Ship of Fools: Not Priestly Celibacy, Priestly Continence!

Thread: Not Priestly Celibacy, Priestly Continence! Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026433

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

In the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Rite (and, in individual cases of conversion of ministers from other denominations, in the Western Rite) of the (Roman) Catholic Church, married men are ordained priests. So regardless of arguments about the desirability of priestly celibacy, there is no argument about the permissibility of priestly non-celibacy (celibacy being an intentional permanent unmarried state).

In the Western Rite (at least) of the Roman Catholic Church, though, priestly celibacy is explained with reference to the priestly continence that it requires (continence in this case meaning refraining from all sexual activity). I have read historical explanations of the rationale for priestly continence referring to the practice of Jewish Priests refraining from sex with their wives when they performed a period of service at the Temple in Jerusalem. Since Catholic priests celebrate the Eucharist just about every day, they must therefore be continent for the rest of their lives. (Is this rationale out of date?) The implication is that this holds whether the priests are married or not. But Eastern Rite married priests (and Eastern Orthodox priests too, of course) have children after ordination all the time. I do not think that those priests obtain a dispensation to not celebrate the Eucharist for a period in order to perform conjugal duties with their wives.

Does anyone know what the Eastern Orthodox teaching is, if any, in response to those elements of Roman Catholic Western Rite tradition that imply that all priests, even married ones, must remain continent? I know that only celibate, continent priests (ie monks) can be ordained bishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church, but this does not seem to have anything to do with what I am discussing.

Does the Roman Catholic Church officially allow married priests in any of its Rites to have sex with their wives after ordination? Is it something not specifically allowed but just not talked about? Or is it technically against the rules but never enforced?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does the Roman Catholic Church officially allow married priests in any of its Rites to have sex with their wives after ordination? Is it something not specifically allowed but just not talked about? Or is it technically against the rules but never enforced?

What difference does sex make to one's ability to "perform" in the eucharist? Does one performance affect the other? (I'd have thought that a contented priest in every part of life is a contented man or woman likely to be at peace with God).

A lot of stuff is technically against the rules (contraception, same sex relationships) yet it still goes on without demur. Why should heterosexual sex be any different?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone know what the Eastern Orthodox teaching is, if any, in response to those elements of Roman Catholic Western Rite tradition that imply that all priests, even married ones, must remain continent?

We don't teach in response to Rome.

quote:
I know that only celibate, continent priests (ie monks) can be ordained bishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church,

Not all monks are priests, and vice versa.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

If this is a serious question, stonespring, Wikipedia is your friend.

As Mousethief remarked, the Orthodox Church does not teach in response to Rome.

Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
]What difference does sex make to one's ability to "perform" in the eucharist? Does one performance affect the other? (I'd have thought that a contented priest in every part of life is a contented man or woman likely to be at peace with God).

Presumably, it's the same idea behind the eucharistic fast. Eating before Mass doesn't affect the sacrament's ability either; it's part of the preparation.

Thurible

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Stonespring asks:

quote:
Does the Roman Catholic Church officially allow married priests in any of its Rites to have sex with their wives after ordination? Is it something not specifically allowed but just not talked about? Or is it technically against the rules but never enforced?

First, not all RC priests celebrate daily (especially in the eastern churches, many of which focus on Sunday liturgies), so any fasting-from-sex would not encompass their entire lives. I would imagine that such discussions involve their spiritual directors (if anyone) and nobody else.

Second, I know several (well, three) Anglican-origin RC priests whose wives have produced children since their (re)ordinations. Their bishops know of this and one even did a baptism, so a simple calculation by the bishop would suggest that these clergy are attentive to their marital duties. The hordes of children from clergy families in the eastern churches would suggest a similar phenomenon.

Much depends, obviously, on your definition of continence, and there are several writers who occupy themselves on the debate onthis, some suggesting that it simply means non-wanton sexual expression (there are definitions of this for the curious and/ or the prurient) and others that it means no sexual activity at all. There is a great deal of nitpicking on the topic and I do not understand why-- the various popes, from Pius XII on, who authorized the priesting of married convert clerics, were surely aware that married people often have sex, and AFAIK the necessary dispensations and legislation have not suggested otherwise. Some suggest that the required wifely consent to ordination is necessary as by this the wife would give up her marital rights, but I would suspect that should this idea be put to most RC clerical wives, the response would be hoots of laughter or genteel imprecations to get a life.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What difference does sex make to one's ability to "perform" in the eucharist? ...

I would imagine it's Lev 15:18 (this is from the WEB Bible to avoid copyright issues.

quote:
If a man lies with a woman and there is an emission of semen, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the evening.

On the Day of Atonement the High Priest had to remain awake for 24 hours before the ceremonies and someone had to sit with him to stop him nodding off, lest he go to sleep, have a nocturnal emission and so render it impossible to proceed.

I've sometimes wondered whether male clergy are given secret instructions about this just before they are ordained priests. As a minister yourself, EM, was this part of your training?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Does anyone know what the Eastern Orthodox teaching is, if any, in response to those elements of Roman Catholic Western Rite tradition that imply that all priests, even married ones, must remain continent?
We don't teach in response to Rome.

quote:
I know that only celibate, continent priests (ie monks) can be ordained bishops in the Eastern Orthodox Church,
Not all monks are priests, and vice versa.

Bad wording there - I meant to ask what does the Orthodox church teach regarding sexual activity between a priest and his wife after his ordination - if there is any such teaching.

I also know that not all Orthdox priests are monks, and that there are Orthodox bishops who were never tonsured as monks. The wikipedia article that Jane R linked to, which I had read before, suggests that sex between an Orthodox bishop and his wife, if he has one, after he is ordained bishop is not allowed. Is that true?

PS. I'm not interested at all in what is right or wrong. I'm only interested in what the rules are, if any, and whether or not they are observed in practice or enforced.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
[QUOTE]I've sometimes wondered whether male clergy are given secret instructions about this just before they are ordained priests. As a minister yourself, EM, was this part of your training?

Well I can't, of course, reveal the really secret instructions but it was once pointed out to us callow trainees at college that clergy working hours generate lots more opportunities for sex with one's wife during the day.

Quite how that impacts on one's ability to preside I don't know - but it's fun trying to work it out.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I suppose that if you're really lucky you might have to pace yourself lest by Sunday morning you're so knackered that you nod off in the pulpit. OTOH all that daytime sex might mean you get a full eight hours sleep every night.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
What difference does sex make to one's ability to "perform" in the eucharist? Does one performance affect the other? ... Why should heterosexual sex be any different?

There is one obvious way in which this matters.

It is clear from church teachings* that the possession of a penis is an essential part of "performing" the Eucharist.

Since it is also well-known from historic times forward that men can't keep said organ within their clothes, the tightest control possible must be kept over those men who "perform" Eucharists. The Orthodox feel this works best in marriage; the RCs feel that No Sex At All is a better control. Protestants tend to agree with the Orthodox on this one, with the addition of a relaxation of the role of gender in the Eucharist (at least, for some Prots).

No-one has yet defined the purpose of a penis in any aspect of the Eucharist, of course.

*Paul allows grudgingly for the lesser good of marriage, and seems to allow for the work of the church to be done by persons without penises (or is that penes?). This has not met with favour in all-male circles of the church.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Bad wording there - I meant to ask what does the Orthodox church teach regarding sexual activity between a priest and his wife after his ordination - if there is any such teaching.

I know of no such teaching. Priests have been known to father any number of children after ordination. The one strict rule is that you can't marry after you're ordained. If you are ordained single, you remain single, and if you are ordained married, then and only then you get to be a married priest. I understand there's a scrabble for graduating seminarians to find suitable wives, and that's not entirely tongue-in-cheek (hers or his).

quote:
I also know that not all Orthdox priests are monks, and that there are Orthodox bishops who were never tonsured as monks. The wikipedia article that Jane R linked to, which I had read before, suggests that sex between an Orthodox bishop and his wife, if he has one, after he is ordained bishop is not allowed. Is that true?

Strictly speaking we do not have married bishops. A married priest can become a bishop if both he and his wife agree to become monastics. I don't know if they are expected to dwell apart; I expect so.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

Originally posted by Exclamation Mark:

quote:
Well I can't, of course, reveal the really secret instructions but it was once pointed out to us callow trainees at college that clergy working hours generate lots more opportunities for sex with one's wife during the day.

But isn't that a bit embarrassing for the wife's work colleagues?

M.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I found this link.

I'm no expert on any of this, but the link does provide some fascinating background to this topic. In another recent thread, I think IngoB posted the observation that continence was the old tradition, and that the Catholic norm of unmarried celibate priests arose out of that tradition.

You can get a funny reverse of this in some conservative parts of nonconformism. Because in scripture, the elder should be "the husband of one wife", some folks argue that unmarried men should not become elders.

I recognise the power of Tradition in Orthodox and Catholic positions and arguments. It's interesting that Catholics see themselves as able to reflect on this issue. I believe they see it, not as a dogma, but a discipline.

[ 06. November 2013, 08:01: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

You can get a funny reverse of this in some conservative parts of nonconformism. Because in scripture, the elder should be "the husband of one wife", some folks argue that unmarried men should not become elders.

I've heard of cases in Restorationist churches where a widower is removed from eldership due to his wife's passing.

I've also seen elders or leaders removed when their children leave Christianity (or even their denomination of Christianity) because that passage in 1 Tim also talks about "managing children." Of course that raises further questions: what about adult children? What if someone has several children, some of whom are Christians and some not? I actually know of a church that split over this issue.

My experience in these types of churches has made me a lot more open to the role of tradition in church practiced, because many times so-called "clear Biblical guidance" isn't really that clear.

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

From a RC perspective, one canonist seems to be pretty certain that clerical celibacy also means clerical continence, at least in the canonical sense, if not the lived out reality - see his website here, the Studia Liturgica PDF article mentioned is well worth the read.

x

AV

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
Originally posted by Exclamation Mark:

quote:
Well I can't, of course, reveal the really secret instructions but it was once pointed out to us callow trainees at college that clergy working hours generate lots more opportunities for sex with one's wife during the day.
But isn't that a bit embarrassing for the wife's work colleagues?
M.

Not if she's a staff nurse on night shifts it ain't!

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I found this link.

I'm no expert on any of this, but the link does provide some fascinating background to this topic. In another recent thread, I think IngoB posted the observation that continence was the old tradition, and that the Catholic norm of unmarried celibate priests arose out of that tradition.

You can get a funny reverse of this in some conservative parts of nonconformism. Because in scripture, the elder should be "the husband of one wife", some folks argue that unmarried men should not become elders.

I recognise the power of Tradition in Orthodox and Catholic positions and arguments. It's interesting that Catholics see themselves as able to reflect on this issue. I believe they see it, not as a dogma, but a discipline.

This link suggests that all Orthodox faithful, not just priests, must abstain from sexual relations the day before receiving communion (I take this to mean from 12 am Saturday to whatever time on Sunday communion is received, for example, but perhaps day is defined as beginning at sundown the day before - so in this case sundown on Friday?). Is this true?

It also suggests that the continence of bishops, something practiced in both the RCC and Eastern Orthdox Church, is something that some Orthodox theologians have suggested could be changed. Is this true?

As for the link below to the Canon Law article, it is interesting that it argues that even married Permanent Deacons must practice continence with their wives. Although they do not pledge perpetual continence during their ordination, they are bound by the canon law that requires continence of all clerics, the link argues. Has the Vatican ever spoken to clarify this canonical issue?

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
It also suggests that the continence of bishops, something practiced in both the RCC and Eastern Orthdox Church, is something that some Orthodox theologians have suggested could be changed. Is this true?

Unlikely. I was told that in the lead up to Anglicanorum coetibus Rome informally sounded out the Orthodox on their thoughts about the possibility of grandfathering married Anglican bishops into the Ordinariates i.e. ordaining them to the Catholic episcopate on a once off basis. The Orthodox response was firmly in the negative.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Stonespring asks:

quote:
Has the Vatican ever spoken to clarify this canonical issue?

Dr Peters (the canonist in question) says that it has, through J2P2's intervention at drafting stage of a canon, but acknowledges that nobody seems to think so in practice. In one of his columns, he suggests that practice be brought into line with canon law, or vice versa and, from a canonist's point of view, he may be right. I have never heard of a procreating deacon or married priest being disciplined under this nor do I think any bishop would dream of doing so.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Is Dr Peters well known/highly respected/generally regarded as authoritative? Or is he just someone who shoots his mouth off in a blog?

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Is Dr Peters well known/highly respected/generally regarded as authoritative? Or is he just someone who shoots his mouth off in a blog?

AFAIK he is one of the better-known US canonists. He is one of the more (in my view) less-liberal and less-flexible writers but is always well-documented and is more intellectually rigorous than many. I rarely agree with him, but he is worth the reading.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
This link suggests that all Orthodox faithful, not just priests, must abstain from sexual relations the day before receiving communion (I take this to mean from 12 am Saturday to whatever time on Sunday communion is received, for example, but perhaps day is defined as beginning at sundown the day before - so in this case sundown on Friday?). Is this true?

The exact cut-off time (if you'll excuse the expression) has never been clear to me, but yes, we are meant to fast from sexual relations before the Eucharist, as we fast from food and drink. (The cutoff time for food and drink is midnight for most Orthodoxen, from all I've heard.)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

As a matter of interest, mousethief, is that a general guideline? One local Orthodox community near here uses a church otherwise used by another community on Sunday mornings, so their liturgy takes place on Sunday afternoons. It just seemed a long time to abstain from food and drink under these circumstances. Or maybe water is allowable?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
As a matter of interest, mousethief, is that a general guideline? One local Orthodox community near here uses a church otherwise used by another community on Sunday mornings, so their liturgy takes place on Sunday afternoons. It just seemed a long time to abstain from food and drink under these circumstances. Or maybe water is allowable?

In a situation like that I believe it's up to the priest, under guidance (or orders) from his bishop, to determine what those particular parishioners should do. And as with almost anything, if there are people with physical needs that cannot tolerate that (for instance diabetics who simply must eat at certain times), the priest works with them to create a personal rule that honors the spirit of the fast inasmuch as they are able. (The famed "ekonomia" that drives certain Catholic legalists nuts.)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Thanks - I had sort-of guessed something like that might happen, but it's good to know.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0