Interesting article on priestly celibacy

[Sponsa-Christi]

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/issues/august-19th-2016/the-true-history-of-celibacy/

[Quasar]

Very interesting!  I didn't realize that in the age of married priests they were required to live in continence. 

I have noticed that the issue of celibacy is never raised wrt nuns (not brothers, either, but I think the general public isn't really conscious of the existence of brothers).  Don't get me wrong- I don't think it makes any sense for nuns to be married, however, it's strange to me that people view priestly celibacy as so problematic, but celibacy for women religious is ok.

[Sponsa-Christi]

@Quasar With religious, though (as with consecrated life in general) evangelical celibacy is sort of the very point. Part of what makes a religious a religious is specifically that they make a vow of evangelical chastity. 

Priesthood is different, however, as the "main point" of priesthood is sharing in Christ's sacramental powers. Priestly continence and celibacy is not something which makes a priest a priest---rather, it is the mode of life the Church sees as most fitting for those who are ordained. 

[Quasar]

Sponsa-Christi,  isn't a priest regarded as a groom to the Church?  How could this be if he is married?  I accept that if the Church lets married men be priests, then it is ok for married men to be priests, but I don't understand it. 

[Sponsa-Christi]

44 minutes ago, Quasar said:

Sponsa-Christi,  isn't a priest regarded as a groom to the Church?  How could this be if he is married?  I accept that if the Church lets married men be priests, then it is ok for married men to be priests, but I don't understand it.

It's not quite as black-and-white as "priests are married to the Church, therefore they can't be married to anyone else." (Priests aren't simply the male version of consecrated virgins).

Traditionally, it's bishops rather than simple priests who are regarded as "married" to the Church (and more specifically, to their local Church, i.e., their diocese). Throughout the Church's history, in both the Roman Catholic Church as well as the eastern Churches,  bishops have almost always been unmarried men. But as a priest does share in his bishop's vocation and ministry to a certain degree, I would still argue that this sort of "spousal" spirituality is still very appropriate for priests, and is one strong theological argument in favor of priestly celibacy. 

Also, the thesis of this article is basically that when married priests in the Latin Church were more widespread in previous centuries, they were expected to be continent. (Celibacy = not being married; continence = not having "marital relations.") So if a priest was continent---especially if he stopped living with his wife---he would be sort of less than fully married in a theological and practical sense. 

[Quasar]

Very interesting, Sponsa-Christi.  Thank you for your enlightening response.

[Egeria]

I think it's important to note that what the author presents here as "The true history of celibacy" is in fact based on a highly contentious reading of history by a small group of authors in the last couple of decades. I would have been embarrassed to have written such an article without acknowledging the abundant evidence to the contrary.

For a refutation of this line of thinking see this article.

Also, while Sponsa is right about the spousal link between the bishop and his diocese, the fact remains that there were married bishops until the fifth century, the most famous being the father of Saint Gregory the Theologian (Gregory of Nazianzus). (Saint Gregory of Nyssa was also both married and a bishop, although whether he was both at the same time is disputed).