Origins of priestly celibacy

[Moontown_Rabbit]

I was having lunch today with three older Catholics when the subject of priestly celibacy came up. One of the guys explained that the reason the Church brought in celibacy was to avoid paying for the house and expenses of a priest’s family. He also said that such property was usually inherited by the family and the Church wanted to avoid losing such investments. I was quite upset at the idea that such an important spiritual discipline was motivated by financial considerations and did not hesitate to say so. At this point the other two guys also supported the given explanation. I regret to say that I became quite angry and said a few things that were less than charitable. Later on I asked my Catholic mother what she thought and she also agreed that celibacy was motivated by finances. I have two questions:

(1) Was celibacy in fact introduced to conserve Church funds?
(2) If this is not true, who started this myth?

 

[Corki]

1. No, celibacy has been the preferred state for the priesthood since the time of the Apostles. It didn’t become mandetory until later in the Church’s history but has always been a laudable practice.
2. I’m not sure who started this but, like many “myths” it was probably someone who saw a document and took it out of context or someone who was unhappy with the Church’s discipline and just wanted to cast disperson on it.

 

[luiyeo]

Hi, celibacy was probably introduced into the church mindful of Christ teaching that whoever gave up i.e father, mother, brother, sister, wife etc for the glory of God’s kingdom. Right? Luiyeo everything

I was having lunch today with three older Catholics when the subject of priestly celibacy came up. One of the guys explained that the reason the Church brought in celibacy was to avoid paying for the house and expenses of a priest’s family. He also said that such property was usually inherited by the family and the Church wanted to avoid losing such investments. I was quite upset at the idea that such an important spiritual discipline was motivated by financial considerations and did not hesitate to say so. At this point the other two guys also supported the given explanation. I regret to say that I became quite angry and said a few things that were less than charitable. Later on I asked my Catholic mother what she thought and she also agreed that celibacy was motivated by finances. I have two questions:

(1) Was celibacy in fact introduced to conserve Church funds?
(2) If this is not true, who started this myth?

 

[Benadam]

Depotism did corrupt the priesthood but not in the way your friend mentioned. The early priesthood became dynastic. The town priest was a ventral figure that over time became care taker of property and wealth. An effective means to keep property and wealth from passing into the hands of others was to ordain your sons. Married priests would ordain their sons and their sons would ordain their sons. Powerfull dynasties began dominating the political and finanvial landscape. Parishes were lead by corrupt tyrants accustomed to power rather than humble fathers.

The priesthood was refomed by the monastic movement that was begun by lay persons who lived celibate lives in community with others of likemind. Many were married and sacrificed married life for a life of self denial prayer and seclusion.

As the monastic life grew as a means of attaining holiness the Church recieved priests formed by the monastic rules. The holy life within monastaries was provifing the Church with it’s best priests. The celibate priests from the monastaries reformed the corruption of depotism. The monastic life was recognized by the Church as the prefered means of priestly formation and became a dicipline for all priests.

 

[Rolltide]

I believe it’s nepotism, not depotism…

The movement you speak of is called the Cluny Reform Movement, which started at Cluny Abbey in the 900s, and continued to gain strength up until the last reforms were instituted around 1100. As you said, although “regular” priests (monks, members of the religious orders that followed extra “regulations” that other priests didn’t) had required mandatory celibacy from at least the time of St. Benedict in the 300s (and many practiced it optionally far before that), “secular” priests (ordinary parish priests) had the option of being married, as long as they were married prior to ordination. Unfortunately, many secular priests were poorly trained during the Dark Ages due to the horrific literacy rate in Europe (less than 1%), and some promoted the careers of their sons by purchasing positions for them (simony) in church. This created a double scandal, in that they were committing simony AND nepotism. Some priests also had mistresses, others were wealthy and used church funds to allow their families to enjoy a grand lifestyle. Cluny Abbey would reform these problems. The church was aware that corruption was growing, and undertook this very successful movement to address the situation.

The monks of this era were the big heroes of the Dark Ages. They were highly educated, preformed the only charity, and lived austere, honest lives, for the most part. They believed that many of their disciplines could reform the church, and the Pope agreed. Among the reforms that came out of this movement (some directly from Cluny, and others simply inspired by it):

1. An end to simony and nepotism
2. An end to lay investiture (kings or lords appointing priests and bishops without church consent
3. Mandatory celibacy in the Latin branch of the church
4. The creation of the College of Cardinals, to ensure that no government could control the Papacy (this was inspired by the schemes of Otto I of Germany in the 900s)
5. Mandatory attendance at a seminary to receive training. The success of these seminaries makes lay people want to attend too, and the result is that the first secular universities will split off and begin to educate Europe once again.)

 

[Benadam]

Thank you rolltide for correcting and clarifying my mean attempt at Church history.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Thanks very much for your answers! I still have one question with regard to what happened from 900 to 1100. I did a bit of research into the early church, and found that begetting children (if not marriage itself) was prohibited by three separate councils in the 4th century.

**The fourth century saw instances in the West of canonical enactment of penalties for members of the clergy who did not observe continence. The earliest known is that of the Council of Elvira (c. 306):

“Bishops, presbyters, deacons, and others with a position in the ministry are to abstain completely from sexual intercourse with their wives and from the procreation of children. If anyone disobeys, he shall be removed from the clerical office.”

The Council of Nicaea, AD 325, decides in Canon 3:

“The great Synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter, deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a subintroducta* dwelling with him, except only a mother, or sister, or aunt, or such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.” * meaning a female human being].

In 387 or 390, or according to others in 400, a Council of Carthage decreed that bishops, priests and deacons abstain from conjugal relations, in accordance with a tradition dating from the Apostles:

“It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity”.**

It seems from the previous posts that these councils were ignored until around 1100. Why was this? Were priests and bishops so untrained that they did not know of these council orders? Or was their behaviour due to human weakness? It seems odd to me that from 300 to 1100 you had some celibate monks and priests but a majority of Catholic clergy having children. Perhaps this is where the myth of “celibacy to reduce financial obligation” comes from.

 

[Cluny]

Clergy of the Eastern Churches, including Eastern Catholic, have not been bound to celibacy.

This is STRICTLY a Western innovation.

 

[John92]

Clergy of the Eastern Churches, including Eastern Catholic, have not been bound to celibacy.

This is STRICTLY a Western innovation.

Please don’t troll and drag threads off-track, there’s some very interesting stuff here.

“innovation” We agree with you: it’s not a “necessary” thing to being a Priest, but it’s a discipline we of the Latin Rite adhere to. How would you like it if I called byzantine iconography an “innovation”?

 

[malphono]

Please don’t troll and drag threads off-track, there’s some very interesting stuff here.

“innovation” We agree with you: it’s not a “necessary” thing to being a Priest, but it’s a discipline we of the Latin Rite adhere to. How would you like it if I called byzantine iconography an “innovation”?

One could say that it was an “innovation” insofar as it was something new: prior to it, the tradition in the West was that non-monastic clergy could be married. Perhaps Cluny’s comment would have been better said as: … STRICTLY a Western discipline.

This isn’t my argument, but in any case I have to say your analogy doesn’t hold. Though I am not a Byzantine, I find it rather offensive.

 

[Harpazo]

Please don’t troll and drag threads off-track, there’s some very interesting stuff here.

“innovation” We agree with you: it’s not a “necessary” thing to being a Priest, but it’s a discipline we of the Latin Rite adhere to. How would you like it if I called byzantine iconography an “innovation”?

I think it does have something to do with the topic, because the rest of Apostolic Christianity (the Orthodox) allow for married priests. It is interesting to learn when mandatory clerical celibacy came into existence in the West.

It would not make much sense to call iconography an innovation, see as how it was present in both East and West.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Clergy of the Eastern Churches, including Eastern Catholic, have not been bound to celibacy.

This is STRICTLY a Western innovation.

Actually Bishops in the Eastern Churches are bound to celibacy.

So it is not STRICTLY a Western innovation.

It might be consider such when applied to other levels of the clergy though.

 

[John92]

One could say that it was an “innovation” insofar as it was something new: prior to it, the tradition in the West was that non-monastic clergy could be married. Perhaps Cluny’s comment would have been better said as: … STRICTLY a Western discipline.

This isn’t my argument, but in any case I have to say your analogy doesn’t hold. Though I am not a Byzantine, I find it rather offensive.

Sorry, it was not my intention to cause offense And it probably wasn’t the best analogy.

But I think you get what I’m saying. The Eastern and Western churches have various differences, in liturgy and iconography, and both have “innovated” to a great extent (in terms of altering things from the apostolic age). We still preserve the Apostolic Faith as it was handed down to us, but we both have practices that didn’t exist in the apostles time - like, for example, clerical celibacy for the west, or rosaries. Doesn’t mean that they’re bad (or that that they’re “good” either). They’re certainly not “innovations”.

It kinda bugs me man. We Catholics like the Orthodox, in general, or at least us laymen do. We respect you a lot. And then you have a lot of Easterners who come to this forum and have a very arrogant attitude towards us. I’m not talking about you in particular, I just see a lot more of that coming from the Easterners here than I do from the Westerners.

We’re both part of the Apostolic Faith. We’ve developed many incidental differences over the ages (like clerical celibacy), and there are a few theological areas where we have significant disputes (for example, the role of the Bishop of Rome in ecclesiology). But we have WAY more things that we agree on than that we don’t, and we should focus on those things.

God bless you and all the East

 

[Cluny]

Please don’t troll and drag threads off-track, there’s some very interesting stuff here.

“innovation” We agree with you: it’s not a “necessary” thing to being a Priest, but it’s a discipline we of the Latin Rite adhere to. How would you like it if I called byzantine iconography an “innovation”?

Proper Byzantine iconography has never been innovative, because there was never a time that it did not exist.

OTOH, there was a time that imposed clerical celibacy in the West did not exist, therefore it is an innovation.

 

[Corki]

Clergy of the Eastern Churches, including Eastern Catholic, have not been bound to celibacy.

This is STRICTLY a Western innovation.

Cluny,

To clarify, the OP asked about the *introduction *of celibacy, not its being a required discipline. The only innovation was to make it required. A celibate priesthood as a laudable spiritual discipline is not an inovation in the East or West.