does anyone know why roman catholic priests can’t get hitched? i grew up catholic, and no priest, bishop or teacher of ccd (that’s “sunday school” in catholic talk) ever answered this question well. some other religions allow for the the marrying of their officials, so why not catholicism? was it always like this? thanks.
i believe it has to do with producing an heir, which was a lot more important a long time ago, when things like heirs mattered. I’m sure someone will come along with a more eloquent answer.
Catholic priests used to be able to marry, up until the 1100’s or 1200’s I believe. It’s supposed to be a matter of discipline, not of doctrine, I guess for the same reason soldiers are preferred to be single. By the way, Uniates, who are Catholics in Eastern Europe who used to be Eastern Orthodox centuries ago, retain some old Orthodox practices, including marriage of the clergy.
The current party line in the RCC is that priests are supposed to be devoted to their jobs, and by extension, God, all the time. Having a wife would interfere with that mission.
Priestly celibacy also helped to distinguish them as a special class set apart from the hoi polloi.
Nuns have traditionally been called “the brides of Christ” and so there is the restricion on marriage (I learned this from the Mother Superior of an order that wanted to build a monastary in my community when I was Planning Director (yes, nuns can live in monastaries - it has to do with whether or not there are accessory activities i.e., making fruit cakes vs. no accessory activities i.e., just contemplation). The order she was a member of took vows of silence. She, as mmother superior, was allowed to speak when conducting business. I couldn’t get her to shut up and I couldn’t get a word in edgewise.) I suspect the priests are essentially supposed to be wedded to the Church. Of course, they do seem to have an awfully common prediliction for altar boys so I don’t know as if I’d say they are particularly faithful spouses.
oh yea! another chance to be a language nazi. :rolleyes:
*Celibacy is refraining from marriage. Theoretically you have all the sex you want.
*Chastity is refraining from unlawful sex. Again, you can have all the swinging-from-the-rafters sex you want, but only with your legal spouse.
*Abstinence or Continence is refraining from any sexual intercourse. No sex. This category would include, interestingly enough, those who are married but have taken vows of marital continence.
The easy way to remember this is: Nuns are married to God, they are vowed to Chastity. Monks are vowed to Celibacy, they cannot marry and therefore have no legitimate heirs. This probably was more important in the Middle Ages, when heirs were taken more seriously. In modern usage the distinctions have become blurred, which is quite unfortunate.
Modern day roman catholic priests are still vowed to Celibacy, I believe. There is a sub-priest, called deacons, who are permitted to marry. As I understand it, deacons can perform all the functions of a full priest with the exclusion of administering the sacrament (giving communion). Perhaps a real catholic can jump in here if I’m wrong.
I agree with BobT, priests remain without families so they can focus on God and His Church. This doesn’t seem like an insufficient answer to me.
I’m not a real catholic, but I go to church with one. Deacons (and other lay ministers) can administer communion. They can also perform baptisms. I’m not sure about other sacraments (e.g., last rites, etc.)
Once upon a time, I read a good explanation of this - I’ll try to remember and summarize as best as I can:
scratch is correct in that priests haven’t always been prohibited from marriage - that policy was put in place for a couple of reasons. One reason is the dedication to the church thing mentioned already. The other reason had to do with political influence.
In feudal times, usually political power would be passed down from father to son, from generation to generation. This started to happen for the church as well - a priest or bishop of a given area would have a son who would assume the position later on. This was a problem because the church held a lot of power/influence at the time - often more than the local govt. (or feudal lord, landowners, etc.).
Someone (whose name I can’t remember right now) decided that this was an unwholesome practice and started the campaign against it. Eventually it became doctrine, and has stuck until present day.
Man, I hope I remembered that all correctly. If not, please set the flamethrowers on low to spare my newbie self some pain.
There is a word for the practice described above - it’s actually a specific type of sin - just wish I could remember what it was…though I’m sure someone knows what it is.
Deacons (and lay people) may administer the sacrament of communion - that is, they may hand the bread which has become the Body of Christ out. Only a priest, however, may celebrate the Mass - that is, preside when the bread is turned into the Body of Christ.
The technical answer to the OP question is that priests cannot marry because Roman Catholic Canon Law forbids it. Can. 1087 provides, “Those who are in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.”
However, this impediment may be waived. Hoever, Can. 1078
§2 provides in pertinent part:
In short, it’s reserved to the Pope to dispense with that impediment.
- Rick
A deacon can give out Communion. Just about anybody can give out Communion. However, he cannot perform the consecration, which is the most important event at a Catholic Mass.
Deacons can perform marriages. They can’t hear confessions.
I think they can perform baptisms.
There are also deacons, who are just priests in waiting, and permanent deacons, who can be married, but cannot remarry if their wives pass on.
Because, in general, religion brands anything enjoyable as sinful.
I’m oversimplifying a bit, but that’s the root of it, methinks.
A new Pope is wandering through the Vatican’s archives one day. Thumbing through some ancient documents he suddenly stops, not believing his eyes.
“Oh my God! It says Celebrate! Not Celibate!”
Any person may, in cases of emergency, validly confer the sacrament of baptism.
A marriage consists of the marriage partners conferring upon each of the sacrament of matrimony. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local bishop or parish priest or of the priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, ‘assists’ at the marriage. So deacons can’t perform a marriage, any more than priests, bishops, or the Pope himself could. They may, if validly deputized, assist at a marriage, however.
- Rick
The sin of selling church offices is called ‘simony’.
The term is based on the story of Simon the magician in the book of Acts, where he offers the apostles money for the ‘trick’ of laying hands on people and they receive the Holy Spirit. (The offer was refused).
I am Lutheran, not Catholic, but the question of inheritance of a position as priest was extremely important during the Middle Ages. My understanding was that celibacy was imposed so as to prevent priests from passing their positions down to their sons. Since being a priest included a right to collect the tithes as a salary (called a ‘benefice’ IIRC), there was a financial benefit to being the priest, and the practice of passing the office along became condemned as simony by the church.
Oh boy, my church history class is paying off!
Roman Catholic priests ( that is priests of the Latin Rite) can’t be married ,however, I believe priests of other Catholic rites ( outside of the US) can be married prior to being ordained. Also, there were a few married priests who had converted from another religion ( IIRC Episcopalian) who received a dispensation.
i thought the marriage part wasn’t supposed to be the most enjoyable aspect of the arrangement.
Shodan said:
To add my little bit to this (be it true or not), I was also told way back when by a history professor (at a Jesuit college) that the church was also losing land to priests who would take land ceded to them by the church and give it to their offspring rather than back to the RCC…
I think that the spiritual reasoning behind celibacy for clergy is to avoid entanglements with the “mundane” world, thereby freeing up one’s energy for devotion to spiritual practice. The unsettling emotions that accompany the glory of love aren’t conducive to the meditative climate of the monastic community. Desire in this sphere is supposed to be suppressed in order to transcend the physical and achieve Divine Union. This applies to Christianity as well as to many Eastern religions.
There are Buddhist and Hindu branches that posit ways of using that same desire to transcend it, but you’re supposed to be pretty advanced to try it, or you end up in the same mess, maybe worse off.
Human beings bein’ the fallible hoohas we all are, there are plenty of abuses in all sects, but the basic theory is that if ya don’t getchyer yayas off, and direct yourself sublimely elsewhere, the Big Yaya will come to you.