The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Priests and the concept of Marriage
TheNomadicCircle
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
This is a question I've been pondering over some time, but just reading Wikipedia is not really helping as it doesn't give a whole view that i'd like on the question of Priests and Marriage.
In my faith, as a Muslim I know that Imam's can and do get married and enjoy married life. I think it is the same way with the Rabbi's. Where I get tripped up is the Christan faith.
What exactly the difference between the multiple Christan denomination's view of marriage and the Catholic view? Reading it, it seemed that the priests used to be married in the Catholic faith but then lost the privilege somehow? What caused this fracture? Would allowing Priests to get married be better overall for the Church in general?
Seeing as how I don't have a great understanding of how the Pope works, what reason would there be for the ban of marriage? Is it because they are emulating Jesus?
Edit: And as I understand it some denominations do allow and some don't. Whats the requirement of allowing it then?
[Sorry if this is not in the right forum, if someone could move it, it would be helpful.]
In my faith, as a Muslim I know that Imam's can and do get married and enjoy married life. I think it is the same way with the Rabbi's. Where I get tripped up is the Christan faith.
What exactly the difference between the multiple Christan denomination's view of marriage and the Catholic view? Reading it, it seemed that the priests used to be married in the Catholic faith but then lost the privilege somehow? What caused this fracture? Would allowing Priests to get married be better overall for the Church in general?
Seeing as how I don't have a great understanding of how the Pope works, what reason would there be for the ban of marriage? Is it because they are emulating Jesus?
Edit: And as I understand it some denominations do allow and some don't. Whats the requirement of allowing it then?
[Sorry if this is not in the right forum, if someone could move it, it would be helpful.]
TheNomadicCircle on
0
Posts
You're correct though, that the restriction on priests wasn't imposed until several centuries after the time of Jesus.
Edit: Looks like there are exceptions for married men that become priests, but those that are already priests may not marry.
And as a little background, the restriction stems from the teachings of St. Paul, who taught that a celibate life was the preferred way for a person to live their life, and marriage should only be considered if you were unable to control your lustful urges. The tradition is grounded in the belief that Jesus was celibate, and thus priests should attempt to live their lives as he did.
Some of the monastaries blatantly had brothels, though. If you read "The Canterbury Tales", note how many of the religious figures are portrayed as lustful, richly dressed, etc.
Come to think of it, wasn't the Canterbury Tales written before the Catholic/Protestant split? But I'm fairly sure they already had the "no marrying" rule in place by then.
In which case the timeline would be:
Church: Okay, priests, you can get married.
Church: No wait, you can't.
Church: Whoa, the Reformation is happening, now we are split into Catholics and Protestants!
Protestants: Priests can get married.
Catholics: Nuh uh!
Celibacy makes sense on a philosophical level for total devotion to God, and as Bionic pointed out as an attempt to fully follow the path of Jesus. I don't feel too strongly about it either way, but I doubt it will change anytime soon, if ever. What doesn't make sense, though, is when people talk about it as a solution to sexual abuse. There has to be something really wrong with you to do that, it's not an urge that can be satisfied with your wife.
There are certain exceptions to priestly celibacy, the most common being a married minister in another faith (Episcopalian/Anglican is the most common, iirc) who converts to the Catholic Church. From what I remember from my Catholic school days, there are four stages of "priest" in seminary, and if you're already married, you can get up to Deacon, which is the third of four, which means you can't hear confession, and you can't consecrate the Eucharist, but you can deliver the Eucharist along with other ecclesiastical duties.
St. Paul didn't have a high opinion of marriage/sex, and a lot of the ban on priest marriage is drawn back to him. That, and the fact that Jesus wasn't married (and the two are kind of intertwined.) The economic reason probably plays a part, but priestly celibacy goes back to at least the Council of Nicea, iirc. And a lot of Catholic tradition was made there, enough for me to think of pre-Nicea Christianity as a different entity from the Catholic Church. Anyways, celibate priests was the rule (though not one that was followed that closely in a lot of places) for at least a millennium before the reformation, so you'd have to ask the Protestants about why they changed it.
Fun fact: Technically, nothing says the Pope has to be unmarried, because nothing says that the Pope has to be a priest. It just hasn't happened to have a non-cardinal in a couple centuries.
Would priestly marriage help the Church? Eh. I have doubts that it'd help on the whole child-molestation front because A) married men can still be molestors
Plus, I was raised in a very conservative Catholic tradition, so my experience has always been any liberalization in dogma is very controversial and unpopular, and obviously a sign of the apocalypse [/sarcasm]. Like, this change in dogma, I don't see it winning back anyone who left the church (like myself) and I definitely see it causing a rift inside the church.
OP, generally speaking, all Christian denominations, Catholicism aside, allow their leaders to marry. In the Orthodox church (again, iirc) they can only be married before they are ordained, and in some more conservative sects it is customary for pastors/ministers to be married (I have personal experience with one branch of Holiness that requires it before they will sponsor you to open your own, incorporated, church).
The idea of religious celibacy I view the same way as a 100% completion of achievements in games. Ie. you have to be so zealous that it's probably a good idea your contact with the world at large is limited.
.
Island. Being on fire.
That's the bullshit reason the Church bandies about. The real reason, like most else in the medieval Church, has to do with politics and money.
I don't think the idea is to provide an outlet for sexual tension. It's more along the lines of attracting a different type of person to the priesthood and not providing a cover story for predators.
Lucky for them, though, that Paul was so messed up about the ladies as to provide a convenient justification...
I can tell you that most Buddhist monks don't get married, but a few sects definitely allow it. I know that Zen monks can, seeing as I'm living in a temple with a monk and his wife.
Remember too that Paul was once Saul, of road-to-Damascus lightning-conversion fame, and there's nobody like a late-life convert to take religion too far.
You would probably get a better answer were you to go to a Catholic board. Many people here are probably not regular Catholic-goers. Penny-Arcade, being a slightly subversive(In a youth-acceptable subversive way), tends to attract people who are of a certain type. That type is generally anti-organized religion, anti-authority. Asking this website for the reasoning behind the Catholic Church's decisions is similar to asking Glenn Beck to explain Barack Obama's policies.
While I love and respect the opinions stated on this board, you would be much better served in going to the source and asking them.
I'm not too sure about your other questions, but I can have a crack at this one for you.
Paul wasn't exactly 'so' against marriage, it's just that the passage where he talks about it is very very very easy to take out of context (much like many of his other more... complex passages, such as the ones about men and women's roles in a marriage relationship etc). It's much more apt to follow the line of thought that he was simply stating what the ideal relationship status would be for someone wholly devoted to evangalism and spreading the gospel; the idea being that a spouse would detract focus and time from your devotion. Of course, to draw the conclusion that Paul was saying that marriage is therefore bad and shouldn't happen is a very large leap, especially when you keep in mind all the good things that are spoken of regarding marriage, and all the passages about the purpose of it and there even being a difference between men and women in the first place.
In the end, it's most likely that the very early parts of the Catholic church decided that, having taken the passage out of context one too many times, Paul was telling them that Priests couldn't marry. Period, ever, totally banned.
As for why Paul was focused on so much? It's hard to say, at least to my limited knoweldge. It's possible it was because he was the only writer to ever broach the subject of "Do I get married, or not?"
One fact that can help make sense of much of the early Christian writing is the fact that they expected Jesus to return quite quickly.
Paul basically assumed that Jesus had just nipped home for a bit of a visit with Dad and he'd be back pretty soon. Given that he was coming back any moment now it was just silly to go about raising a family.
Also, earlier you mentioned Paul as one of the "four" writers. Paul never claimed to write a Gospel and never claimed to meet Jesus (directly). Mathew, Mark, Luke and John are the traditional writers of the Gospel (the first four books of the NT) while Paul was a dude who persecuted Christians until he had a dramatic conversion experience that lead to him deciding he should be in charge.
ouch.
I mean, OUCH.
Yes. he does. He sees Jesus, he speaks to Jesus, and he is converted from Judaism to Christianity and ordained as an Apostle, by Jesus. That's....that's clearly meeting him. He did not meet Jesus before his crucifixion, true, but Jesus came to him, personally and directly, post-incarnate.
This is true, though. There is a point in the gospel (which hadn't been documented yet, but was very likely part of the oral gospel) where Jesus says something to the effect of "this generation shall not pass away." This was taken (probably quite out of context) to mean that the current generation would still be around when Jesus returned.
Of course, that's where you get into the more prophetic portions of Jesus' teachings, and it's disingenuous to even try to assume what he meant (which they probably did, though innocently).
I recall that as the Holy Spirit though this is all admittedly from memory and from a super-Protestant lens.
That and I always found Paul a bit of a tosser. Quite a lot of stupid comes out of Paul's writings.
What, you mean like how misogynistic he sounded?
The Catholic Church held strong sway in Ireland for a long time, but I don't think anyone will miss it when it's gone.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
You might say that it's "bombed."
I'm going to hell, aren't I?
Whole lotta pros and not many cons. Hopefully their vacancy frees up some prime real estate. Who wouldn't want to live in their very own abbey?
Too soon.
If that's the way it's going to go, I've got dibs on the cathedral down here.
Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
They have nice windows that still preserve privacy!
Wether this is true in practice is of course up for debate, but it at least sounds fairly reasonable.
edit: Couscous, not if they're under the Pope they don't. Which is what Catholics are.
The traditional line is that Paul founded the "western" Catholic church. Peter, the rock the church was built on founded the "eastern". Strangely enough the "Western" church doesn't bring that up much.
That's almost the opposite of Judaism, which traditionally bars unmarried men from the more mystical disciplines out of a fear that the practitioner's soul would go wandering off without a "ball and chain" "tying him down." Funny how that works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Couscous answered this already, but since I'm feeling feisty I'm going to answer too.
Eastern Catholic Churches are those autonomous churches located in the East (that is, they are non-Latin Rite) which nevertheless maintain communion with Rome and recognize the Bishop of Rome as primus inter pares. The Marionites are an example of an Eastern Catholic Church.
Because they are non-Latin Rite, they are governed by special sections of the Canon Law, they use a different liturgy, and their hierarchy is divided from the Latin hierarchy.
The Eastern Orthodox Church rightly refers to itself as the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church -- as does the Roman Catholic Church. The word catholic in this context simply means 'universal' -- both the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome claim to lead or represent the universal church, but they haven't been in communion since 1054.
The Oriental Orthodox Church is another thing again. They are monophysites, although they will deny it and call themselves miaphysites. The Oriental Orthodox Church split from the rest of the communion after the first three ecumenical councils. The largest autocephelous church within the Oriental Orthodox Church is the Copts, which are Egyptian Christians. The church is based in Alexandria and is lead by the successor to St. Mark, the Bishop of Alexandria.
The Church of the East is, once again, distinct from the former two. So while both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church are churches in the East, they aren't the Church of the East. The Church of the East itself split some time ago, but I can't recall the names of all of the factions. I believe the dominant one is something along the lines of 'Assyrian Church of the East' or something like that. Regardless, the Church of the East and its successors are all Nestorians, and traditionally represented Christians living in Persia and India. They left the communion with Rome and Constantinople in the early centuries as a result of the persecution of the Nestorian heresy.
In all of the above cases, each of these apostolic and catholic churches accept priestly marriage. What none accept are appointments of married men to the episcopate. The only apostolic and catholic church that I can think of off the top of my head that allows for that is the Anglican Communion.
It's because Paul loved him some plato, and plato is, more-or-less, the basis for most forms of discourse in the west.
edit* Also, you can have married priests, technically. For instance, if an Orthodox minister converts to catholicism, than he is allowed to keep his family. It is simply that Priests, when getting ordained, take a vow of celibacy, and and prohibited from the rite of marriage.
Also, what sags said.