Improper homily on Priesthood

[1ke]

1ke;From the Catholic Encyclopedia;

Don’t forget, the Church wasn’t living under democratic governments, but often tyrannical monarchies. Laws of inheritance changed according to the whim of kings and queens.

Nice try. BUT, your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not support the assertion that celibacy was imposed to *prevent *inheritance. Rather, that section of the article discusses abuse of the existing celibacy rules of the Church including bishops treating church property AS IF it were an inheritance-- it does not say it WAS an inheritance. Celibacy was not enacted as a counter measure, it was already in force.

Then how it is, that the Bishops are forced to use Church funds and sell Church property to settle law suits in the sex abuse scandal, when the Bishops and priest who committed the crimes, don’t own Church property?

I’ve already explained that. Priests are employees of the bishop and diocese. Therefore, the lawsuits are against the diocese as employer and the individuals as perpetrators. Due to the particular way in which parishes and diocese were incorporated under civil law they formed a legal entity with the bishop as head. That is why they could be sued as they were.

Other dioceses, which were not incorporated in this same way, were unable to be sued in this way.

 

[Pious_Mat]

No offence, but I just don’t understand why anyone would want to do away with the beautiful gift of celebacy. It may not be required, but neither is going to mass every day, or saying your rosary every night. Why live a minimum when we can continually aspire to be more Christ?

I think that perhaps some people are under the impression that if married men are allowed to enter seminaries, all of a sudden they will fill up, and there’ll be three priests in every parish.

Let me tell you, if this were really the case, I just might be in favour a married priesthood myself. However, many other religions that have married clergy are having similar vocation problems to ours. Think of it logically: how many wives would consent to their husbands going through 7 years of seminary (he’d be a full-time student), during which she would be living on an extremely limited income. Also, married celebacy makes it an issue of not just the faith of the priest, but of his wife. A devout man with a lukewarm wife could therefore be diverted from the priesthood. I just don’t think the numbers are there to warrant a departure from something as deeply holy and satisfying as celebacy.

 

[Genesis315]

Where did you pick up that old wives tale?

The Western Church made clerical cleibacy it’s standard in the Council of Evira ( 295) in Spain, France with the Council of Ancyra in 314 and Italy (including Rome itself) with the Council of Trullo, in 692.

Married priest were sometimes allowed, but it was never a common practice in the Latin Church since the 7th Century.

Good post. And even before then, when married men were ordained they were required to remain celibate, as St. Jerome explains:

St. Jerome writes (AD 393 ):

“The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm

He understands the tradition to have been practiced from Apostolic times. This also seems to be the practice in the East as well until the seventh century.

From the First Council of Nicea:

“3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”

Notice no exception for wife.

In 692, the Quinisext Council, a local council in the East, began allowing a non-celibate priesthood. St. Bede, a contemporary, calls it a “reprobate council.” Rome tolerated it out of economy for the sake of peace.

 

[mgrfin]

Good post. And even before then, when married men were ordained they were required to remain celibate, as St. Jerome explains:

St. Jerome writes (AD 393 ):

“The apostles have either been virgins or, though married, have lived celibate lives. Those persons who are chosen to be bishops, priests, and deacons are either virgins or widowers; or at least when once they have received the priesthood, are vowed to perpetual chastity.”

newadvent.org/fathers/3001048.htm

He understands the tradition to have been practiced from Apostolic times. This also seems to be the practice in the East as well until the seventh century.

From the First Council of Nicea:

“3. This great synod absolutely forbids a bishop, presbyter, deacon or any of the clergy to keep a woman who has been brought in to live with him, with the exception of course of his mother or sister or aunt, or of any person who is above suspicion.”

Notice no exception for wife.

In 692, the Quinisext Council, a local council in the East, began allowing a non-celibate priesthood. St. Bede, a contemporary, calls it a “reprobate council.” Rome tolerated it out of economy for the sake of peace.

September 30th is the Feast of St. Jerome, Priest, Confessor, and Doctor of the Church, who translated the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew into Latin (the Vulgate).

Peace

 

[VociMike]

This isn’t a tale but historical fact.

Heck, consider if we had married priest here in the USA. Do you think that the wife’s lawyer, would not go after Church property and money, as the result of a divorce?

I think its one of the main reasons we will not see mandated celibacy lifted, in the Latin rite.

When’s the last time a divorce lawyer went after e.g. a General Motors factory because the man worked there during his marriage?

And as I asked, if it was a problem of priests leaving Church property to wives and children, why was it not also a problem of priests leaving Church property to fathers and brothers and nephews? The inability to answer that question destroys the myth then and there.

 

[VociMike]

doesn’t matter. Being the wife was use to a certain living standard, i.e. living in a rectory with nice furniture etc, you can bet lawyers would make the attempt to go after it.

Heck, the Bishops don’t own Church property or funds, yet the lawyers went after it when they sued over the sex abuse scandal.

Lawyers go after the deep pockets.

Jim

Then why isn’t this also a problem with the Anglicans and Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox and Fundamentalist Baptists and Pentacostalists and Non-Denoms? Why aren’t their wives and children inheriting church properties left and right? Why does the rest of the religious world seem to be able to cope with wives and children without imposing celibacy, but the Catholic Church couldn’t otherwise cope?

The smallest bit of critical thinking demolishes this tale.

 

[VociMike]

Here’s another thing one has to believe if one believes the priests-bequeathing-church-property tale. One has to believe that new laws were imposed in the 11th and 12th centuries that suddenly allowed priests to bequeath Church property (since the allegation is that this was not a problem earlier, hence married priests were not a problem earlier). So now one has to believe that the lawmakers of the era were willing and able, against any and all Church opposition, to pass such laws, even though there was no benefit to these lawmakers, and even though the passage of such laws may have earned them an excommunication.

Somebody tell me why the lawmakers of the 11th and 12th centuries would pass such a law that was of no benefit to them, and could potentially get them excommunicated. I want to hear that explanation. And this at a time when the influence of the Church on secular monarchs was perhaps at its peak, no less!

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Then why isn’t this also a problem with the Anglicans and Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox and Fundamentalist Baptists and Pentacostalists and Non-Denoms? Why aren’t their wives and children inheriting church properties left and right? Why does the rest of the religious world seem to be able to cope with wives and children without imposing celibacy, but the Catholic Church couldn’t otherwise cope?

The smallest bit of critical thinking demolishes this tale.

Inheritance laws are different today than in the middle ages.

Ask why lawyers haven’t gone after church property when a prostestant minister has committed sexual abuse? They go instead after the ministers own personal property.

Do you really think lawyers would not go after Church property and treasure, and instead go after the priest himself? They haven’t yet, in the sex scandal.

Jim

 

[1ke]

Here’s another thing one has to believe if one believes the priests-bequeathing-church-property tale. One has to believe that new laws were imposed in the 11th and 12th centuries that suddenly allowed priests to bequeath Church property (since the allegation is that this was not a problem earlier, hence married priests were not a problem earlier). So now one has to believe that the lawmakers of the era were willing and able, against any and all Church opposition, to pass such laws, even though there was no benefit to these lawmakers, and even though the passage of such laws may have earned them an excommunication.

Somebody tell me why the lawmakers of the 11th and 12th centuries would pass such a law that was of no benefit to them, and could potentially get them excommunicated. I want to hear that explanation. And this at a time when the influence of the Church on secular monarchs was perhaps at its peak, no less!

And, in addition to that… SHOW me those laws in the historical record.

 

[VociMike]

Inheritance laws are different today than in the middle ages.

OK, give me authoritative proof that a priest in the middle ages could leave Church property to his son, but not to e.g. his brother.

And how about historical evidence of Church properties that were left to wives and children before the Church changed its discipline on priestly celibacy.

I suppose the commander of a secular lord’s garrison could also leave the garrison property to his heirs. Why not?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

1ke

Nice try. BUT, your quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not support the assertion that celibacy was imposed to *prevent *inheritance. Rather, that section of the article discusses abuse of the existing celibacy rules of the Church including bishops treating church property AS IF it were an inheritance-- it does not say it WAS an inheritance. Celibacy was not enacted as a counter measure, it was already in force.

The point was to show that inheritance of church property to children of clergy, was a reality.

I’ve already explained that. Priests are employees of the bishop and diocese. Therefore, the lawsuits are against the diocese as employer and the individuals as perpetrators. Due to the particular way in which parishes and diocese were incorporated under civil law they formed a legal entity with the bishop as head. That is why they could be sued as they were.

Other dioceses, which were not incorporated in this same way, were unable to be sued in this way.

But the Bishops and priest do not own the Church property nor its treasure. The property belongs to the people of the Church.

If you think lawyers would not attempt to go after Church property, in a divorce case,( should they ever allow married priest,) I think you’re living in a dream world.

Jim

 

[Pious_Mat]

Shouldn’t this discussion have less to do with money, inheritance, legal battles, and more to do with holiness, being Christ-like, and the divine gift of celibacy and the sanctity of marriage?

Just a thought.

Mat.

 

[averheyen]

Priests were allowed to marry until 1100 or so. It was medevial property rights (church property) that forced a change in policy during the Middle Ages.

So it is not going against tradition to bring back married priests (e.g. make celibacy optional). It would increase the numbers of priests in seminaries. A few bishops have talked about it in pastoral letters with valid reasons to do so.

Here are a couple good examples on why it should be done.

dnu.org/news/lucker/oct98.html

dnu.org/news/lucker/nov98.html

It is easy in the US to protect Church property, just have pre-nuptial agreements that simply state all Church property is off-limits in case of a divorce and problem solved.

It’s funny you say that, because the Dioceses that tend to attract the largest number of Semeniarians are the most Orthodox ones.

Take the diocese of Lincon Nebraska for example.

They still refuse to allow female altar servers, and are in the top three in the USA for new Semenarians.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

FYI

The ‘Dark Ages’, however, saw a decline in priestly morale and discipline as society itself fell into turmoil. About 1018 Pope Benedict VIII reacted against this decline and brought in stronger laws to support clerical celibacy and made it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property (which had often been church property in the first place).

catholic-ew.org.uk/faith/living/celibacy.htm

Jim

 

[Corki]

And, in addition to that… SHOW me those laws in the historical record.

AND in ALL the countries where the Church had priests.

 

[VociMike]

The ‘Dark Ages’, however, saw a decline in priestly morale and discipline as society itself fell into turmoil. About 1018 Pope Benedict VIII reacted against this decline and brought in stronger laws to support clerical celibacy and made it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property (which had often been church property in the first place).

catholic-ew.org.uk/faith/living/celibacy.htm

This totally shoots down your theory. If the pope could on his own “make it impossible” for the children of priests to inherit property, then it would be redundant for the Church to force priests to be celibate to make it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

This totally shoots down your theory. If the pope could on his own “make it impossible” for the children of priests to inherit property, then it would be redundant for the Church to force priests to be celibate to make it impossible for the children of priests to inherit property.

You miss the point, which is that the Pope had to make it law, that property could not be inherited by the children of married priest, because it was happening.

If it wasn’t happening, Pope Bennedict would not have had to put out the mandate.

Oh and there was also another abuse, which Pope Gregory had to stop, and that was married Bishops giving good positions within the church, to their sons.

I know you would like to think that that Church was perfect and without flaws, but history shows that was not the case.

Jim

 

[mgrfin]

1ke

The point was to show that inheritance of church property to children of clergy, was a reality.

But the Bishops and priest do not own the Church property nor its treasure. The property belongs to the people of the Church.

If you think lawyers would not attempt to go after Church property, in a divorce case,( should they ever allow married priest,) I think you’re living in a dream world.

Jim

Initially, lawyers might try to go after the property, but after they lose a few cases, that would be it. Legal Precedent is what counts.

Take the Evangelical parishes who wanted to split from the Episcopal church in the U.S. They thought that the parish buildings, etc. belonged to the parishes, and so wanted to take the property with them on the split.

The Appeals Court said the property belonged to the Diocese, so even in this case, where you would think that the parishioners had real rights, they didn’t.

Priests never have considered parish property to belong to them in any way.

peace

 

[VociMike]

You miss the point, which is that the Pope had to make it law, that property could not be inherited by the children of married priest, because it was happening.

If it wasn’t happening, Pope Bennedict would not have had to put out the mandate.

No, I discerned the point quite well. If there were some problem and the pope could end the problem with a law which did not require celibacy, then the whole argument that the Church had to introduce celibacy to end the problem falls on its face.

Equally as important, the site you referenced makes no reference to primary sources and so is nothing more than hearsay. It’s no better than Wikipedia. So until you can offer primary sources that say that priests could and did bequeath Church property to their children then I’m not going to bother any more with this fable. If you’re going to argue history then you have to play by historians’ rules.

Oh and there was also another abuse, which Pope Gregory had to stop, and that was married Bishops giving good positions within the church, to their sons.

Now this is a certainly a real abuse and I can well believe it happened and was a problem.

I know you would like to think that that Church was perfect and without flaws, but history shows that was not the case.

No, I’m not a baby and I don’t need you to treat me like one. And further, if priests really were legally bequeathing Church property to their children and the Church had to act to prevent that, how does that translate into a flaw? There’s nothing morally wrong with legally bequeathing property to one’s heirs, nor is there anything morally wrong with the Church acting to stop it. So your comment, along with being condescending, is also a non-sequitur.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Here is another reference about property, money, and celabcy in the Church circa 1100.

natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/041202/041202s.htm

(look halfway down for meat of article)

newadvent.org/cathen/09017a.htm

Also
arthurstreet.com/celibacy1993.html

David Rice presents a comprehensive historical look at celibacy in his book about resigned priests entitled, Shattered Vows. Rice credits Catholic theologian Edward Schillebeeckx in The Church with a Human Face with asserting that clerical celibacy originated in “a partly pagan notion of ritual purity,” as Sipe indicates with the aforementioned examples. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, a proposal to require celibacy for all priests was defeated and at the Council of Trullo in 692, marriage rights for priests were reasserted. (Rice page 161.)

Here are two councils where mandatory celibacy was defeated early on.

Just remember through this entire discussion. Not making celibacy mandatory is not the same as not removing it totally. It will still be allowed and revered by many as it should be.