Why is celibacy in the Roman Catholic priesthood a concern of anyone except those who take the vow?

Very good question.

There are people that like to attack the RCC just because they are the RCC. Those that do pick on this don’t realise that there is a mechanism in place that allows married priests. There are even some married priests in the USA.

I think that some people associate celibacy in the church with the molestation of children. So, in their minds, it very much affects people outside of the clergy. I think they’re wrong. I agree with you that it shouldn’t matter whether or not the Catholic church retains celibacy vows.

I think that many recognize that the celibacy RULE (not necessarily a voluntary choice) is an outmoded relic of medeival times which remains because of adherence to tradition rather than anything taught by Jesus Christ.

Celibacy was started as a requirement for priests to prevent church property from being inherited by the firstborn son of a family.

Its not as if there werent PLENTY of cases of those not being celubate fathering children. But, since the offspring were “illegitimate” they cpuld not inherit

That was the prevailing custom in those times but is no longer a factor in modern times.

There really is no good reason, spiritual or otherwise for continuing the celibacy rule and most thinking Catholics (as well as the rest of the world) recognize this.

Priests in the Orthodox Chirch (The closest parallel to the RC church) marry and it’s obvious their ministry does not suffer.

Likewise, if a married Episcopal Priest converts to RC, he is not required to forsake his wife and family and functions just fine in the priesthood, even tho married.

As a matter of fact, in those instances, who do you think married couples overwhelmingly choose to go to for confession or counseling? The married, priest obviously.

Celibacy is an outmoded relic with no real compelling reason either spiritual or financial for it’s ongoing requirement for a priest.

If someone chooses this freely because they feel it is their spiritual calling, that’s different and does have a spiritual basis recognized in the scriptures. But even the Apostle Paul and the early church leaders did not require it.

Voluntary and required are totally different and the RC church is losing many excellent potential priests because of requiring it. Why not simply encourage it (as many of the Apostles did) and let each decide for himself.

It’s a medieval relic long past it’s usefulness with no Biblical backing and most people recognize it.

Personally, it doesn’t affect me one way or another, but you asked a Q and I’m just giving you the reasoning that many of my RC friends have expressed.

I think the media should stay out of it. It’s a church decision.

But it does have ramifications in the real world as well and most of those are negative.

Celibacy itself is not a bad thing – it is a tenet of the catholic religion, and has been for a thousand years. I have no problem with celibacy itself – more men or women – if they choose to live that way.

There are a couple of problems with celibacy in the context of the catholic church – that’s where my issues lie:

1) Although priests take the vow, a goodly number of them – historically and in the present – regularly have broken their vows and had affairs with women. That makes them liars and hypocrites at the same time they are supposedly providing spiritual guidance. That is not good.

2) Men have biological needs, or they feel these needs. In any event, what has happened in recent history is that – largely due to the catholic school system, priests have abused their students in their charge. Look all over the world where priests are defrocked (or not) for pederasty, homosexual lovers, abuse, and so on and so forth. Celibacy sublimates natural urges; priests need an outlet and find it with young boys.

As for the person who says “people like to disrespect the RCC” – frankly, you’re full of it. I look objectively at cause and effect. I criticize the RCC because a good number of their priests are lying hypocrites. I didn’t make them act that way. They chose to break their vows.

Where did you find the information that celibacy is to prevent church property from being inherited by the firstborn son of a family, @Buttonstc. I’ve never heard that before. Another person on Fluther posted something today along the same lines. I think they said it was so the Church could inherit all of the priest’s belongings.

@elbanditoroso The Boy Scouts have also had a chronic problem with molestation. Scout leaders are not, to the best of my knowledge, expected to be celibate. I think the more important issue is that these kinds of organizations provide molestors with access to kids and a “club” mentality that will protect them if they get caught – and so those people gravitate to those roles. Foregoing sex is not going to force someone to abuse a child. They have to be the sort of person who is capable of that act.

What I don’t get is they still have a ban on birth control. WTH???

I tend to look at it like @rooeytoo. It’s the church’s own business. I can see the harm it has done to the church, but we all have to right to self inflict wounds. In fact, I’d be strongly in favor of the Catholic Church adopting a stand against marriage or sexual relations for ALL their members. Perhaps in a generation or so, that would reduce the harm they are doing in the developing world through their tireless campaign against the use of condoms to control AIDS, or sane birth control members to limit family size to the number of mouths they can actually feed.

@bk

I got that one straight from the horses mouth but I can also dig up a link or two for you.

My landlord went through diaconate training (½ step below priesthood in the RC) because he was already married and was an RC hospital chaplain for many years.

He was a past president of the Bible collectors society and has his own Bible library do is quite conversant with multiple translations of the scriptures.

Obviously, he and I have had many interesting conversations over the years :)

According to him, the historical origins of the celibacy rule is part of the curriculum taught to Priests and Deacons. It’s not some deep dark secret or something. It’s just not something that the average Cstholic is aware of.

But even tho it’s part of history, the overwhelming emphasis is placed on the spiritual aspects about how a priest can devote himself more fully to the needs of the church and his parishioners if he does not have the distractions if wife and family.

Which is pretty much BS if the celibacy is not freely chosen but remains an non negotiable obligation.

But obviously it could have great spiritual value if the individual chooses this commitment for himself as many have historically done in the Christian as well as other religious traditions.

The celibacy isn’t the problem. The RULE of celibacy is.

I’d love to read the historical origins of the celibacy rule. If you could provide a couple of links, I’d appreciate it, @Buttonstc. I’ve seen so many contradictory articles, it is confusing. I’d like to see what you have. Thank you.

If anyone is interested, this is from the Vatican’s website. It discusses the Church’s views on the celibacy of the priest.

@bkcunningham

Here’s a few links just to illustrate that a celibacy rule was not a part of the original Christian church and only became part of it in later centuries (sometime after Constantine and it’s inevitable connection to Rome and all the traditions that proceeded from that)

While the connection to property inheritance may be news to some people now, it’s always been there, just de-emphasized (whether purposely or just due to current irrelevance.

My original source for this info years ago was from an ex nuns website, I decided to omit that and go with current sources from RCs currently in good standing presumably.

The first link is from a Catholic Forum board and goes on for pages, but it’s immediately evident that this aspect of the historical celibacy rule is fa4 from unknown.

The second is from journalistic opinion perspective from an impartial Catholic newspaper source (but obviously a bit more acerbic than what The Vatican would be comfortable with) which I think accurately reflects the viewpoint of many modern RCs, my landlord included.

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=393299&highlight=history+of+celibacy

——————————————-

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/041202/041202s.htm

@glacial

I agree totally with what you wrote. Someone has to be inclined to violate the boundaries of childhood and rationalize their behavior. Celibacy has no bearing upon the subject. The majority of child molesters have been married men. It gives them the perfect cover (and access to children).

And there have been PLENTY of cases of priests all throughout history and currently having affairs with adult women getting hushed up and they never come to light because they were two consenting adults.

The only married priests the Church has are priests that were first episcopal priests and it is done on a case by case evaluation done by the Pope himself in person. I have met 1 such priest and where I did not believe in it before I got to know him, I do trust that he is devoted. I still would have to know each individually to make a choice. We have unmarried celebelate priests because they are supposed to make God their focus and it is not always easy when you have a family. I still would not make confession to a married priest because I am still not sure that they would share with the wife. For the same reason I do not agree with woman priests is that women are bitches who would judge and maybe even use my confession against me at a later time. I am a woman and would never trust a woman with my darkest secrets. not that dark but still could be used as a weapon because it would hurt to have a confidence broken. As for molestation, it is fun to blame all abuse on catholic priests but compared to other religions, the catholic church is tame. It takes a very long time to be a priest and for the most part, that is too much work before getting access to children. It is a whole lot easier to get an online degree/certificate and start up a nondenominational or whatever the local favorite is to get quicker access.

Celebacy attracts gay men to the church, not child molesters. Being around children and having a position of power attracts pedophiles to the church and to be teachers and coaches, etc.

I agree it is the business of the church whether they want priests to be celebate. I too had always been told it was decided for Priests to not be allowed to marry because families are too costly. If he church does not allow sex out of wedlock, well then there you go. Maintaining this rule helps maintain the whole gay priest thing going. Not that I think all priests are gay, but many are. During a time when this was unnacceptable, gay men found acceptance in the church. I am not saying they all acted on their gay sexual impulses.

@bkcunningham – thank you, I thought so too!!! :-)
@WestRiverrat – I am inclined to agree, I don’t think it is just Catholicsism though.
@Buttonstc – with regard to the inheritance, that is interesting, I have a friend whose uncle was a priest. He was a wealthy man before he entered the priesthood, anyhow when he died, his estate went to his family. So it must not be true in all cases. But I disagree that celibacy is not voluntary, it is in that all who want to enter the priesthood know the rules, if they don’t like them, they don’t become priests. That makes it voluntary.
@elbanditoroso – married men have affairs, so the fact that priests are celibate is not the cause of an affair. And your second reason is pretty much astounding. You are saying that celibacy is the cause of homosexuality and pederasty? That is a bit of a stretch. And really the world is full of lying hypocrites, they are sure not all priests. I think almost all humans have desires, not necessarily needs, that is what makes us different from animals, our brains are capable of overriding the desires.
@glacial – agreed
@Dutchess_III – again agreed, but most religions have bizarre rules and regs. The Muslims promise 72 or 42 virgins to those who jihad. And the way they are required to slaughter their animals is abhorrent.
@ETpro – One can always count on you to become so vitriolic on this subject that your usually well thought out and logical approach to questions disappears. Your answer doesn’t deserve a serious response.
@jtxl – your diatribe against women is sad. But the rest of your answer has some merit.
@JLeslie – wow, I am surprised to see what you have written. I really think most gay men can find an easier way to sexual satisfaction than going to seminary. I would have to see some sort of proof that there are more gay men in the priesthood than in any other occupation.

I have a friend who is a protestant minister but instead of a congreation he is a psychologist and it is his job to counsel ministers who have problems with pedophiliac tendencies and also those who become illicitly involved with members of the congregation. He has never told me exact numbers but he is a very busy man. This leads me to believe that all churches have these problems regardless of whether the ministers are celibate or not. Perhaps they are settled at the time of the transgression rather than ignored and brought to the attention of the public at a later time. The Catholics are guilty of hiding their heads in the sand and trying to cover up their problems instead of dealing with them in a forthright manner. For that reason I think they are hypocrites. Hopefully the new pope will deal with this openly and honestly for a change.

Thank you all for your responses and lurve to you as well!

@rooeytoo
– not the SOLE cause, but a contributing factor. Liken it to growing crops on a farm. You can throw seeds on the dirt and they might grow. But when you throw the same seeds on manure and fertilize them, then you get much better growth.

So it is with celibate (or not so celibate priests). By themselves, they’re probably safe. But when you put temptations (in the appearance of young men over whom they have authority) you have increased the possibility of malfeasance.

@rooeytoo

Just to clarify one point briefly: the inheritance aspect of which I spoke was in the context of medeival times, particularly regarding land rights which was a major big deal back then. .(If you take a look at the second link I posted , the NCR writer explains it far more eloquently than I)

However, It is NOT the case nowadays, hence my calling it an outmoded relic.

This whole land grab aspect was also a large motivating factor for those who foughy in the Crusades also; as worthy knights who survived, were often rewarded with land upon their return. In our current more egalitarian society, i think its easy for us to forget how important was land ownership in that class structure. It really automatically moved you up several notches in society to become a landowner.

And land was tremendously important to the church and they had to do something to keep valuable church assets from being siphoned off by inheritance to the children of priests.

This is what prompted the ruling Pope to finally declare the celibacy rule across the board for all Latin Rite priests.

It was never something decreed as OBLIGATORY by either Christ, his disciples or the early church fathers or the Bible itself And from what Ive read, it wasn’t in effect for the RC church worldwide until the 11th century. Needless to say, over ten thousand years is a really long time in which priests took care of their congregations just fine even tho having wives and children.

So the whole argument for the continuation of celibacy is specious at best (without scriptural foundation) and disingenuous at worst.

My personal opinion is that the RCC is basically shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to demand a celibate priesthood. But it’s absolutely their right to do so and the press and media don’t get a vote.

But this is what prompts people, whether RC or not, to voice their concerns about it.

But, it’s their church, their rules; it’s kind of like Fluther and the rest of the Internet if you think about it: “Their Site, their rules :)

Of, if you will, a bastardized version of The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules :)

@rooeytoo To be clear, and you might have already understood what I meant, I am not saying the priesthood makes men gay or any such thing. Back in the day men who had no desire to marry a woman felt like outcasts, but in the priesthood there was no pressure to marry or be with a woman. Remember, if someone was not married by their early 20’s there was something really wrong. When I was young people used to joke about the Irish mother who was so proud of the son that went into the Priesthood, but everyone else around knew he was gay. The church only cares about the homosexual “behavior” meaning if they are participating in gay sex. Many of the men are celibate Priests, I did not mean to imply they all are having sex behind closed doors. I would also guess they felt some sort of callung also, I don’t think it was just a place to hide, but it was a place of refuge in a way in a society where who they were was unnacceptable. Most of my friends who go to church have gay priests in their church. I am not saying it is all of them.

The church has a harder time attracting Priests, it might partly be because homosexuality is more accepted.

Here is a link for the discussion from Wikipedia probably statistics vary.

The PROBLEM with celibacy is that it leaves a guy really, really, REALLY, REALLY horny!!! All the time!!! And who is he around? Men and boys. I don’t know that it even has anything to do with homosexuality, just screaming, unrelenting horniness that just tips them over the edge. It’s ridiculous. They need to have a holy papal cat house, is what they need.

You don’t really believe that people who aren’t having sex are REALLY horny all the time and would resort to having sex with young boys or whomever is around them do you, @Dutchess_III? That’s not right.

I have known adults who choose celibacy while living in the world. Not all people have sexual desires that are uncontrollable or even particularly overt. Guess that is fodder for another question specifically regarding sexual desires.

And not all priests are pedophiles or homosexual. If their sex drives aren’t that high, it isn’t a problem. It becomes a problem when you have a young man with a high sex drive, and throw him in a place and say “No sex!!!”

@bkcunningham With all of the sexual abuses going on in the church you have to ask—which came first? The chicken or the egg? Did the guys go into priest hood because they were homosexuals or pedophiles, or did they resort to that after the fact?

Sexual abuse of anyone in any context is appalling. No one in their right mind would contest that, but I have no reason to believe, nor have seen any figures to support the notion that there are more pedophiles, homosexuals or abusers among priests than any other segment of society. On a per capita basis I would think it to be much lower. But I could be wrong, do you have any basis for your conclusions?

Seminarians are not picked up off the street against their will, thrown into a place and told no sex. Gaining acceptance into a seminary is a lengthy process and applicants know from the get go that celibacy is an integral part of the deal.

I understand it’s a voluntary thing. And you may be right @rooeytoo. It may just be that the media has focused on the priesthood and the problems they’ve had.

Does anyone know if the John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s report “The Causes and Context of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests in the United States, 1950–2010,” released on May 18, 2011, is the premier authority on the subject? I just found it online and I’m wondering if anyone has read it or heard about it before?

http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/4688.php

Thanks for posting that @bkcunningham.

You are welcome, @Dutchess_III. I haven’t seen it before.

@Dutchess_III Are you saying the demands of celibacy drives them to be gay and/or pedophiles because they are so horny? I disagree with that. I guess possibly once in if there is gay sex going on they might wind up participating, especially back when they went in at the age of 15 and could be manipulated, basically victims of pedophilia themselves, although I don’t think that was widespread.

I think it is the reverse, they are gay or asexual and the church is a comfortable place to be that way.

@rooeytoo I believe I have good reason to wish the Catholic Church (and many other faiths, including Islam) would come to an end.

@ETpro – I think it is a shame you feel that way. I really try not to care about anyone’s personal life. Other than Muslims there are not many religions existing today that I can think of where the constituents go around killing non believers. I don’t think they do any more harm to society than other organisations. Obviously you have opinions to the contrary.

I’m sayings that the sex drive is one of the most overwhelming urges in nature, be it butterflies, bees, birds, wolves or primates. You can try to subvert it, deny it, but it’s not gonna happen.

Speak for yourself, you little horny toad you. ~

@rooeytoo American Christian right wingers are behind legislation to kill the gays in some African nations. The Catholic church has spent millions crusading against the use of condoms in AIDS riddled third-world nations, falsely claiming that condoms make it more likely for AIDS to spread. They and other denominations have poured additional millions into demonizing gays and the transgendered when ever ballot in initiatives have come up for equal treatment of the gays and the transgendered in the US.

If they would stick to the message Christ preached of leaving judgement to God and ministering to the poor, I’d probably donate to them. Instead, they use far too much of what they raise tax free to build gilded cathedrals, amass great wealth, and let their leaders live in opulence; and a good deal more to lobbying to bend laws to their will and to the persecution of those who don’t walk their walk.

They aren’t doing the harm they did during the Crusades and the Inquisition, but they still have a long way to go to catch up with modern morality.

@ETpro – Catholics were always against any kind of birth control, including condoms, long before aids became a consideration. I never heard the claim that they could spread the disease just that they were against the teachings of the church. What proof is there that they spent millions? I think the catholics are too cheap to do that. I think your accusations sound like conspiracy theories. All denominations spend too much on building new churches and other things when the money could be spent on more worthy causes. But that could be said about anyone who lives in a McMansion that is half empty not just the churches.

When you have a male dominated organization that’s the kind of crap that’s going to happen.

@rooeytoo Not everyone who fails to fall in line with you is a conspiracy theorist. There’s this.

And as to church spending, there’s “this:http://www.economist.com/node/21560536 with estimates that the church spent 171.6 billion in total in 2010, with 4.7% of that going to charitable work.

Because of the impact to the planet, I wish people would not live in McMansions even if they can afford to. But it’s a bit less bothersome to me when they make no pretense about being out to save the poor, and don’t operate tax free.

@ETpro, does anyone know why HIV/AIDS has been so low and slow in the Philippines?

Since we bring up AIDS, here is an old article about Priests who have HIV/AIDS.

@bkcunningham Well… not because condoms cause AIDS, obviously. And in case that is the point you are trying to make, the church has been selling this idea in other places than just the Philippines.

I’m not saying anything of the sort, @glacial. I’m just asking why HIV/AIDS has been so low and slow in the Philippines?

Are you saying the statistics and reporting are wrong?

They say: An estimated 8,700 people were living with HIV in The Philippines in 2009. The country has traditionally had a very low HIV prevalence, with under 0.1% of the population infected. Even in groups such as sex workers and MSM that are typically associated with higher levels of HIV, prevalence rates above 1% have not yet been detected. In the case of sex workers, this is possibly due to efforts to screen and treat those selling sex since the early 1990s. However, there are reasons to believe that this situation may not last. In early 2010 the Department of Health in the Philippines stated the country was now on the brink of a “concentrated epidemic”, due to a rise in prevalence. Condom use is not the norm in paid sex, drug users commonly share injecting equipment in some areas, and among Filipino youth, there is evidence of complacency about AIDS. National HIV prevalence among the most at risk populations which includes sex workers, men who have sex with men and injecting drug users, has increased more than five fold from 0.08 % in 2007 to 0.47 % in 2009.

@bkcunningham Did I say that I didn’t believe your claim? My post took your claim entirely on faith. Whatever the numbers are on HIV/AIDS cases in the Philippines, they seem to be pretty far off-topic, unless you were trying to make a point about the church’s recommendations. So, I assumed that you asked that question in that context.

If you are interested in HIV/AIDS rates entirely apart from the Catholic church and its views, then by all means, ask a separate question about it.

@glacial, I was responding to @ETpro‘s links regarding the Philippines and HIV/Aids. @rooeytoo is the OP. If she thinks @ETpro or myself went to far off topic she can flag the responses and have them removed.

No please continue, I find it interesting. It seems as if not only are theists the butt of the ire of fluther atheists but catholics in particular. So battle on. I personally am tired. I kind of had the wind taken out of my sails when @ETpro told me “Not everyone who fails to fall in line with you is a conspiracy theorist.” Do I really project that image? I hope not, I would like to think I am open to new thoughts and not egomaniacal about my own ideas. I sort of think about churches as a group of people most of whom are good human beings not necessarily in accord with their governing body at all times. Hmmmm, I’ll be back when I am finished cogitating on the subject!

I really wasn’t battling, @rooeytoo. Just questioning @ETpro regarding a link he had provided. I don’t take anything at face value and just wondered what he thinks the reason is for the low and slow HIV/Aids stats in the Philippines.

No, you don’t project that image. You seem to be a very opened minded person and someone who uses common sense and looks at things and questions them instead of just following one ideology and discounting anything else that doesn’t follow that agenda. You certainly aren’t someone who discounts someone who doesn’t follow your line of thinking. That’s just a distraction from your points, which btw, I thought were legitimate.

@bkcunningham I haven’t any idea why AIDS was slow to grow in the Philippines. I was not aware such was the case. I picked that example because it showed documentation of the Catholic Church’s efforts to fight condom distribution and oppose distribution of factual information on their effectiveness in preventing the spread of STDs and pregnancy. While I have heard many health care professionals working in Africa comment on similar efforts by the Catholic Church there, and in South America, a cursory search brought up the example in the Philippines and I didn’t bother to dig for more links.