'their creeds were an abomination in his sight'

[_Jason Bourne]

wut? Celibacy leads to property control?

From what I have read in about the 14th century the Church started imposing the requirement of Celibacy. Before that priests married and had children. The local priest often had control over parish property and rights of ownership which on death often went to his family. The Church did not like that. So celibacy was imposed. No family means nobody to take over property when the priest dies.

I read this in a couple of history books on Christianity. If this is incorrect feel free to enlighten me.

Thanks

[_Aristotle Smith]

wut? Celibacy leads to property control?

From what I have read in about the 14th century the Church started imposing the requirement of Celibacy. Before that priests married and had children. The local priest often had control over parish property and rights of ownership which on death often went to his family. The Church did not like that. So celibacy was imposed. No family means nobody to take over property when the priest dies.

I read this in a couple of history books on Christianity. If this is incorrect feel free to enlighten me.

Thanks

You can't really draw a line in the sand and say, before this celibacy was not required and after it was. You can find celibate priests and popes proclaiming a celibate priesthood long before the 11th century. And, you can find tons of priests having sex and children long after the 11th century. Indeed, one of Luther's arguments (16th century) for a married clergy was that there were so many priests with kids, that it would be best just to let them marry.

Of course that still leaves the property and rights of ownership argument because bastard children didn't inherit their father's property. But speaking from general knowledge of the politics of the middle ages, this doesn't hold much water. Popes and local ecclesiastical authorities were usually at the mercy of local secular rulers. Events like the investiture controversy bring this out. Controlling property ownership is much more a function of local political and legal arrangements as the local magistrates usually held control over this stuff, not the pope. As just one example of this, Ever wonder where the reformers got all the churches for their new congregations to meet in? They usually just repurposed the existing Catholic churches. Successful reform usually meant the local magistrate supported you, so he just let you have the church for Lutheran or Reformed church services. The pope could go pound sand as far as the local authorities were concerned, and the sexual status of the local priest had nothing to do with any of this.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Popes and local ecclesiastical authorities were usually at the mercy of local secular rulers. Events like the investiture controversy bring this out.

Or the Avignon papacy, that was my favorite part of Church History.

[_Phillip]

The issue of clerical celibacy is an interesting topic that probably deserves its own thread. Technically celibacy of the clergy is a rule or discipline of the Latin rite of the Roman Catholic church, not an unchangeable dogma. Theoretically it could be changed at any time. There are currently married Catholic priests in the Eastern rite churches and a few among converts from Protestant denominations. It’s kind of more like the LDS rule that, among young adults, only celibate men and women may serve missions. If you are a 20 year old married Mormon then you are probably not going to get a mission call to Peru. And getting married while serving would be against the mission rules (or at least was in my mission back in the day)

The idea that there should be regulations governing marriage for priest and bishops has ancient roots and is not a Medieval invention. All of the ancient churches, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, have apparently always had some kind of restrictions on marriage. Generally bishops must be celibate and marriage after ordination is always forbidden (a married priest must have gotten married before ordination). In the early church there is also evidence that already married priest were required to abstain from sexual relations with their wives. You can imagine how well that worked. The Eastern Orthodox basically gave up on that requirement, except for brief periods before the celebration of the Liturgy. The Roman Catholic Church opted for ordaining only unmarried men. Back when I was LDS I would have taken all of this as evidence of a Great Apostasy.

This Wikipedia article actually has a nice overview of the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_(Catholic_Church)

The book ‘Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy’ has an in depth historical examination of the topic.

[_madeleine]

wut? Celibacy leads to property control?

From what I have read in about the 14th century the Church started imposing the requirement of Celibacy. Before that priests married and had children. The local priest often had control over parish property and rights of ownership which on death often went to his family. The Church did not like that. So celibacy was imposed. No family means nobody to take over property when the priest dies.

I read this in a couple of history books on Christianity. If this is incorrect feel free to enlighten me.

Thanks

Hello Jason Bourne,

In contrast, here is what I have learned from Christian history:

Jesus Christ was celibate, St. Paul encouraged celibacy for those that could live in this fashion. There have always been groups of Christians, clergy, monastics, ascetics, etc. who have incorporated celibacy into their own spiritual practices. Some for a short time, others for life.

The history of Europe after the dark ages is a history of Christianity. The culture itself rooted in Christian practices and belief. Property ownership, as we know it, did not exist until much later than the 14th century. Prior to then, a man was landed by right of birth, that of, royals or lordships. Marriage and children were viewed as essential for anyone with land, as the only way to pass on ownership of land.

As the Catholic Church grew in Europe, royalty and landed saw the clergy as a means to additional power. In some instances, a clerical position was inherited, a son being chosen to become a priest in order that the power that had been gained by it could be passed on in that manner.

Simony was one of Luther's criticisms of the Roman Catholic church. While the Protestant reformation was occurring, there was also a anti-reformation going on within the Roman Catholic church. The points that Luther had brought up were not unfamiliar to many, and the leaders of the Church, its Bishops, at the Council of Trent, addressed simony by requiring that clergy be celibate. Also declaring that positions that the clergy held could no longer handed on by right of inheritance. This effectively ended the practice of simony.

So while I can see how a Christian historical writer could take the view this was an attempt by the Roman Catholic church to take control over property, the fact is, under monarchial rule royals owned all land and gave it and took it away at their own pleasure. A Lord who fell out of favor with his king or queen could loose everything, in one single decree. The lordship over land being tied to a the title and position of Lord, not to the individual. Remove the title and position, everything is gone with it.

As has already been pointed out, this happened in many countries of Europe during the reformation. Catholic churches being turned into Protestant churches, their statues and stained glass windows destroyed, clergy jailed, some executed, some fleeing to Catholic countries, others converting to the "new faith". Many of the great cathedrals of western Europe that are now Anglican/Protestant, were originally Catholic.

I once read a conversation on another forum, where a Roman Catholic asked if the Roman Catholic church had ever been compensated for everything that was stolen from it during King Henry's rule in England. The answer of course is "no", because legally, the church at the time had no such redress. If the king said it was his, it was his, and it was death to anyone who defies the kings orders.

As you can see, the declaration that came out the Council of Trent effectively made it impossible for a royal or landed person to view the clergy as a means to gaining more power. So if anything, it removed the Roman Catholic church from the existing societal method of lordship over property.