Priest Celibacy - why? For what reason?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:45 am

Anyone care to explain it to me?

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:55 am

It makes them hornie, err holier.

Sins of the flesh and all.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:56 am

Ask a Catholic.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:02 am

What a load of bullshit that was.

I'm not asking to hear a justification of chastity from a priest. I'm asking for a rational justification for it.

BTW, only Roman Catholics prevent marriage for all priests. Deacons are allowed to marry, but that's it.

Well?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:10 am

DiogeGoogle strikes again.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:10 am

Dude, you're talking about a group of people who believe someone came back from the dead.

What's a little chastity gonna hurt?

Especially when it opens the doors to pedophiles.

After all THAT's not sex - right?

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:11 am

PSUFAN wrote:What a load of bullshit that was.

I'm not asking to hear a justification of chastity from a priest. I'm asking for a rational justification for it.

BTW, only Roman Catholics prevent marriage for all priests. Deacons are allowed to marry, but that's it.

Well?

Ah yes. The Deacons will be the Church's way out. Give it another 20 years and I'll bet Deacons will be allowed to say mass. What few men remaining who are willing to take vows of chastity will be accorded slightly higher status than Deacons and will be the actual hands on management of the Church.

Which brings me to the logical reason for Priestly celibacy.

MONEY

Yep, that's right. Priests are very literally married to the church. Not just spiritually, but also financially. By having no heirs whatsoever, any money or lands a priest had (which often were substantial back in the Middle Ages) reverted to the control of the Church. It was a surefire way for the Church to amass a fortune that to this day dwarfs all others.

Of course, nowadays most Priests don't have a pot to piss in financially. But since the Church spent 1000+ years sourcing St. Augustine and St Paul to justify celibacy, you can't expect them to just toss holy tradition the way the Mormons gave up on polygamy to gain statehood for Utah.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:14 am

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1 Corinthians 7:8

And you saying that you want a rational reason for preists to follow a reasonable interpretation of the scripture and then not wanting the preists reasoning isn't all that rational..

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:23 am

Diogenes wrote:I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

1 Corinthians 7:8

And you saying that you want a rational reason for preists to follow a reasonable interpretation of the scripture and then not wanting the preists reasoning isn't all that rational..

That was Paul. This is the "Word of God".

(Gen 2:18) The LORD God said "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."

Come again?

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:24 am

Bsmack, I'll actually disagree with that line of reasoning.

Historically, the priesthood was something that was undertaken by the secondary offspring, not the heir who was in line for estates. As secondary offspring, they had to find their way in the world. Since they weren't in line for the wealth of the family, they entered another family, and in so doing were often able to steer all kinds of patronage the way of the initial family.

Moreover, it's a fact that gay offspring were "dealt with"...sent into a profession in which their lack of interest in females would not be noticeable or problematic in a societal sense.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:29 am

BSmack wrote: Which brings me to the logical reason for Priestly celibacy.

MONEY

Yep, that's right. Priests are very literally married to the church. Not just spiritually, but also financially. By having no heirs whatsoever, any money or lands a priest had (which often were substantial back in the Middle Ages) reverted to the control of the Church. It was a surefire way for the Church to amass a fortune that to this day dwarfs all others.

The black plague was a real estate windfall for the church. Not only could they run the "gods vengeance" card on the populace, but they were buying up tracts of land for a handful of coppers and I don't mean constables.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:31 am

PSUFAN wrote:Bsmack, I'll actually disagree with that line of reasoning.

Historically, the priesthood was something that was undertaken by the secondary offspring, not the heir who was in line for estates. As secondary offspring, they had to find their way in the world. Since they weren't in line for the wealth of the family, they entered another family, and in so doing were often able to steer all kinds of patronage the way of the initial family.

Patronage yes. But because they had no hiers, the real wealth (re: land) stayed in the hands of the Church.

Moreover, it's a fact that gay offspring were "dealt with"...sent into a profession in which their lack of interest in females would not be noticeable or problematic in a societal sense.

This is true. However, I doubt that the Priesthood was devised as a way for Italian noble families to hide their gay sons.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:38 am

It wasn't devised as such, but it certainly became an accepted vessel as such - particularly in France, Spain, and Ireland.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:39 am

Also, when the Priesthood was devised, marriage hadn't made its way onto the Atrocity List yet...

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:47 am

From a non religious site:

History of Celibacy in Roman Catholicism

Celibacy has not always been a requirement for priests or other clergy members. Supporters of celibacy rely heavily upon Matthew 19:12, where Jesus is quoted as saying that "...they have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept this." In this case, "eunuchs" is interpreted to be a reference to people who have renounced marriage and remain celibate - but if Jesus really did place such a high value on celibacy, why were most if not all of his apostles married? Surely he could have found unmarried people to follow him.

Over time rules about the sexual abstinence grew out of the belief that sexual intercourse made a person "unclean," based in part on the idea that women were less pure than men and hence constituted a form of ritual contamination. Although the value of celibacy has also long rested upon the belief that self-renunciation made a person more holy, the continued existence of an all-male priesthood means that the importance of celibacy cannot be divorced from an accompanying view of women as being less moral and less worthy than men.

As a consequence, married priests were prohibited from celebrating the Eucharist for a full day after having sexual intercourse with their wives. Because there was a trend to celebrate the Eucharist more and more often, sometimes even daily, there was great pressure on priests to be celibate just to fulfill their basic religious functions - and eventually they were prohibited from having sex at all with their wives. Because of this, celibacy among priests was already somewhat common by 300 A.D., when the Spanish Council of Elvira required that bishops, priests, and deacons who were married abstain from sex with their wives.

It wasn't until 1139, with the Second Lateran Council, that mandatory celibacy was officially imposed on all priests. Any marriage entered into by a priest was regarded as invalid and anyone currently married had to separate from their spouses - leaving them to whatever fate God had in store for them, even if it meant leaving them destitute. Of course this was an immoral thing to do to those spouses, and many clergy realized that there was little religious or traditional basis for it, so they defied that order and continued in their marriages.

Perhaps the final blow against priests' ability to marry came during the Council of Trent (1545-1563) - and through a technicality. It was at this time that the church asserted that no one could be considered to have a valid Christian marriage unless that marriage were performed by a valid priest and in front of two witnesses. Before this, private marriages performed by priests or, indeed, just about anyone else, were common in some areas. Sometimes the only people who were there was the officiant and the couple. Now, however, such clandestine marriages were impossible - and this effectively eliminated marriage for the clergy.

The Council of Trent, called in order to combat the challenges posed by the Protestant Reformation, also made a very interesting statement regarding the church's position on "family values":

"If anyone says that it is not better and more godly to live in virginity or in the unmarried state than to marry, let him be anathema."

A further and very important factor in the push to require celibacy for clergy was the problematic relationship the Roman Catholic Church had with real estate and inherited land. Priests and bishops were not just religious leaders: they also had political power over the people. When they controlled land, which was at the time the basis for any political power, that land could either go to the church or to the man's heirs when he died.

Naturally the church wanted to keep it and retain political power itself; the best way to do that was to ensure that there weren't any rival claimants on the land, and keeping the clergy celibate and unmarried was the easiest way to accomplish this goal. Making celibacy a religious obligation was also the best way to make sure that the clergy obeyed.

Thus, the history of clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church is one of contingency and political expediency - there was nothing necessary about it, and that's why it cannot be regarded as a an essential feature of the priesthood today. That is also why there are so many married Roman Catholic priests in the world.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:34 am

Mister Bushice wrote:From a non religious site:

atheism.about.com/od/romancatholicism/a/celibacy_2.htm

Yeah....

Let's ask the atheists all about Catholicism.

Anyway, there are valid scriptural reasons behind the practice, but since none of you 'freethinkers' are interested, I'll let you babble among yoursellves.

Let me know if you have any questions you want the actual answers to on the subject.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:52 am

there are valid scriptural reasons behind the practice

What the hell could they be? But you're right, I'm not asking for mumbo-jumbo. I'm asking WHY it's important to require that Priests don't marry or fuck women. No "valid scripture" can explain this. Why would the Church require its servants to remove themselves from their manhood? Why did that become necessary, and more importantly, why have they stuck by it, even at this late hour?

Gunslinger · Post by **Gunslinger** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:02 am

Diogenes wrote: Let me know if you have any questions you want the actual answers to on the subject.

No!

Seriously, no.

poptart · Post by **poptart** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:02 am

Short answer = satan

Christ finished everything.

No need to wear funny hats, plug the goo up in a man's plumbing, or burn incense like it's goin' out o' style.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:06 am

Oh come on, pop.

Christ did not decide celibacy for the 11th century popes, and neither did satan.

It was their interpretation of the bible.

That is what we should discuss.

Satan is not a really definitive answer because man is involved.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:14 am

Jesus had nothing to do with preventing priests from marrying. That all came after him.

titlover · Post by **titlover** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:16 am

Mister Bushice wrote:Dude, you're talking about a group of people who believe someone came back from the dead.

What's a little chastity gonna hurt?

Especially when it opens the doors to pedophiles.

After all THAT's not sex - right?

that ain't just Catholics you fukken tard.

Mister Bushice · Post by **Mister Bushice** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:33 am

TL

I'm not interested in your baseless infantile tard insults, and who besides Christians believe in Christ coming back from the dead?

Also, the catholic church and the priest hood has supported and hidden pedophiles for (at the very least) decades. THAT is based on fact.

Bring something to support your comment or don't post in this thread. We have enough sandbox posters already who dick around with the anal and oral fixation posting style.

If that is all you've got, we're full up.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:39 am

But you're right, I'm not asking for mumbo-jumbo. I'm asking WHY it's important to require that Priests don't marry or fuck women. No "valid scripture" can explain this.

Not to an atheist or someone with a grudge against the Church.

The Catholic Church interprets scripture to say that those with a calling to minister to their flock should abstain from marriage in order to dedicate their entire lives to Christ and the ministry. That is in fact the reason for preistly celibacy. Paul lays out the reasons, but someone who mindlessly dismisses scripture out of hand will never get it.

Oh come on, pop.

Christ did not decide celibacy for the 11th century popes, and neither did satan.

It was their interpretation of the bible.

That is what we should discuss.

A) From a Catholic POV, Christ did through the writings of Paul and the interpretations of Augustine.

B) From an anti-catholic POV, Satan did.

C) PSU isn't interested in what they believe, only conspiracy theories.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:02 pm

What I find most humorous is that Peter himself was married as the bible states that Peter's mother in Law had an exorcism performed by Jesus.

BSmack · Post by **BSmack** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:07 pm

SunCoastSooner wrote:What I find most humorous is that Peter himself was married as the bible states that Peter's mother in Law had an exorcism performed by Jesus.

A fringe benefit to being an Apostle I guess? We should all be so lucky. ;)

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:15 pm

"Hey J, my mother-in-law is possessed. Get the demon out of her, man."

Shlomart Ben Yisrael · Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:19 pm

poptart wrote:Short answer = satan

Christ finished everything.

No need to wear funny hats, plug the goo up in a man's plumbing, or burn incense like it's goin' out o' style.

I recall asking if Christ's being fulfilled all OT prophecy.

Scanner said "No".

I see you weighing in on the "Yes" side.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 1:54 pm

Martyred wrote:
poptart wrote:Short answer = satan

Christ finished everything.

No need to wear funny hats, plug the goo up in a man's plumbing, or burn incense like it's goin' out o' style.
I recall asking if Christ's being fulfilled all OT prophecy.

Scanner said "No".

I see you weighing in on the "Yes" side.

The answer is still no.

Out.

Now SCS will think I'm really Scanner.

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Mar 03, 2006 3:56 pm

PSUFAN,

IIRC from my religions classes in Catholic school, the vow of celibacy originated in the 12th century. At the time, it was designed to prevent corrupt priests from bequeathing Church property to their children, so it had a valid purpose at the time. Today, of course, the Church would receive that protection by law in most countries, and where it would not, it is definitely capable of exerting enough political pressure to get similar laws passed.

The vow of celibacy is an anachronism which should go, but unfortunately, nobody in a position of leadership within the Church is in a tremendous hurry to do anything about it, and the traditionalists are more vocal on this point.

Full disclosure: as a kid I thought for awhile of becoming a priest. That ended around the time I hit puberty and discovered the opposite sex.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:09 pm

unfortunately, nobody in a position of leadership within the Church is in a tremendous hurry to do anything about it

Ya gotta wonder why this is.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:17 pm

PSUFAN wrote:
The vow of celibacy is an anachronism which should go, but unfortunately, nobody in a position of leadership within the Church is in a tremendous hurry to do anything about it
Ya gotta wonder why this is.

Because the Catholic Church doesn't alter its doctrine just because atheists and heathens (or even 'Catholics' who don't believe in Catholic doctrine) find them 'anachronistic'.

Since you asked.

SunCoastSooner · Post by **SunCoastSooner** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Martyred wrote:
poptart wrote:Short answer = satan

Christ finished everything.

No need to wear funny hats, plug the goo up in a man's plumbing, or burn incense like it's goin' out o' style.
I recall asking if Christ's being fulfilled all OT prophecy.

Scanner said "No".

I see you weighing in on the "Yes" side.

what thread?

Terry in Crapchester · Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:44 pm

Diogenes wrote:
PSUFAN wrote:
The vow of celibacy is an anachronism which should go, but unfortunately, nobody in a position of leadership within the Church is in a tremendous hurry to do anything about it
Ya gotta wonder why this is.
Because the Catholic Church doesn't alter its doctrine just because atheists and heathens (or even 'Catholics' who don't believe in Catholic doctrine) find them 'anachronistic'.

Since you asked.

The vow of celibacy is hardly a central tenet of Catholic teaching. They changed the rules on this one once, they certainly could do it again.

And btw, weren't you the one who referred to Catholics as "vile Papists" not too long ago? Just asking.

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:52 pm

There is "Catholic Doctrine" and there is reality. RARELY do the two meet, so there is a LONG-ESTABLISHED process of compromise by which catholic clergy and laypeople have to interface with both. How can "scripture" be meaningful to everyday catholics if it does not address their needs or their reality?

For example, not too long ago, the Church under JPII decided to recognize second marriages...as long as there was no sex in them. What the fuck good is that, other than to point out how out of touch the Church is with its everyday folks - the people it takes money from?

What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:57 pm

That would be me.

Expressing the sentiments of the kneejerk Catholic bashers of course.

And wheteher it is a central tenet or not, it IS scripturaly resonable interpretation of Pauline teaching.

And no, I don't give a rat's ass whether atheists, heretics, and deists recognize the relevance of Paul to Christianity, they don't care about the gospel to begin with, the whole 'Paul wrote that, not Jesus' is just a pathetic diversion.

LTS TRN 2 · Post by **LTS TRN 2** » Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:39 pm

Diogenes suggests there are those who walk among us who "mindlessly dismisses scripture"...uh, okay...

But what about those multitudes who carefully read the text, study the historical context, observe the results so far, and conclude quite mindfully that the entire Judeo/Christer religous cult industry has been nothing but a grotesque disaster for the West since its inception, that "Progress" as we know it in modern times is quite literally measured in the stripping away of Judeo/Christian restrictions and repressive laws? What about them?

Saul of Tarsus, the architect of this entire abomination, declares quite clearly in his epistles that he fully expected the Return of Christ within his lifetime. THIS is the origin of the celibacy nonsense. The fact that he was dead wrong (about everything else, too, as it turns out) dosn't seem to faze the cult member's mind--in prior ages or the present.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:38 am

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Diogenes suggests there are those who walk among us who "mindlessly dismisses scripture"...uh, okay...

But what about those multitudes who carefully read the text, study the historical context, observe the results so far, and conclude quite mindfully that the entire Judeo/Christer religous cult industry has been nothing but a grotesque disaster for the West since its inception, that "Progress" as we know it in modern times is quite literally measured in the stripping away of Judeo/Christian restrictions and repressive laws? What about them?

They are idiots, but that isn't the subject of this thread.

What on Earth would be so troublesome about married catholic priests, in 2006? Let's hear something creditable.

Nothing to me, but I'm not Catholic. I'm not Mormon either, but I think if an old school Mormon wants to have five wives, that's their buisness. Are you Catholic? Thinking of the preisthood? What do you find so troublesome about celibacy anyway? Is it just preists or does celibacy in general bother you?

Just curious.

Mikey · Post by **Mikey** » Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:55 am

I think they did away with Limbo fairly recently.
I wonder where all those unbaptized babies floated off to.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Sun Mar 05, 2006 1:42 am

mvscal wrote:
Diogenes wrote:Because the Catholic Church doesn't alter its doctrine just because atheists and heathens (or even 'Catholics' who don't believe in Catholic doctrine) find them 'anachronistic'.

Yeah, we've noticed that priests haven't stopped fucking young boys up the ass.

When did they develop that doctrine?

That woiuld actually be a question for the 'was Jesus a homo' thread.