Both of your comments are interesting. Also, for all I know, there may be a shortage of ministers in the Protestant churches as well. I suppose if there were two kinds of priests there could be problems with one category maybe feeling it was more authoritative (can’t find the right word here) than the other. Having deacons help with more duties sounds like a good solution to the problem. It is interesting that now the priesthood is more attractive to those in developing countries----it is quite thought provoking when you ask yourself why that might be.
It’s hard for me to understand the idea that marriage is inconsistent with devoting oneself completely to God. Seems to me, this imposes a manmade preconception of what God is.
Best wishes,
Jerry
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 teh Catholic Church, you give yourself to someone else, and they to you.
BTW - I could be mistaken, but I think in the Greek Orthodox Church, a priest can marry, but he cannot be a bishop and be married. So, that is sorta your two catagories (someome please correct me if I’m wrong).
Missy
The problem with this, as a response to Jerry’s post, is that it assumes a conceptualization of god as something separate from one’s self, one’s marriage, one’s spouse, one’s life.
From a different pov, one might well make the point that it’s in living lives of loving family members, doing our work, appreciating the universe, that we are most devoting ourselves to god.
This is kind of an apples and oranges problem.
Jerry and OTMoor seem to be operating from different frameworks, so OTMoor’s points may not be valid in the physics of Jerry’s framework.
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?
My dad is a married priest. Obviously, he’s not Roman Catholic - he was an Episcopal priest for many years, now we are part of the Charismatic Episcopal Church. (BTW, he grew up Roman Catholic and was a Trappist monk for 11 years)
I understand both sides of the priests being allowed or not to marry. It should be fairly evident I think they should. One of the things my dad says about this subject is that being a priest is an extremely lonely job. Having someone by your side is almost essential, in his opinion. 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 know lots of priests, married and unmarried, Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, CEC, Russian Orthodox, etc, etc. I don’t know a single married priest where the fact that he was married interferred with his devotion or his vocation as a priest. But, perhaps, for some men, being married would interfere with that. That’s why, I think, some of the priests I know chose not to marry even though they could. But I think people should have the choice.
Being a priest’s wife, BTW, is a very tough (and lonely) job, too.
Beth
Again speaking as a non-believer, I can imagine the idea that the priest is the employee of God and that he should not be splitting his time between God’s flock and his own flock. For example, if a war were to break out, I imagine our President’s family would be looked after by someone other than the President. The President would have to give complete attention to the country and could not be comforting his family. So it would be hard to have a family and be completely committed to a larger group. There could be a conflict of interest maybe.
Also, in observing people around me who have jobs with tremendous responsibility, I really do think that their families are not getting much of their time. The person cannot get his/her work done and spend what I would consider an adequate amount of time with his/her family.
I also wonder if the idea of priests needing to be celibate comes from an idea of sex—other than for the purpose of having children—being sinful? And in marriage one would probably be tempted to have sex not just for the purpose of having children.
I have no feelings of right or wrong here----I am just pondering a situation, I have no opinion at all about what priests or ministers should do.
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.
I heard an interview this moring on the radio that gave me pause. A lot of the Catholic churches (at least in the US) have been complaining of their collections being down. IF priest were to marry, would the parishoners really contribute enough to pay a priest a living, family wage - taking into account that they probably wouldn’t be using birth control, so you could be talking a fairly good number of kids, too? Interesting! At least in this diocese, we didn’t evidently put aside money for retirement, and with the shortage of priests and nuns still “working”, each year there has to be a large special collection to help offset this.
Missy
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.
Eh bien, understood.
Thanks. I do understand Jerry’s point though.
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]
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
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.
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.
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 [u]Britannica[/u] 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.
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
not to muddy the water - but then you also have groups such as the Shakers where EVERYONE was to be celebate.
Missy
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.