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

[1Lord1Faith]

I think America is good at producing well rounded individuals (that’s not a McDonalds joke). We’re really a work oriented culture. We’re not really a ‘culturally’ oriented culture.

I’m not sure who qualifies as an intellectual, but some of the ones you listed are IMO…meh. Like others have said, some smart people, upon further examination, may actually not be too bright. Some people can impress a thesis panel but then can’t figure out how to work the doorknob to leave the room.

That’s probably why there’s no priestly caste. The Church needs well rounded people from all backgrounds in order to be able to serve appropriately. The bishops and priests were all laity at one time; and they were raised by laity (that’s a good argument for unmarried priests). That is just a starting point for the unity of clergy and laity.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’ll take a “doer” any day over an “intellectual”. Intellectuals are boring. People who fly rockets to the moon, invent stuff and build companies and industries are intereresting to me. I think I’ll mute this thread now as it seems like it’s becoming an intellectual exercise all on its own.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I think America is good at producing well rounded individuals (that’s not a McDonalds joke). We’re really a work oriented culture. We’re not really a ‘culturally’ oriented culture.

That’s the flippin’ truth!

I’m not sure who qualifies as an intellectual, but some of the ones you listed are IMO…meh. Like others have said, some smart people, upon further examination, may actually not be too bright. Some people can impress a thesis panel but then can’t figure out how to work the doorknob to leave the room.

I really had to push it, to think of someone in American public life who would qualify as an “intellectual”. It’s not really a concept that we have in this country. In France, when something needs to be discussed, as on television, the first thing they do, is to whip out the intellectuals. They love that kind of thing over there! Poles are much the same way — they consider every aspect of a situation and spend as much time discussing it as they need to. They don’t have the “cut to the chase” mentality that we do.

I totally agree with what you say about people not being “well-rounded”. I had “well-roundedness” pounded into me growing up, it was a cultural expectation.

That’s probably why there’s no priestly caste. The Church needs well rounded people from all backgrounds in order to be able to serve appropriately. The bishops and priests were all laity at one time; and they were raised by laity (that’s a good argument for unmarried priests). That is just a starting point for the unity of clergy and laity.

Never thought of it that way before. That makes a lot of sense.

I’ll take a “doer” any day over an “intellectual”. Intellectuals are boring. People who fly rockets to the moon, invent stuff and build companies and industries are intereresting to me. I think I’ll mute this thread now as it seems like it’s becoming an intellectual exercise all on its own.

Everyone is different. I like intellectual discussions and the world of ideas. There are many things that I am curious about, that I will never use in my actual life — the knowledge itself is satisfaction enough. To each their own.

 

[Pattylt]

I think America is good at producing well rounded individuals (that’s not a McDonalds joke).

Well, it’s ALSO a Mc Donald’s joke! . And a good one!

 

[Pattylt]

I’m not sure who qualifies as an intellectual, but some of the ones you listed are IMO…meh. Like others have said, some smart people, upon further examination, may actually not be too bright. Some people can impress a thesis panel but then can’t figure out how to work the doorknob to leave the room.

I think we often focus on experts in their fields more that a general intellectual that can see the larger picture. Experts are needed but so are intellectuals and we need to be listening to both types. It does us no good to have them and not use them! Even medical experts are listened to until they say something that might cost money or change an established business model. YMMV.

 

[Asinner]

I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, but I think there’s a pretty simple and pretty obvious answer to your question: priestly celibacy.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I haven’t read any of the other comments yet, but I think there’s a pretty simple and pretty obvious answer to your question: priestly celibacy.

Obviously. A better way of phrasing my question might have been something like “why didn’t Catholicism imitate the Jewish practice of a married priesthood, which then could have been foreseen to result in a ‘family tradition’ of sons following in their fathers’ footsteps and becoming priests themselves, thus creating a priestly caste of sorts?”.

 

[Gorgias]

“why didn’t Catholicism imitate the Jewish practice of a married priesthood

The Jewish practice wasn’t of a “married priesthood”, per se, but of a hereditary priesthood. Christianity didn’t appropriate that practice, because priesthood was no longer a matter of blood relations, but of selection by Christ (i.e., in the persons of the apostles).

 

[MNathaniel]

Umm… I mean, this sounds like an interesting question as a hypothetical, but do we have any reason to suspect that there has actually been a “dragging down” of the gene pool, due to those who vow celibacy?

Couple counter-balancing factors that might suggest why this is not in fact the case (if it is not in fact the case):

1. Most people, historically, who have become vowed priests or nuns… were part of large families! Their siblings, with whom they’d presumably have quite similar genes, got married and had plenty of children, passing on the family genes.
2. Catholicism doesn’t have a ‘closed’ gene pool – we’re a religion of converts! I myself am an adult convert to Catholicism. I’m sure plenty of bright people throughout history have converted to Catholicism from starting in other gene pools, and then some of those have had children raised Catholic, and some have been called to celibate life.
3. You’re making a big presupposition that “the best and brightest” are the ones skimmed off into the celibate priesthood and religious life. Without meaning a breath of insult against anyone in any category – God’s the one who calls us to each vocation! And as the famous saying goes, “God doesn’t call the qualified; He qualifies the called.” I don’t think there’s any reason whatsoever to assume that those whom God calls to celibate vocations, are necessarily – on some biological, genetic level – the “brightest” intellects, or even the most naturally virtuous of moral fibre. Indeed, many of the great saints are famous for emphasizing their personal conviction of their own weakness and inadequacy! For all we know, that’s not just a ‘pius lie’ – maybe those whom God calls to some of the holiest lives, really do start from the rawest material (and that’s part of how He glorifies Himself in them).

Thoughts about that? Especially #3.

 

[MNathaniel]

PS additional point #4:

1. If Jesus wanted his priests to continue the hereditary ‘priestly caste’ of Judaism, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to just choose his 12 apostles (the first priests) from the existing ‘priestly caste’ group. But he didn’t: he chose the seemingly ‘unqualified’ (fishermen, tax collectors). And he doesn’t seem to have instructed them to marry and choose further priests from their children! While there is some history of married priesthood in the Catholic Church (especially eastern rite), there’s also an all-the-way-back tradition of celibacy, in imitation of Jesus our high priest, who was himself celibate. So I’d suggest at its core, this may be an issue of: If it’s good enough for him, it’s good enough for us.

Plus, Mary’s quite an obvious model for us in how God can bring even more fruitfulness from celibate chastity than from the marital embrace between human spouses (though that’s also a great good). Mary was a virgin, and the Son of God Himself was conceived as the fruit of her womb. I think the most straightforward example of: “God’s got this; don’t worry about trying to genetically engineer your way to the priesthood you need”, ever. God can raise up a priest for Himself from anywhere. Christianity simply doesn’t require the idea of a ‘priestly caste’.

That’s my view, anyway.

 

[MNathaniel]

Oh! Brother, I think I’ve found the perfect Scripture verse for you (given your question, and how in follow up comments you seem to emphasize that your reason for asking it is rooted in your admiration for natural intellect and cleverness – that is, one might say… being “wise by human standards.”) In fraternal love, may I suggest that you prayerfully read and meditate on this word of God?

1 Corinthians 1:26-31

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

I’m all for happily following God’s choice to choose “the foolish things of the world to shame the wise… the weak things of the world to shame the strong… the lowly things of this world and the despised things…” and happily abandoning the idea of looking to a “noble birth” (on any category of characteristic) to qualify someone to do the work God calls them to. Bring on more holy priests and religious from “foolish” and “despised” origins!

 

[Asinner]

Oh, that makes more sense. Sorry for misinterpreting the question.

If I may be so bold, I would suggest that it is the Holy Spirit who has guided the Church to priestly celibacy because it is a better system and God’s preference. I don’t know much about Jewish priests, so in my mind I’m comparing priestly celibacy to the Indian priestly caste (and all the problems with that system).

 

[HomeschoolDad]

your reason for asking it is rooted in your admiration for natural intellect and cleverness – that is, one might say… being “wise by human standards.”

Okay, I am persuaded by the many fine explanations given by others in this thread, I see clearly — and I never denied this, I just asked a question — that the priesthood has unfolded in the best way, in the way that the Holy Spirit intended. It’s all good.

Yes, I do admire “natural intellect and cleverness”, and being “wise by human standards”, and I make no apologies for this. If you enjoy and take pleasure in such things as polio and smallpox having been wiped out, being able to have a wide diversity of nutritious, cheap food at the grocery store, driving your car to get there, having clean water to drink at very low cost from the tap in your kitchen, and being able to gather information on any subject under the sun at your fingertips for only the modest cost of a cheap computer and home wi-fi — then yes, I guess intellect, cleverness, and human wisdom start looking pretty good. Especially when you consider the alternative.

 

[MNathaniel]

Friend, with respect, that comment sounds mighty defensive. What’s up?

I don’t think literally anyone is holding to the position you seem to be attacking. No one here is pro-polio and anti-intellect. No one has asked you to stop admiring the gifts that God gives us on a natural level, including intellectual gifts.

All anyone’s pointed out is that as far as the priesthood and religious life goes (which was your question), it seems perfectly consistent for God to choose to use (naturally) foolish things to confound the (naturally) wise.

Honestly, I’m confused by the aggressive tone in your comment (more than one of your comments, actually). Has someone here made a comment saying there’s literally no purpose or value to human intellect whatsoever, that you feel you’re ‘arguing against’ this by tripling down and repetitively talking about how important human intellect is to addressing problems like polio and clean drinking water, when you respond to people who don’t disagree with such value of human intellect in the slightest? Can you quote them?

For my own comment, my observation that Scripture places something else above being “wise by human standards”, does not represent me saying that “wisdom by human standards has no value whatsoever”, any more than Scripture says that. I was using that quote in context to address your question about whether people obeying God (by following His call to celibacy) ‘dragged down’ the gene pool of Catholics in a way we should have any concern about.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Friend, with respect, that comment sounds mighty defensive. What’s up?

I don’t think literally anyone is holding to the position you seem to be attacking. No one here is pro-polio and anti-intellect. No one has asked you to stop admiring the gifts that God gives us on a natural level, including intellectual gifts…

I realize that nobody in this thread took that kind of stance. I was simply trying to illustrate that when people criticize the role of intellect, and the improvement of intellect in the human race, they need to step back and realize all of the wonderful things that have taken place in human history because certain people were very intelligent, and used that intelligence in a fashion that contributed to life, health, and the improvement of human existence.

And yes, intelligence, and its role in human progress, does need a vigorous defense. There are many people who, for many different reasons — it would depend upon the individual — are deeply uncomfortable with high intelligence, or with intelligence that is beyond what they, themselves, possess. Sometimes they’re afraid that the other guy is going to out-think them, or come to different conclusions than they would, conclusions that are undeniably true, but which would cause them to have to change their minds, and admit they’re wrong and the other guy is right. That’s never a good feeling.

Here is one of the best expositions I have ever seen, of how many people approach the entire idea of being right versus being wrong, of having to admit that what they believe or think is not true. Watch it all the way through.