Random thought

[unixronin]

So ... what is it with Christian sects and the public pretense of celibacy, anyway?  I mean, wasn't there some divine command, like, way back near the beginning of the Old Testament, to go forth, be fruitful and multiply?  Pretty hard to keep adding new worshippers for the greater glory of God when it's a sin for them to boink each other, or even to think about it.

I've always considered it one of the weirder foibles of the Catholic church that it requires its clergy to be celibate, but won't allow its lay followers to use birth control.  WTF?  Hello?  Marriage is a sacrament in which the clergy are forbidden to participate?

Comments

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

Catholic priests were allowed to have wives at one point in time. Celibacy became popular (if that's the word) because the idea was that an unmarried, chaste person would be more devoted to God and whatever size flock they were tending.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I know that's the theory. It appears to have worked out so abysmally in practice you'd think it would have been given up as a bad idea.
Then again, organized religions have never been leaders in the field of accepting first-hand evidence over dogma.

[fair-witness.livejournal.com]

True enough, though religious institutions don't have the monopoly on sticking with policies that seemed like a good idea once upon a time. ;)

As a preacher's kid, clerical celibacy always seemed odd to me.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

True enough, though religious institutions don't have the monopoly on sticking with policies that seemed like a good idea once upon a time. ;)

True that. :)

[janetmiles.livejournal.com]

I had acquired the idea (but can't back it up with citations) that it was a property issue, as well as a devotion issue -- a priest with a family would leave any money or possessions to them, rather than to the Church.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Given the teaching that material wealth is at best unimportant (if not actively bad), what's the Church doing trying to accumulate the collected money and possessions of its clergy in the first place? (Assuming, of course, that the Church actually tried to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, many of which appear to be given lip service at best.)

I know, one can argue that the accumulated wealth was to be used for good works and helping the needy. Historically, though, it's tended not to work out that way beyond the lowest levels of the church. The village priest may live in a crude hut, and the rectory may be humble, but just try to find a poor bishop — let alone a cardinal. In the church just as in politics, while power does not of itself corrupt, it has always proven immensely attractive to the easily corrupted; and they, in turn, have always proven willing to do far more — and far worse — to gain and keep it.

(This is not to say that all who attain high office are corrupt. Unfortunately, the good works performed by the just and honest have historically paled in the shadow of the intrigues and evils perpetrated by the seekers after power. The visibility of the bad works tends to mask awareness of the good.)

[glitch25.livejournal.com]

That was one of the things I appreciated about the Mormons. When you go beyond basic laymen, marriage is not only a sacrament, its required. All the way to the top of the top. If the Prophet's wife were to die, he would be required to step down.

The other thing I like is that only the upper echelon of the Mormon leaders are paid for their services. The rest hold jobs like the rest of us. And while some might think that detracts from their ability to function, I prefer to think that it gives them a much more realistic perspective, and further, it weeds out people who are not capable of giving the way that clergy should.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

If the Prophet's wife were to die, he would be required to step down.

Step down? Not remarry?

[glitch25.livejournal.com]

From my recollection, and someone in the know is free to correct me, but due to the trauma of losing his wife, they would consider that enough reason to release him from his duties.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That makes sense....

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

Having someone who is forbidden to marry provide marriage counseling always seemed to me to be a rather cruel case of teasing the animals.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That particular aspect had never crossed my mind, but now that you mention it, yeah, parables about the blind leading the blind come to mind....

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

I wonder if that's part of the origin of the saying, "Those who can't do, teach."

a historical acident

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

At one time they did, and then the church banned it, so that they would have one more thing for people to pay penance for (pre reformation, a married couple had more days they could not have sex than days they could). A few hundred years after that rule (which came about 1000 AD), there are records of some Cardinals writing that they expect every one of their priests to pay the penance.

Then the reformation came, and being good meant faith, instead of doing good works. A big part of the reformation was that it was much cheaper to be a good protestant than a good catholic.

So now people were expected to obey the rules instead of pay for your sins, and priests no longer got to openly have sex, thus turning them into the gang of perverts that they are today.

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=7&verse=4&end_verse=6&version=31&context=context

(arg, thinko)

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

Not that I'm an expert on Catholicism...

But IIRC, there was a serious problem with members of the Clergy, having descendants, and since all they controlled was "Church" property, legacies got to be problematic.

The concept is, again, IIRC, that you're supposed to be concentrating on God's works, helping the non-ordained to follow and understand, and having a family distracts from that. Nowadays, in the USA, it's less of a issue, but think about in the Middle Ages, where what your historical inheritance was meant almost everything.

I've also seen a theory that a huge guiding reason was for inheritance issues with the nobility. To keep the bloodshed inside the family to a minimum (when the eldest (surviving) son would inherit everything), often, the 2nd+ son was sent off to the Priesthood once the 1st got to a decently inheritable age without succumbing to anything.

But if the 2nd had a kid, and granpa hadn't kicked off yet by the time he got to 13-15 or so... well, then maybe he'd get ideas. :) So by mandating (in theory) chastity, there would be no competition for inheritance other than the "correct" son.

[genuine-snark.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure that I'd say "the Christian sects" there. I'm not super-knowledgable outside Catholicism and the Episcopal Church, but I think that quirk is more or less limited to the Catholic Church. Now, true, that's a huge number of Christians out there, but not all of them. :)

http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_practices.htm

[tabbifli.livejournal.com]

Interesting note: In Africa, the Catholic priests are not only allowed to marry, but they are required to marry. The reason behind this is because, in Africa, a boy is not considered a grown man until he meets several critera, including having a wife - and no grown man will listen to an untried boy.

Another interesting thing is that while a priest may request release from his vows to marry, he is still considered, by the church, to be tied to the church. It's not so much that he gets a release from his vows as it is that he gets a special exemption to marry. If his wife were to die, it is expected that he would return to the church and take up his duties again.