Why didn't a Christian priestly caste come into being?

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I think that while genetics do impact intelligence, what impacts it even more is how someone is raised. Priests being fathers over entire flock would make them have contact with those children too (and as their spiritual parents at that), and raise them as well as “raise” adults. Hence by that logic, while you would sacrifice part about genetics transmitting intelligence, you would practically increase number of intelligent people as well. Of course, that is ideal scenario where Priests do live in midst of their flock and do have contact with those children as well as having impact on adults. Something that did decrease over time in history of the Church.

The Church has never wanted for great minds. They had their share.

Yes, that is very true. And while theology is important, virtues are necessary for the Church. God will raise great minds to support His Church, but at the same time goal of the Church is not education- rather it is sanctification.

 

[Mi_Rose]

There is an assumption in the OP that to be a priest a man had to be the brightest, at least in his family. I have never read that before and would like to see something to back that up

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

There is an assumption in the OP that to be a priest a man had to be the brightest, at least in his family. I have never read that before and would like to see something to back that up

It is mostly based upon the fact that clergy were the educated people, even more so than nobility. Education does not equal intelligence, but it surely supports it.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

There is an assumption in the OP that to be a priest a man had to be the brightest, at least in his family. I have never read that before and would like to see something to back that up

There isn’t anything because it’s not true.

The seminary would often reject candidates who didn’t show themselves capable or willing to do the work, but there wasn’t any sort of SAT test for figuring out if the guy applying was smarter than his two brothers.

 

[Mi_Rose]

When education was not widespread that may have been the case but many of the clergy came from the nobility. One took over and one went to
the seminary or one took over and one went to war. It was rarely the eldest in any family who went to seminary because he inherited. So unless he had a strong vocation the oldest son stayed at home.
I have always heard the oldest child was the smartest due to more exposure to adults. Maybe that is just because I am the oldest though.

 

[1ke]

broadly speaking, you had “the best and the brightest” skimmed off, priests and religious, into a life of celibacy and not reproducing. Did this over time “drag down” the gene pool of the remaining faithful?

Um. What?

I’m sure you actually believe what you wrote, but step back and read it. You’re saying that only smart people went into religious life, and those who didn’t were dragging down the gene pool.

That is nonsensical on SO many levels. Firstly, the idea that only the “best and brightest” went into religious life is demonstrably false.

Secondly, the idea that those who didn’t go into religious life were less intelligent, is also demonstrably false.

And lastly, in the hereditary caste, I don’t think the Jews were always getting the best and brightest, nor the most devout, out of that arrangement.

As for “dragging down the gene pool”, that is a eugenic notion and antithetical to the Catholic understanding of the dignity of the person.

I don’t even understand your point here.

 

[Maximus1]

Orthopraxy over orthodoxy, seems clearly consistent with the Gospel.
Besides, the priests , scribes Pharisees, etc. seem to draw Christ’s anger CONSISTANTLY.
They were old bones, rebuked in the Temple, the unvirtuous in the good Samaritan, the illiterate in Mercy over sacrifice, and so on

 

[HomeschoolDad]

you had “the best and the brightest” skimmed off, priests and religious, into a life of celibacy and not reproducing.

True enough. I was making the broad assumption — and all I was doing, was throwing out an idea, not taking a stance and attempting to prove or be dogmatic about it — that, all other things being equal, the most intelligent sons would be more likely to go into the priesthood, and get the education that goes with that. Another implicit assumption I made was that in so doing, the Church was “skimming off the cream” of the gene pool, leaving those of lesser intelligence to reproduce. Yet another assumption I made was that, in pre-modern times, seminary education was the primary type of higher education, or at least the easiest and most efficient way to become highly educated.

The Church has never wanted for great minds. They had their share.

I agree with all of the above. As I alluded to previously, I think we see in the modern world that not only is there no connection between holiness and the huge amount of education that so many people are getting nowadays — getting a bachelor’s degree is nothing anymore, everyone and their sibling is going for their master’s — but, just to put it bluntly, many (if not most) people who are well-educated get to thinking that they know more than God and His Church.

There is an assumption in the OP that to be a priest a man had to be the brightest, at least in his family. I have never read that before and would like to see something to back that up

That is precisely what I base it upon.

I’m sure you actually believe what you wrote, but step back and read it. You’re saying that only smart people went into religious life, and those who didn’t were dragging down the gene pool.

Not quite. What I was trying to suggest was, as I noted above, that all other things held constant, the more intelligent a man was, and the more he desired an education, the more likely he was to enter the priesthood, not least because that was pretty much the only way he could get the education he desired. I hate to say it, but I seriously doubt that each and every man in that scenario was so much animated by a zeal for souls, as he was by being able to get a good education (not to mention having a stable, secure, comfortable life, compared to that of the peasantry).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

And lastly, in the hereditary caste, I don’t think the Jews were always getting the best and brightest, nor the most devout, out of that arrangement.

If I am understanding Jewish history correctly, priests and rabbis have been encouraged to have large families. Celibacy is simply not a Jewish “thing”. Jews prize education, they prize intelligence, and I think it’s fair to say that they tend to seek out more intelligent spouses — a “win-win all the way around”. The highly, highly disproportionate representation of Jews in all fields of endeavor where intelligence is a factor, is so well-known as hardly to need mentioning. I deeply respect and admire these people for that reason. I look at them and say “now why couldn’t we be more like that?”. The most intelligent race the world has ever known, and it comes from both nature and nurture.

As for “dragging down the gene pool”, that is a eugenic notion and antithetical to the Catholic understanding of the dignity of the person.

Yes, I do believe the world would be a better place if there were more intelligent people. “You would like to see the gene pool improved?” — guilty as charged! The trend in the modern world for people of high intelligence to have few if any children (this fueled by easy access to efficient contraception and no moral qualms against keeping their families small or non-existent), and those of lower intelligence to have many more children that they can hardly even feed and cannot educate, is having disastrous consequences. For one thing, you have schools full of pupils who do not want to be there (they’re really unsuited to be there in the first place), having to be turned into virtual prison camps to keep violence and chaos from running rampant. They get out of this process and can’t even do simple math, nor reason in any manner other than “I want X and I am going to get X”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Your “gene pool” discussions are not respectful of the dignity of individuals.

First of all there are many kinds of intelligence which are often not measured well by schools and tests, second of all the persons who are not “book smart” may still have all sorts of contributions to make to society including spiritual contributions (Scripture as well as many prayers note that the weak things of this world were put here for the glory of God and to humble the strong), and third of all if the Lord wants to have more people of IQ XYZ on the planet he is perfectly capable of creating them without needing to rely on genetics. We all know people who have done inordinately well in school despite having parents who did not do well in school and probably don’t have top IQs; I was one such creature myself.

 

[aroosi]

@HomeschoolDad I met people considered very intelligent (genius level and with PhD from the best universities in USA) that were struggling with social anxiety, OCD, depression etc. Some of them were probably undiagnosed Aspies and some other had troubles even with simple daily tasks like frying an egg (leave alone getting a date or starting a family).
There are even studies on the subject

https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/have-a-high-iq-you-might-be-prone-to-mental-physical-illness-says-science.html

 

[OddBird]

In my own context (France), before Revolution, there were two main ways of becoming clergy.

It was, as @Mi_Rose already pointed out, the usual path for third or fourth-born sons in aristocratic families, because they couldn’t inherit a share of the estate and had to make an honorable living. Typically, the oldest took over, the second went to the army or into law. It hadn’t much to do with how bright they were, and they were often educated from early on with their future “career” in view (their teachers would, for example, have been more insistent on their mastering Latin). These aristocratic clergy members often became what was called “high clergy” (from bishop upwards).

In the same way, entering religious life was not uncommon for aristocratic young girls whose families were too poor to pay a dowry.

Parish priests often came from middle-class or farmer families. I don’t know how exactly they were recruited, but I recall reading an interesting study (found it, here, for interested French-reading people) which explained, among a wealth of other things, that typically, schools didn’t develop in order to detect bright young minds and push them towards an ecclesiastical career. It was actually the reverse : schools developed first and foremost in regions which were fertile in vocations to the priesthood, as a means to sustain and foster them.

 

[jack63]

(And no, “the church was not exactly always paying attention” is also not quite how the history of “nepotism” worked in the Church, either.)

Oh…I know…the priestly class in the Catholic church tended to work thru uncles and nephews. The word “nepotism” after all originated from the Italian word for nephew “nepote”. I put some wiggle room in that statement… However, to say that the Catholic church did not have an elite priestly class at one point is historical nonsense. Admittedly this priestly class tended to run through uncles and nephews.

Not only do you have the Borgias, but you have the Medicis, Contis, and the Orisnis familes. I think the Orisnis family had three Popes, and the Conti and Medici had four Popes. An interesting article, and a list of Medici Popes.

1724: This Family Produced the most Popes | History.info

List of popes from the Medici family - Wikipedia

 

[PetraG]

Oh…I know…the priestly class in the Catholic church tended to work thru uncles and nephews. The word “nepotism” after all originated from the Italian word for nephew “nepote”. I put some wiggle room in that statement… However, to say that the Catholic church did not have an elite priestly class at one point is historical nonsense. Admittedly this priestly class tended to run through uncles and nephews.

Well…across the years even when priests commonly married, the Church has been fairly concerned that priests not pass on church property to their wives or children. But yes, the class of people with children educated enough to become priests has generally been relatively small.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

However, to say that the Catholic church did not have an elite priestly class at one point is historical nonsense.

They had an elite class who tended to hold the power positions, but there were plenty of relatively simple priests out in remote areas ministering to whoever lived there who were probably not on the same level as the families you mention. Perhaps they were sons of the wealthier persons in the area where they lived, perhaps they were relatively impoverished young men who had somehow been brought up in monasteries and thus educated enough to become priests.

 

[TK421]

The genetic argument is pretty weak because there were millions of oppressed serfs over the centuries who might have been brilliant but were otherwise untapped and yet bred like rabbits (not an insult: rabbits are beautiful animals)

Priests often came out of a select pool of privileged people, and often the first born son had a family and a later son would be weaned for the priesthood.

Also, priests and monks statistically make up a small percentage of the population.

Basically: any impact on general intelligence would be very small.

 

[Gorgias]

you had “the best and the brightest” skimmed off, priests and religious, into a life of celibacy and not reproducing. Did this over time “drag down” the gene pool of the remaining faithful?

I’d disagree that this is the dynamic. After all, it’s not like every child of a family became priests or religious, and therefore, the family’s genes continued to be passed down through the other brothers and sisters.

In fact, if you want to abstract out, then the dynamic is no different (from an genetic standpoint) than those who died early without reproducing. So… no; I’m not seeing a “dilution of the gene pool” effect here.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Your “gene pool” discussions are not respectful of the dignity of individuals.

First of all there are many kinds of intelligence which are often not measured well by schools and tests, second of all the persons who are not “book smart” may still have all sorts of contributions to make to society including spiritual contributions (Scripture as well as many prayers note that the weak things of this world were put here for the glory of God and to humble the strong), and third of all if the Lord wants to have more people of IQ XYZ on the planet he is perfectly capable of creating them without needing to rely on genetics. We all know people who have done inordinately well in school despite having parents who did not do well in school and probably don’t have top IQs; I was one such creature myself.

First of all, let me assure you, and everyone else here, that I believe totally and unalterably in the dignity of all people, regardless of how intelligent they are (or are not), what they can accomplish, or what they “end up as” in life. I was deeply inspired by John Paul II’s constant insistence that we have inherent dignity and worth, simply because we are human beings, and for no other reason. I was telling my family just the other day that we are not simply “critters”, apes in trousers whose worth is judged by “what we amount to in life”, or what we can produce or what we can do. Some people need reminding of this.

Now, as for “respect for the dignity of individuals”. I do favor the improvement of the human race, and of the circumstances of the human race, and I make no apologies for it. Do we not want better for our children, than what we have ourselves? Would we not like to see them be more intelligent, as well as healthier, more attractive, stronger, more free of disease, better-nourished (if that’s an issue), and everything else that improves the quality of life? Do we, as the human race, constantly seek to make the world a better place, to improve ourselves and our circumstances, or do we not? You can do all this, and at the same time be mindful that every human person, whether they turn out to have all these positive traits, or none at all, has inherent worth and dignity regardless.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I met people considered very intelligent (genius level and with PhD from the best universities in USA) that were struggling with social anxiety, OCD, depression etc. Some of them were probably undiagnosed Aspies and some other had troubles even with simple daily tasks like frying an egg (leave alone getting a date or starting a family).

And the same things can be found in people of lesser intelligence. We as Americans have a schizophrenic relationship with the whole issue of high intelligence. On the one hand, we like it, we admire it at least somewhat, and we certainly don’t turn up our noses at the things that great intelligence makes possible — scientific advances, cures for diseases and illnesses, computer programs that make our lives simpler and more fulfilling, “more and better” everything, and so on. But on the other hand, intellect is kind of suspect, and makes us feel kind of uncomfortable and “squishy”, for lack of a better word. France prizes its intellectuals; America has precious few of them and doesn’t quite know what to do with them. In recent years, we’ve had Noam Chomsky, Camille Paglia, Alan Dershowitz, William F Buckley, and that’s about it.

 

[aroosi]

If you you read the various literature available on the topic, people with very high IQ have a statistical significant higher incident of mental issues compared with a control group (normal range IQ). It is not that surprising, it could be connected with the neurophysiology of high functioning brains or with an increased self awareness.