24

According to a BBC article:

the First and Second Lateran Councils of 1123 and 1139 explicitly forbade priests from marrying - so we are almost past 1,000 years since the Catholic Church has maintained male celibate priests.

Eliminating the prospect of marriage ensured that children or wives of priests did not make claims on property acquired throughout a priest's life, which thus could be retained by the Church.

It took centuries for the practice of celibacy to become widespread, but it eventually became the norm in the Western Catholic Church.

Is this historically, supported? Or at least, considered a major or the major motive?

Brythan
  • 10,162
  • 5
  • 46
  • 53
Stilez
  • 1,349
  • 6
  • 12
  • Not an answer because I have no sources, but it's definitely something I've heard many times before, and once in school history class some 20+ years ago. – Joe Jun 17 '19 at 18:24
  • Relevant articles: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_in_the_Catholic_Church and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saeculum_obscurum – Andrew Grimm Jun 17 '19 at 22:18
  • 8
    This sounds like a good candidate for History.SE. In fact [it has already been asked and answered](https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/25397/what-caused-the-imposition-of-strict-celibacy-for-catholic-priests-during-the-11) – Oddthinking Jun 18 '19 at 02:44
  • 1
    I am concerned that this is a individual motivation question, and hence off-topic. @Geremia's answer illustrates this, in that it tries to infer the motivation of an individual based on what they claimed was the reason, which is unreliable. – Oddthinking Jun 19 '19 at 03:57
  • 3
    Priests also make a vow of poverty. They aren't supposed to accumulate wealth and property. –  Jun 19 '19 at 05:39

1 Answers1

1

Terminological precision:

  • Celibate = unmarried (cælebs = single, unmarried)
    • The Church has allowed married men to become priests. St. Peter, for example, was married.
  • Continent = not having sexual relations
    • The Church has
      • always required all (married or celibate) clerics to be 100% continent and
      • never allowed priests to marry after their ordinations.

The earliest condemnation of clerical incontinence is canon 33 of the Spanish Council of Elvira (ca. 305 A.D.):

  1. We decree that all bishops, priests and deacons in the service of the ministry are entirely forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives and to beget children; should anyone do so, let him be excluded from the honour of the clergy.

Quoted in Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church by Roman Cholij

Prior to Lateran II, clerics could contract valid marriages, but they were illicit (illegal). Lateran II made such marriages also invalid:

  1. Adhering to the path trod by our predecessors, the Roman pontiffs Gregory VII, Urban and Paschal, we prescribe that nobody is to hear the masses of those whom he knows to have wives or concubines. Indeed, that the law of continence and the purity pleasing to God might be propagated among ecclesiastical persons and those in holy orders, we decree that where bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, canons regular, monks and professed lay brothers have presumed to take wives and so transgress this holy precept, they are to be separated from their partners. For we do not deem there to be a [valid] marriage which, it is agreed, has been contracted against ecclesiastical law. Furthermore, when they have separated from each other, let them do a penance commensurate with such outrageous behaviour.

Lateran II also condemned

  • simony (buying/selling of ecclesiastical offices):

    1. We decree that if anyone has been ordained simoniacally, he is to forfeit entirely the office which he illicitly usurped.

  • lay control over Church property:

    25. If anyone receives provostships, prebends or other ecclesiastical benefices from the hand of a lay person, let him be deprived of the benefice unworthily received. For the decrees of the holy fathers state that lay people, no matter how devout they may be, have no power of disposal over ecclesiastical property.

  • sons of priests in active ministry:

    21. We decree that sons of priests are to be removed from the ministries of the sacred altar unless they are living religiously in monasteries or canonries.

Thus, the reasons were not purely or primarily economic. The economic malfeasance was only a symptom of a deeper moral corruption.

Pope Innocent II vs. Antipope Anacletus II

Pope Innocent II, who convened Lateran II, was a strong reformer pope who had been in hiding the prior 8 years of Antipope Anacletus II's anti-papacy. Anacletus II came from a rich family who bought him the anti-papacy with a fortune made off economic crimes like usury. So, in this sense economic motives may have played a key role in Pope Innocent II's condemnation of "Nicolaitism" (priests living in marriage).

Community
  • 1
Geremia
  • 353
  • 1
  • 11
  • @Oddthinking When the Council of Elvira says priests "are entirely forbidden to have conjugal relations with their wives and to beget children", this means they must be completely continent. – Geremia Jun 19 '19 at 03:59
  • 2
    Is continent the same as chaste? –  Jun 19 '19 at 05:40
  • 3
    @fredsbend For the celibate/unmarried and those bound by a vow of chastity, chastity means perpetual continence. For those in marriage, no. See [this classification of the degrees of chastity](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/68950/1787). – Geremia Jun 19 '19 at 17:48
  • 1
    I think you should add the following at the top, since it seems the answer is clear: "Do historians agree the motive behind Catholic celibacy was primarily economic? No." The facts that The Church has 1) always required all (married or celibate) clerics to be 100% continent and 2) never allowed priests to marry after their ordinations clearly indicate the answer is no. –  Jun 19 '19 at 22:06
  • 2
    @fredsbend Maybe, but the answer also needs to demonstrate (which it currently does not) that continence was the *widespread* practice or rule across the whole church. And I suspect it wasn't not least because non-catholic traditions have often not had such a rule and it probably wasn't universal canon law until halfway through the Church's history. – matt_black Jun 20 '19 at 11:44
  • @matt_black - There's a difference between it being a "practice" vs a "rule". – Daniel R Hicks Jun 20 '19 at 11:48
  • 2
    This looks like a potentially biased view on Innocent II vs Anacletus II. Lines like "Anacletus II came from a rich family who bought him the anti-papacy with a fortune made off economic crimes like usury." require a fair bit of support. Also, "since 305 AD" is not the same as "the church has always". – Ben Barden Jun 20 '19 at 13:35
  • 13
    Additionally, this does nto answer the question. The question was on the general consensus of historians. Basically every reference you have there is from an explicitly Catholic (and pro-Catholic) source. Obviously, sources like that are never going to conclude "we did it for financial reasons". – Ben Barden Jun 20 '19 at 13:39
  • @DanielRHicks Yes, there is a difference between a practice and a rule, but my point was that **both** require some proof to show they were universal in application or observance. – matt_black Jun 20 '19 at 21:41
  • 2
    @BenBarden "_'since 305 AD' is not the same as 'the church has always'_" Clerical continence was an unwritten law (_ius_) before then (cf. [Stickler 1995](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7042)), with very strong Scriptural support (e.g., [Mt. 19:12](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=19&l=12-#x), [27](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=19&l=27-#x), [29](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=47&ch=19&l=29-#x); [1 Cor. 7:32](http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drl&bk=53&ch=7&l=32-#x)-33, etc.). – Geremia Jun 20 '19 at 22:14
  • @BenBarden "_'Anacletus II came from a rich family who bought him the anti-papacy with a fortune made off economic crimes like usury.'_" See [_Popes From the Ghetto: A View of Medieval Christendom_](https://isidore.co/calibre/#panel=book_details&book_id=7049) by Joachim Prinz. From the dust-jacket: "Anaclet was a member of the Pierleoni, the so-called 'Rothschilds of the Middle Ages,' an enormously powerful banking family who dominated much of medieval Rome from their strongholds in the city's ancient Ghetto." – Geremia Jun 20 '19 at 22:21
  • 2
    @BenBarden Christian Canons (law and scripture) were born from tradition, not decreed from authority. In other words, they didn't come out of a vacuum. Searching writings of early church fathers shows practice always preceded canon. –  Jun 21 '19 at 02:30
  • It is, of course, an absurdity to expect other parties to be more authoritative on the motives. In any case other than a religious one, the community tends to give the appropriate weight to statements by the actors themselves. – Luke Sawczak Jul 19 '21 at 16:58
  • @LukeSawczak It is, of course, an absurdity to expect a party to be honest about such a motive when it paints them in such a negative light. – pipe Jul 20 '21 at 18:02
  • 1
    @pipe One might as well say that once a person has been charged, their testimony is worthless. On the contrary, it's recorded and weighed, and if there isn't enough to go against it, there's no case. Of course, it's not the only thing recorded and weighed, and may be entirely false, but it can't be dismissed simply because it comes from the accused; it's only pre-existing mistrust that leads us dismiss it out of hand. That's all as regards facts, and in the case of motives I consider it still more dubious to take third parties for sole authorities, or authorities at all. – Luke Sawczak Jul 20 '21 at 19:34
  • One argument that can be made on the other side, however, is that the present-day Catholic church is a third party as regards knowledge of the historical motives but (nearly) a first as regards interest in the case; that does undermine the relevance of the testimony a little. – Luke Sawczak Jul 20 '21 at 19:35
  • 2
    One thing that could strengthen this answer is comparison with the other ancient churches in Christendom. What do the Orthodox, the Non-Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians do? In Orthodoxy, for example, priests are _not_ required to be celibate, but bishops are. – Kyralessa Jan 11 '23 at 07:56