Priest and Nuns can marry?
- Thread starter Nivek
- Start date
Maybe the Roman church do what the Greek church did - low-ranking priests can marry, but anyone senior (bishops etc.) are derived from monastic orders, so they wouldn't be allowed to be married anyway.
It would be easier to allow priests to marry than monks. Priests have a different purpose to monks. Many of them were able to marry for the first few centuries. Some Eastern Orthodox churches permit married men to become priests (though not bishops IiRC), but don't allow existing priests to marry or re-marry.
So it would be easier to have priests be permitted to marry, while monks and bishops were still forbidden. Allowing monks to marry is a much more fundamental change to the principles of monasticism. Not saying it could never happen, but would require a much earlier and much more significant PoD.
RC priests are allowed to be married in the Byzantine Rite churches, one of the holdovers from Orthodox practice.
Monks and nuns, however, are an entirely different kettle of fish. Their whole point is separation from society, attachment to God, and living by rules. Hard to do that when you have a dozen kids.....
Monks and nuns, however, are an entirely different kettle of fish. Their whole point is separation from society, attachment to God, and living by rules. Hard to do that when you have a dozen kids.....
Consider the issue of population imbalance. In hot climates, high male mortality created more women than men, so you have polygamy. In other climates, less war and maternity problems could create a surplus of men. To avoid polygamy and homosexuality among men, recruit into the clergy for celibacy. Had this rule, adopted after the year 1000, not occurred, you have other problems that conflicted with Christian teachings.
To be pedantic, there were medieval monks who had a dozen kids. They were relatively unusual, though. It would be more common for a monk to have a dozen lambs, together with some adult sheep.
Monks were allowed to marry in the Early Medieval Celtic Church IIRC. That is rather exceptional though.
Attributed to Wolfgang Pauli, about a woeful physics paper: "it's so bad, it's not even wrong".
It was changed to stop Priests leaving their worldly belongings to their families instead of the Church.
Probably means less scandals.
My first thought though when reading this was to take it too literally.
What if it was only Priests and Nuns that could marry? Only to each other.
You would have men and women joining just for that special someone.
Children with the Church for parents.
Kids going into the family business.
Probably means less scandals.
My first thought though when reading this was to take it too literally.
What if it was only Priests and Nuns that could marry? Only to each other.
You would have men and women joining just for that special someone.
Children with the Church for parents.
Kids going into the family business.
I'm not sure how real it was either. It came from a reference to the Plague, which was later than the start of celibacy. The classical explanation was that family priorities might conflict with clerical duties. Remember, literacy was considered a luxury in those times.
There are actually a number of married priests in the catholic church.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-married-priests-2017-story.html
So, the way it happens today is that you (as a priest) get married in the Anglican or Episcopal church, convert to the Roman Catholic church, and you can continue your ministry. As I understand it, the RC church looks at it as the sacrament of marriage overrides the requirement to be celibate. Or at least that's what my wife's priest told her when we lived in Alaska. (He was married with kids)
Belushi TD
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-pope-married-priests-2017-story.html
So, the way it happens today is that you (as a priest) get married in the Anglican or Episcopal church, convert to the Roman Catholic church, and you can continue your ministry. As I understand it, the RC church looks at it as the sacrament of marriage overrides the requirement to be celibate. Or at least that's what my wife's priest told her when we lived in Alaska. (He was married with kids)
Belushi TD
The children of priests will most likely become priests themselves and inherit the positions of their fathers. This might create a more decentralised church, less dependent on Rome. This might in turn mean that priests are less well-educated, since especially priests in peripheral areas might decide to forgo any formal education apart from that they teach to their children themselves.
That's essentially OTL until the the 10th century IIRC. Clerical celibacy only became enforced with the First Lateran Council, prior to which clerical wives and concubines remained above the tipping point.* Preventing the Gregorian Reforms would mean that the papacy retains a possibility of repeating the Rule of Harlots, allowing papal authority to remain lower than secular authority.
*Any belief or practice held by 10% of a population will be normalised within that population. https://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902#sthash.wuHag3ob.dpuf
Would this create a string of chaotic succession crises. Part of the allure (at least for the nobility) was to shove those extra sons in the church to tie up any divisions in your realm when it came time to pass it on (I understand nobility joining the church had other reasons but this was a main one). Now you have a lot more claimants to thrones and holdings and what not.
It could also have the opposite effect, making primogeniture the norm faster than it took to be the norm OTL.
It could also have the opposite effect, making primogeniture the norm faster than it took to be the norm OTL.
If the Catholic church never adopted celibacy for priests, retaining it only for certain monastic orders, it would likely take a fair bit out of the fire for Reformation. This is because saying that priests must be celibate is precisely contrary to Scripture. It's not a case of wiggle room or interpretation, it is black and white.
Specifically, for those that care about such things
1 Timothy 3:2-12 King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Note that it says the bishop must be the husband of one wife, and he's expected to handle his own household and children well. This means not only MAY he be married, he MUST be.
What's more, this statement is made by Paul, who is...drumroll...himself a celibate. So he's laying out the qualifications for an office that he doesn't meet. He's more a monastic/mystic and this admission against interest shows that clearly he's supposed to 'stay in his lane'.
Specifically, for those that care about such things
1 Timothy 3:2-12 King James Version (KJV)
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
8 Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre;
9 Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
11 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things.
12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.
Note that it says the bishop must be the husband of one wife, and he's expected to handle his own household and children well. This means not only MAY he be married, he MUST be.
What's more, this statement is made by Paul, who is...drumroll...himself a celibate. So he's laying out the qualifications for an office that he doesn't meet. He's more a monastic/mystic and this admission against interest shows that clearly he's supposed to 'stay in his lane'.