What event started priestly celebacy?

[emanne]

I know this is an old question, but I’m relatively new to this site and havent heard an explanation that sounds right. Priests and popes had the option to be married up until the 1500s, I think. What happened, in detail, that caused the Pope at that time to ban priests from marrying?

 

[Trishie]

There is some biblical basis for celebacy in what Jesus says in Matthew 19:11-12, “But He said to them, all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: for there are eunuchs who were born from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” Jesus says there are some who make themselves eunuchs , or celebates for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

 

[Trishie]

It may appear, though I don’t have substanciation, that priestly celebacy began in the 10th century to counter the fact that some priests were leaving Church property to their children.I still can’t answer your question who and when, but outrage against loss of parish property would be sufficient to influence a change.
However, even before the 900s many priests chose to be celebate in order to follow Jesus’ example. Apart from the value placed on celebacy, married priesthood remains an economic problem as priests receive very little money. In any case there seems little hope of Church agreement return to the possibility of married priests, due to cherished spiritual reasons to maintain celebacy

 

[emanne]

Dear Trishie,

Thank you for your response. However, as much as I am a devout Catholic who very, very rarely raises questions about the Church’s policies, this one is a problem for me. The idea that priests were willing Church property to their children doesnt seem like a good reason to ban all good men from getting married. The idea that some men where CHOOSING to be celebate in the 900’s is fine, but the idea that it became a rule is very different. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to answer but I really believe the question of marriage being an option should be more fully discussed. In my opinion, and it may be only my opinion, I think there should be religious orders that remain celebate for those who are called to that, and orders where marriage can be an option. As for priests not making much money, the wife could work to help support them and parishioners might be willing to support a cherished pastor. Again, I want to know the exact, official reason for this change and exactly when it began. Sincerely, emanne.

 

[LilyM]

Dear Trishie,

Thank you for your response. However, as much as I am a devout Catholic who very, very rarely raises questions about the Church’s policies, this one is a problem for me. The idea that priests were willing Church property to their children doesnt seem like a good reason to ban all good men from getting married. The idea that some men where CHOOSING to be celebate in the 900’s is fine, but the idea that it became a rule is very different. Again, I appreciate you taking the time to answer but I really believe the question of marriage being an option should be more fully discussed. In my opinion, and it may be only my opinion, I think there should be religious orders that remain celebate for those who are called to that, and orders where marriage can be an option. As for priests not making much money, the wife could work to help support them and parishioners might be willing to support a cherished pastor. Again, I want to know the exact, official reason for this change and exactly when it began. Sincerely, emanne.

There is an excellent article about celibacy of the clergy at newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

To give scriptural highights, St Paul wrote extensively on the fact that married men have less resources to devote to the service of God, having also to devote themselves to the needs of wife and family. You can do a google search to find chapter and verse. More bluntly, he also simply said ‘it is better for everyone to remain as I am’ (ie unmarried) if possible. Thus indicating that celibacy is in fact preferable for both laity and clergy.

To be sure this doesn’t mean celibacy is an absolute necessity, and indeed Eastern Catholics still have married priests (although they rarely if ever have been able to become bishops, for example). As well as some convert priests from Protestant faiths being permitted to keep their wives and enter the Catholic priesthood.

But Catholicism has always been about BEST practice of the faith, and, about FULLNESS of truth. Not just about what will merely do the job adequately. And by the 1000s it was clear that best practice was unmarried clergy.

What it boils down to in the end is that it IS a disciplinary matter. It is binding because it is - Christ, after all, gave the Apostles the power of binding and loosing. That means they can bind on disciplinary matters as well as doctrine and dogma. As for reasons - the prompting of the Holy Spirit is reason enough.

Is there any obvious reason why the Eucharistic fast was first from midnight Saturday, then three hours before reception of Communion, and is now one hour? Or why Mass went from Greek to Latin to vernacular languages? The Church doesn’t really need to justify its disciplinary rules all the time - on occasions quite simply there needs to be a single rule, it was decided that celibate clergy was the way to go (at least in teh Latin Rite), and so it became the norm.

Just like some countries chose to drive on the right hand side of the road and others on the left, some use metric measurement and others (mainly the US out of sheer cussedness!) the imperial. Or some have separate heads of state and government whereas others (such as the US) combine the two in a single office (POTUS).

Rules is rules, sometimes we just need to pick an option and stick with it is all

 

[Vincent]

I highly recommend Roman Cholij’s “Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church”.

Early evidence suggests that once a man entered Holy Orders, he was expected to forgo sexual relations. A married man, therefore, ceased to have a conjugal relationship with his wife, and if his wife were to die after he was ordained, he was expected to not remarry. It also means that a single man was expected to not marry at all.

Vestiges of this ancient practice remain today: Married clergy in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches are expected to not remarry if the wife dies.

This is not to say that the early Church’s discipline was an “attack on marriage”. In explaining the “Early Motives for clerical continence,” Roman Cholij remarks that “[t]he fact that married men, with sexual experience, were chosen for the ministry showed the Church’s respect towards conjugal values.”

He adds, “[t]he new exclusive relationship to the Church inherent in the nature of priestly ordination would mean, however, that thenceforth the type of exclusivity implicit in sexual relations had to be renounced” (emphasis mine).

In another presentation, Cholij explores the meaning of this “new exclusive relationship to the Church” as it is communicated today. He writes,

In his actions, especially his liturgical actions, the priest is sacramentally inserted into the mystery of the exclusive love of Christ the Bridegroom towards the Church . . . Union with Christ, at its most intimate in the act of reception of the Eucharist, dictates the need to create the most favorable conditions to live the truth of the bridal relationship . . . The married priest, on the other hand, by his renunciation — in mutual agreement with his wife — of sexual intimacies, expresses the sacramental truth of his new exclusive relationship with the Church by virtue of his configuration to Christ the Bridegroom. His conjugal debt is now not towards his wife, but towards the Church through frequent celebration of the Eucharist. His paternal responsibilities are first and foremost towards his spiritual progeny. There is thus, according to this theological perspective, an inherent theological tension in the celebration of the Eucharist and the unregulated exercise of marital rights. In other words, priestly continence has sacramental value.
​

The motives of clerical continence and celibacy in the early Church find a more explicit development in the words of Pope John Paul II. He writes that sacred ordination “configures the priest to Jesus Christ the head and spouse of the Church”. Therefore,

The Church, as the spouse of Jesus Christ, wishes to be **loved **by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her head and spouse **loved **her.
​

The nuptial relationship between Christ and the Church is thus the fundamental basis for priestly celibacy: an exchange of self-giving and receptivity that is total and exclusive.

 

[turtle18]

Here is what St. Paul wrote: 1 Corinithians–Chapter 7, V32-35

An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, **not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To give scriptural highights, St Paul wrote extensively on the fact that married men have less resources to devote to the service of God, having also to devote themselves to the needs of wife and family. You can do a google search to find chapter and verse. More bluntly, he also simply said ‘it is better for everyone to remain as I am’ (ie unmarried) if possible. Thus indicating that celibacy is in fact preferable for both laity and clergy.

Paul did indeed have something to say on the subject. But I think the context here is important. Paul was first of all under the misconception that the return of Christ was imminent. Thus he urged people to mostly stay where they were, singles should remain so, married should remain so. He pointed out quite clearly that he felt his celibacy was a gift, but a gift of no greater value that any other gift that God gives. I do agree that he felt lucky because he felt he could devote 100% of his time to God whereas married people owed responsibilities to their spouses as well.

It remains to be seen how Paul might have felt had he known that Christ would not return any time soon from his perspective.

 

[LilyM]

Paul did indeed have something to say on the subject. But I think the context here is important. Paul was first of all under the misconception that the return of Christ was imminent. Thus he urged people to mostly stay where they were, singles should remain so, married should remain so. He pointed out quite clearly that he felt his celibacy was a gift, but a gift of no greater value that any other gift that God gives. I do agree that he felt lucky because he felt he could devote 100% of his time to God whereas married people owed responsibilities to their spouses as well.

It remains to be seen how Paul might have felt had he known that Christ would not return any time soon from his perspective.

Paul may have been under any number of misconceptions, I don’t think this is one of them. Doesn’t he in fact rebuke people in one of his epistles precisely BECAUSE they presumed Christ was coming any day and so they stopped working? Didn’t he tell them to go about ‘business as normal’, ie continuing to work and earn their keep?

Besides which, whatever misconceptions Paul may have had, the Holy Spirit who inspired that scripture had none.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I think it started with

10 The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” 11* But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Matthew 19:10-12

 

[emanne]

Thank you to everyone who answered/is answering this question. I still find it a bit puzzling that married clergy of other faiths, who become Catholic priests, are obviously allowed to keep their wives and children and, presumably, may have more children. The practice of men renouncing relations with their wives when they join our church isn’t still the requirement, is it? So I am puzzled that if these men can be practicing priests, with wives and children and celebrate Mass, why, for instance, there couldn’t be an order of priests that would have the option to marry, if they felt lead to do so? I’m not being argumentative on this point, it’s just that all the reasons you have all given for priestly celebacy seem quite reasonable and right until you consider that we have these married clergy in many of our parishes.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that subject? Thank you in advance for your answers.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I know this is an old question, but I’m relatively new to this site and havent heard an explanation that sounds right. Priests and popes had the option to be married up until the 1500s, I think. What happened, in detail, that caused the Pope at that time to ban priests from marrying?

Celibacy started for clergy in the 300’s at the Council of Elvira.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There is some biblical basis for celebacy in what Jesus says in Matthew 19:11-12, “But He said to them, all cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: for there are eunuchs who were born from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” Jesus says there are some who make themselves eunuchs , or celebates for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

To the OP, in addition to this one, you also have Paul himself, a member of the Church hierarchy, who echoed the sentiment, and practiced celibacy.

*1 Corinthians 7:1 It is well for a man not to touch a woman…I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

1 Corinthians 7:32,38 The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided…So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.*Celibacy is a special gift, and those who are called to this do a great service to the Kingdom.

 

[Church_Militant]

Priestly celibacy is unBiblical. NOT!

 

[Vincent]

So I am puzzled that if these men can be practicing priests, with wives and children and celebrate Mass, why, for instance, there couldn’t be an order of priests that would have the option to marry, if they felt lead to do so?

The history of the Church shows that a man does not have the option to marry **once **he receives ordination. This appears to be a perpetual tradition not only in the Churches of the West, but also of the East, which have a married priesthood.

Roman Cholij’s **research **shows that ordination was considered an impediment to (a subsequent) marriage. Cholij theorizes that this impediment is based on the law of continence: no sexual relations after ordination.

The tradition of not entering into (a subsequent) marriage remains, even if the law of continence that once rooted this tradition no longer exists in its ancient form. Therefore, those clergy who are already married prior to being ordained forgo remarriage, and those clergy who are single at the time of ordination forgo entering into marriage. That, it seems, is the way it has always been.

The creation of an order of priests who have the option to marry therefore is extremely unlikely.

Besides examining these historical origins, we could also consider the law of celibacy as a law of the Church. **Pope John Paul II **explained that, “*nasmuch as it is a law, it expresses the Church’s will, even before the will of the subject expressed by his readiness”. The will of the Church in this matter comes first, in other words. To borrow from your hypothetical situation, even if a priest feels like getting married, that’s secondary to the Church’s “firm” will on priestly celibacy.

Why?

Based on the Pope John Paul’s explanation of the nuptial significance of priestly celibacy, the Church makes this decision as the Bride of Christ. The law of priestly celibacy is the Church’s **free **response to the **free **initiative of Christ her spouse to love her in that way that he did.

It is therefore entirely fitting for the Church to expect her priests, who are living icons of her spouse, to relate to her as Christ related to her, with a love that excludes “the type of exclusivity implicit in sexual relations”.

I would say that this freedom explains why, in her love for Christ her spouse, the Church can firmly maintain the law of “perpetual and freely chosen celibacy for present and future candidates for priestly ordination in the Latin rite,” while, at the same time making exceptions, in the case of married clergy from Episcopalian/Anglican backgrounds.*

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

It is the opinion of this humble Protestant, that celibacy is a good and an honorable thing. Too often I find amongst my bretheren that a minister is often looked upon as weird if he is not married or at least looking for a mate, and a single pastor is almost unheard of in my circles. I, however, feel that it is a good thing for a minister to consider and something to be prayed about most fervently indeed. I my self have considered it many a time and still do, wondering what my Lord would have me be. I’ve come to the conclusion that if my Lord wishes for me to marry he will provide me a wife of his choosing in his time, and if he does not I pray that he will grant me to the gift that he gave Saint Paul.

Now mandatory celibacy is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Not all men are gifted the same gift, and to place this burden on a priest who has not the gift could lead to bad things. A priest shouldn’t have to be celibate to serve God, especially if he cannot contain his passions. As Saint Paul said, “Tis better to marry than to burn.” Wouldn’t you all agree?

P.S Alot of the Apostles were married, and they did just fine serving the Lord. Just my two coppers.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Now mandatory celibacy is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Not all men are gifted the same gift, and to place this burden on a priest who has not the gift could lead to bad things. A priest shouldn’t have to be celibate to serve God, especially if he cannot contain his passions. As Saint Paul said, “Tis better to marry than to burn.” Wouldn’t you all agree?

Of course, we agree. But please be sure to realize the Church imposes mandatory celibacy on no one. Anyone can answer the call to be married. Some determine their calling is the priesthood.

No-marriage for priests is not dogma, by the way. It is a discipline that the Church has ordered for these times and most times. You can discover with a little research married priests historically, still in the Eastern Rite today, and even in the Western Rite for married pastors who convert.

 

[Vincent]

Now mandatory celibacy is, in my humble opinion, wrong. Not all men are gifted the same gift, and to place this burden on a priest who has not the gift could lead to bad things. A priest shouldn’t have to be celibate to serve God, especially if he cannot contain his passions. As Saint Paul said, “Tis better to marry than to burn.” Wouldn’t you all agree?

Celibacy isn’t forced on candidates for the priesthood. Rather, “the Order of Presbyter [is conferred] only on men who have given proof that they have been **called by God to the gift **of chastity in absolute and perpetual celibacy.”

Seminary formation takes years, and it is in those years of discernment that the Church and a candidate learns, through prayer, whether the latter has received this gift from God. The Church takes care to ensure that the candidate’s decision is made in freedom.

 

[emanne]

Thank you, Vincent and others who are answering.

Did you all see my reply with another question in it about why all these reasons for priestly celebacy are not an issue for men who come into the church as Protestant ministers with wives and children and become Catholic priests? Does anyone want to comment on the married priests we have in many of our parishes?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Paul may have been under any number of misconceptions, I don’t think this is one of them. Doesn’t he in fact rebuke people in one of his epistles precisely BECAUSE they presumed Christ was coming any day and so they stopped working? Didn’t he tell them to go about ‘business as normal’, ie continuing to work and earn their keep?

Besides which, whatever misconceptions Paul may have had, the Holy Spirit who inspired that scripture had none.

I agree that Paul urged all to continue in their given work and so on. That is not to say that it was not expected by those of his time that the second coming would be within their lifetime. This is replete throughout the New Testament and is clearly accepted by modern exegesis. To suggest that all must be reconciled in some manner because the Spirit is in control, means that human writers were superfluous in the process. That leads in the end to a very literal reading of the Bible, something that is not supported by the evidence.