats, they returned home and subsequently adopted the Lutheran reform, though they remianed very Catholic in their doctrine, liturgy, and other practices until the late 1950s.

BOB

OH? I thought the so called reform in Norway was dictated by the Danish Oppresive governmentin control of Norway at the time.
Not a popular reformation of the people nor the clergy. Same in Iceland where the two Bishops were both martyred. One by detention in prison in Denmark (he was old and sickly) and the other by beheading along with his two sons, from the Danish Military forces which arrived to impose the reformation.
Stephanos I
(Thus both Norway and Iceland lost apostolic succession because non of the Bishops would go along with the reform.)

I am fascinated by the amount of church history which is not normally available to ordinary Catholics through the customary channels, and will only be accessed through other sources.

I certainly am not trumpeting an "anti-" Catholic viewpoint here by any means. Trivia of this type can be very enriching as well as informative.

For example, most Americans do not know how Hawaii became annexed into their country, and might be shocked by the story, but it is their own history and they should know something about that. Seeking out such information is not an act of Anti-Americanism in and of itself.
I wonder if the fact that they had married was the sole reason given for their barring. Now I know that their marital state was against the canons, but I also wonder how many other bishops were barred for canonical irregularities, such as (for example) having purchased their office, or holding multiple Sees? I don't know where to access this information either.

The church was sick, everyone had a chance to come together and face the music, as well as state their positions. Perhaps this episode was a great opportunity lost?

Michael

As stated, this strikes me as an oversimplification. The question of "inheritance" and alienation of Church property seems to have been of more significance in the case of bishops, who had more legal control of Church property, and who could, of course, ordain priests.

The following brief (59 page) dissertation from 1905 (available at Google books online) covers the customs and legislation (Church and State) on the matter up through the Council of Trent. The first 15 pages cover the Church in the Eastern Empire as well.

1905 Dissertation on the History of Clerical Celibacy in Western Europe [books.google.com]

The question of legal inheritance of Church property by heirs of bishops was addressed by Emperor Justinian in his Code (mid 6th C.).

In the Western Empire, the migrations of the Germanic tribes caused Justinian Code to be ignored in favor of the various tyrants and little kings, so the Church canons were mostly "honored in the breach" until the time of Hildebrand (11th C.) except among the the most fervent of the religious and secular clergy.

The inheritance question seems to have become important in the West beginning in the 10th C.

BTW, I'm not sure that this dissertation covers everything, but it does seem to take notice of most of the major "legislation" enacted over the period in question. The author was seeking a doctorate in Political Science, and seems to have been particularly interested in the legal aspects of Council canons, Papal decrees, various codes of law, etc.

Best,
Michael

Hi,

A celibate person, just by being celibate, doesn't have a "higher lever of sanctity" than a married person.

Calibacy is a state of life, not a virtue.

The virtue is called "chastity" and, of course, chastity is lived differently by celibates than by married people, but it is chastity, lived according to our own state of life, what is an expression of holiness.

Celibate priests are not holier than married priests. Marriage is a sacrament/mystery of the Church and, as such, it is an efficacious sign of grace. Just like in the Eucarist, Christ is really present in His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity; every time a husband gives himself to his wife and every time a wife gives herself to her husband (and this giving includes, but it is not limited to sex), then the mystery of Christ giving Himself for us and our giving ourselves to Him is sacramentally re-presented for the good of all the Church.

Indeed, as St. Paul wrote, this is a great mystery, but the great mysteries of our faith are not there to scare us away from them, but rather, to draw us in awe into the ultimate mystery, which of course, is God Himself.

So no, I do not believe the reason to have mandatory celibacy for the Latin diocesan priests was not an aspiration to greater holiness. If if ever was, what has happened in recent years should be enough evidence that celibacy by itself, is not necessarily conducive to greater holiness.

I was tempted to add "sadly" somewhere in the last paragraph. However, while I think the sexual abuses are a tragecy beyond "sad", opening our eyes to the problem and breaking the silence and denial around it is anything but sad, because it is the painful, but necessary first step to get out of that problem.

Shalom,
Memo

Excellent post Memo!

Jason