JPII: Sexual balance and celibacy examinations

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're wrong. Celibacy was part of moral renewal of clergy rather than economic "investition".

I suggest you look into the history from other sources than the Church. The inheritance issue was seriously weakening the Church and if allowed to continue would have bankrupted it. It wasn't some small economic issue, but for the validity of the universal, Catholic, Church.

The Cluniacs were also concerned that nicolaism (marriage of the clergy) would lead to subserviance of the clergy to the state, because a lot of times the clergy would marry a daughter of the King. Then the King would hold a lot of sway over the Church... of course during that period before 1100, the King was head of the Church anyway.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


I suggest you look into the history from other sources than the Church. The inheritance issue was seriously weakening the Church and if allowed to continue would have bankrupted it. It wasn't some small economic issue, but for the validity of the universal, Catholic, Church.

The Cluniacs were also concerned that nicolaism (marriage of the clergy) would lead to subserviance of the clergy to the state, because a lot of times the clergy would marry a daughter of the King. Then the King would hold a lot of sway over the Church... of course during that period before 1100, the King was head of the Church anyway.

what "sources other than Church" do You mean?
And kings were never head of the church, though indeed they had too big rights to mess in it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

what "sources other than Church" do You mean?

Very quickly, from Thomas Groome, a Professor of Theology at Boston College:

When the Western church mandated celibacy for priests (often dated from the Second Lateran Council of 1139), it was for some noble reasons to better serve people but for some dubious ones as well: among them, concern for inheritance of church property and a negative theology of human sexuality.

and from Reverend Bruce Simpson, a Benedictine:

Celibacy was initiated in the Roman Church to protect the land and buildings owned by the Church. Rome feared the loss of its assets through inheritance of property by the wives and children of its Priests when the Priest died. This is about the wealth of the Church and its various holdings in real estate. Around this move for celibacy was created a doctrine declaring that to give up sex is a gift to God. I do believe that in some cases, men and woman of faith in the clergy do make the sacrifice of their sexuality as a pure and pious act to God, and that deserves to be recognized as such. However, the justification for enforced celibacy is that it allows the Priest to serve the people more effectively, and to enable him to love all of the people instead of just one does not hold water for me. It makes for many lonely Priests who lack a true understanding of what it means to be in a relationship with another person. This enables a lack of understanding of the pressures, problems, and difficulties that are encountered in a marriage or relationship. Not all can be learned from books.

And kings were never head of the church

Um... of course they were... the Holy Roman Emperor was the person on top of the Church in that area. He was the one who invested the bishops with their regalia. He was the one who appointed religious officials. The King of England appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury and the rest of the clergy.

Why do you think the Papal Revolution came about? Why do you think Gregory VII and the Cluniacs came up with the slogan of "Freedom of the Church"? Why do you think it was also called the Investiture Crisis?

[Heresson]

Weren't that supposed to be SOURCES, not modern books?

Also, celibacy was a rule ammongst earlier monastic movements. Do You think it was a way to inherit something as well?

When it comes to the second part, it's about the name, not the meaning. I'm opposing the term "head of church", not the information You're trying to convey by it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Weren't that supposed to be SOURCES, not modern books?

Historical scholarship is more accurate than the biased texts at the time.

Also, celibacy was a rule ammongst earlier monastic movements. Do You think it was a way to inherit something as well?

And yet, it was quickly rendered aside. Orthodox still don't prohibit marriage by the priests. By 1100s, many clerics had marriages, concubines, and children running all around to the point it became an epidemic.

When it comes to the second part, it's about the name, not the meaning. I'm opposing the term "head of church", not the information You're trying to convey by it.

Why? When you control something, I think calling yourself the head is apt.

[Shi Huangdi]

Herreson:

Celibacy is not part of Catholic Dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church does have married priests who are part of the Eastern Rites(the Eastern Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox). The Roman Rite also has married priests in the case of Anglican priests who were married and then converted to Catholicism.

Rather, it is a matter of discpline that can be changed freely by the pope, kept in place because it is believed that celibacy is good for the priesthood in that it allows priests to be fully dedicated to their ministry, whereas if they were married they would have to place their families first.

[Ted Striker]

I'd hit it, would you John???

[Bosh]

The church was always against castration.
ANd a priest should have all the parts of the body intact.

Matthew 19:12 - For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Heresson
You're wrong. Celibacy was part of moral renewal of clergy rather than economic "investition".
In Socrates Scholasticus I've read about an Egyptian council that wanted to establish compulsory celibacy, and it was in late antiquity.
Rabbis are irrelevant for the church.

The early Christian church allowed married priests for centuries. Celibacy for the clergy came later.

And, just a personal observation as a lifelong Catholic: the priests I've known have always been heavy drinkers, and I can't help but think that their alcoholism and their unnatural sexual repression weren't merely coincidental.

[Proteus_MST]

Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:

1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher

1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.

[alva]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

I'd hit it, would you John???

With pleasure..

[Brundlefly]

Re: JPII: Sexual balance and celibacy examinations

Originally posted by Heresson
From now on, every person willing to become a priest will have to undergo examinations of his capability of living in celibacy and of his "sexual balance", whatever that means.

Better yet, just let them date women. Repressed sexuality emerges in all sorts of nasty ways. Preists succombing to pedophilia is just one of the more public displays of this. Men were not meant to be celibate. Mens sex drives require them to mate constantly.. Women are a different story. That's why you never hear of any pedophile nuns.. Either let priests marry or only allow women to be priests..

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Also in his letters to Timothy, Paulus (or whoever wrote this Epistle) allows Deacons and Bishops to be married once:

1. Timothy 3:2
It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher

1. Timothy 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife: who rule well their children and their own houses.

"one wife" is the church.

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
The early Christian church allowed married priests for centuries. Celibacy for the clergy came later.

Compulsory celibacy - yes.

Originally posted by Boshko

Matthew 19:12 - For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Don't make me laugh. "making oneself eunuch for the kingdom of heaven's sake" is celibacy.
Don't take everything literal.

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Herreson:

Celibacy is not part of Catholic Dogma. In fact, the Catholic Church does have married priests who are part of the Eastern Rites(the Eastern Catholic, not Eastern Orthodox). The Roman Rite also has married priests in the case of Anglican priests who were married and then converted to Catholicism.

Rather, it is a matter of discpline that can be changed freely by the pope, kept in place because it is believed that celibacy is good for the priesthood in that it allows priests to be fully dedicated to their ministry, whereas if they were married they would have to place their families first.

I do not think celibacy is essential in catholicism, but I am eternally suprised by those who think establishing of compulsory celibacy had (only) economic roots.
Sex was treated then as something dirty, even sex with your wife You had to confess to a priest, even that was a sin.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Weren't that supposed to be SOURCES, not modern books?

Historical scholarship is more accurate than the biased texts at the time.

Not necessarily...
Also, what do those modern books base their claims, if the sources say something different?

And yet, it was quickly rendered aside. Orthodox still don't prohibit marriage by the priests. By 1100s, many clerics had marriages, concubines, and children running all around to the point it became an epidemic.

And? It doesn't change the fact that many considered it wrong, and that celibacy was seen as something noble.

Why? When you control something, I think calling yourself the head is apt.

Not in this case. Because the top of the hierarchy was pope all the time, and by saying that kings were the "heads of the church" You're making false impression it was not so.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not necessarily...
Also, what do those modern books base their claims, if the sources say something different?

It looks as the historical record. Not just the sources of changes in canon law, but also people writing about what was going on at the time. People commenting on canon, etc, and puting it all together.

And? It doesn't change the fact that many considered it wrong, and that celibacy was seen as something noble.

Many considered it wrong? Then why was it so widespread? Not like they were hiding that they had wives?

Not in this case. Because the top of the hierarchy was pope all the time, and by saying that kings were the "heads of the church" You're making false impression it was not so.

Um... it's not a false impression.. the Pope was NOT top of the hierarchy at the time, because, frankly, there was no heirarchy of all church members. The Emperor was the one who was in charge. He was the one making all the determinations of who was a bishop or priest. The Pope was simply a first among equals among Cardinals. The King was charge of the church in each country.

It wasn't until Gregory VII that the Pope started asserting that he was head of the entire church. Before this period, the EMPEROR was called the Vicar of Christ.

[Heresson]

It looks as the historical record. Not just the sources of changes in canon law, but also people writing about what was going on at the time. People commenting on canon, etc, and puting it all together.

So, gimme some.

Many considered it wrong? Then why was it so widespread?

Because many did not.
And some were overcomen by their desire

Um... it's not a false impression.. the Pope was NOT top of the hierarchy at the time, because, frankly, there was no heirarchy of all church members. The Emperor was the one who was in charge. He was the one making all the determinations of who was a bishop or priest. The Pope was simply a first among equals among Cardinals. The King was charge of the church in each country.
It wasn't until Gregory VII that the Pope started asserting that he was head of the entire church. Before this period, the EMPEROR was called the Vicar of Christ.

"first among equals among Cardinals"
No hierarchy?
Oh please...
The rulers nominated whom they wished,
true, but the rest is simply not true.
Really.
Do You even know what cardinals are?
Do You know what patriarchates are?