r/history • u/mendax135 • 19d ago
Why was celibacy imposed on Catholic priests? Discussion/Question
At the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Catholic Church implemented a rule requiring all priests to remain celibate. Although the Church has already talked about being celibate for the previous 1000 years or so, it was not a required or enforced rule for everyone. What caused this to change in 1139? To clarify, I am looking for reasons outside of scriptural reasons, as the scriptural reasons are fairly cut and dry, that would influence the catholic church to re-address/solidify the rules on celibacy.
Some things I've seen from just googling are ideas that the priests were favoring their children in church appointments, or that the churches land was being given out to priests' children, but I cant find any reliable sources on these matters.
I already understand the religious aspect of why the rule was implemented, that is why I'm focusing on any non-biblical reasons that the church specifically in this time period is stressing its stance on celibacy, and what changed in 900 years since they first stated that priests should be celibate. having a rule saying priests should be celibate based on these bible verses is cut on dry, the fact that they have to continually readdress this issue, leads me to believe there are other issues at play, which is what I'm looking for.
409
u/Sesim_Mocke 19d ago
I always heard it came down to property. Priests with children would pass lands on to them (and not back to the church). I'm sure the religious stuff played a part in their decision but I always believed it was more about those sweet tracts of land. I hope someone has a better answer though. Good question!
234
u/OMightyMartian 19d ago
Rome's big inroads into the early Germanic kingdoms was the Roman laws and culture that Germanic kings hoped they could adopt. This is why many priests in the Medieval period were effectively the bureaucracy of these kingdoms; literate, knowledgeable in law, economics and politics, they were of great service to these kings. In return for services rendered, kings would convert themselves and their kingdoms to Christianity. But because of the significant political and bureaucratic power that priests could wield in these newly converted principalities, it was critical that they not be seen as threats to the Germanic dynasties, and to accomplish this the Church enforced celibacy. Thus, any children that a priest might father could never be legitimized, and thus could not inherit property or title. It essentially made the priesthood in these kingdoms a kind of Mandarin class.
48
42
u/sendokun 19d ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. One more question, What is Mandarin class?
100
u/OMightyMartian 19d ago
The Mandarins were the bureaucrats in the Chinese Empire, selected based on a meritocratic system rather than by ancestory (though obviously being of aristocratic birth made it more likely you would receive the necessary education, you can never get rid of the class system). During the Qing dynasty, eunuchs were often considered part of the Mandarin class, and were often assigned as the Emperor's closed aides and attendance, in no small part because they could represent no significant threat to the dynasty.
14
u/Trenttrip 19d ago
Why do you think the Catholic Church never took off with using Eunuchs?
49
u/OMightyMartian 19d ago
Probably because they weren't common in Jewish, Greek and Roman culture at the time. Besides imposed celibacy did the job, because even if a priest had children (and they often did), those children couldn't be legitimized. Simony was an issue from time to time, and children if high ranking clergy could still get favorable treatment, but they were never a threat to the nobility or aristocracy
2
u/el-morgo 18d ago
What about the choral castrata? Were the castrata a later invention, wonder what changed their opinion on castration?
4
13
u/fiendishrabbit 19d ago
Because castration was anathema to the roman sensibilities. No roman was legally allowed to become a eunuch.
4
u/munkijunk 18d ago
The did have the castrati, choir boys castrated before puberty to prevent their voices from dropping. Last one died in 1922.
2
u/reichrunner 18d ago
As I recall that came much later in church history. And it was rather localized to parts of Italy. It's a weird thing that wasn't exactly seen elsewhere in the church
19
u/scooteristi 19d ago
That’s what I was taught in my Catholic high school. It’s was about land, church property, and inheritance.
7
7
u/Greensparow 19d ago
I always assumed that it was a factor where noble families might send the 3rd or 4th son to the priesthood. And inevitably some of those 3rd or 4th sons who were sent off because the inheritance would not have covered that many, ended up getting it all when the older ones die to famine pestilence and war. If the priest who now inherits can't have kids then the church gets it.
1
14
14
6
5
u/Throwawayunknown55 19d ago
This is what I heard also. Also, I believe uncertain parts of the world priests are allowed to marry.
https://www.ncronline.org/news/people/father-josh-married-catholic-priest-celibate-world
1
u/Sesim_Mocke 19d ago
I've heard of the conversion loophole. Thanks for the article! I didn't think there'd be as many married priests as there are.
1
u/scootmcdoo 15d ago
Marionite Catholic priests are allowed to marry I think? Small secluded sect of Catholicism from the Lebanese mountains? Judean maybe?
12
u/atreides78723 19d ago
Add on that priests have to be ritually pure to perform mass so no mass 24 hours after sex. If priests are celibate, they can do mass any time. Mass also means collection plate, therefore celibate priests mean more money coming in to the Church.
15
u/Stillcant 19d ago
Ritually pure? This is Jewish law perhaps but I don’t think it is catholic
3
u/atreides78723 19d ago
It’s less of an issue now because of celibacy, but while Christians are not required to uphold Mosaic Law, Paul definitely said that “fornication, uncleanliness, immodesty” are all sinful and to be avoided, especially in the temple. While “ritual impurity” may be a strong and incorrect term, it gets the point across that the priest shouldn’t be giving the sacraments thirty minutes after banging his wife. He shouldn’t be giving communion if you can smell his finger. Celibacy (theoretically) removes that as an issue altogether.
32
u/Accujack 19d ago
Not really part of it.
“fornication, uncleanliness, immodesty” are all sinful and to be avoided, especially in the temple"
Sex within a marriage is none of these, and would not result in ritual impurity of any kind in the church of Rome.
3
u/Bomamanylor 18d ago
While the Bible does say that, sex within marriage isn’t typically considered fornication.
7
u/Sesim_Mocke 19d ago
More mass means more money. Good insight!
4
u/CanterburyTerrier 19d ago
We should caution that it should say "appear to be celibate." We now know this policy had a devastating affect on the children and vulnerable populations of congregations in terms of sexual abuse. They weren't celibate. They only appeared to be.
13
u/history-fan61 19d ago
'Celibate' meant unmarried, not chaste...totally unrelated concepts through often confused.
6
u/Sesim_Mocke 19d ago
This is a great point. Some truly heinous things happened (and continue to happen, unfortunately). Thank you for speaking up.
-3
u/TheArcticFox44 19d ago
$$$ religions leave the influence of their originators/founders/reformers and become organized. Organization leads to burocracy and burocracies need $$$.
5
u/musicgeek420 19d ago
You would think letting them have children would help seal your religion’s existence among newer generations.
2
u/doxxocyclean 19d ago
To be fair this is exactly how the church was established.
Whether sanctioned or forbidden, The children of priests and Cardinals did in fact inherit/get raised into positions of power and the charge during the first thousand to 1500 years or so.
In addition, second or third children who might otherwise have been in a position to go to war for inheritance or be otherwise disaffected were placed into the church. In many cases, of well connected families, this gave them some degree of power and wealth that they would not otherwise have been entitled to.
1
-9
u/[deleted] 19d ago
[removed]
1
u/musicgeek420 19d ago
I completely agree. Keep them away. But maybe a history of forced celibacy and closeting of homosexuality aided in creating the current monster that is the Catholic priest. They did it to themselves.
2
u/Krakino696 19d ago
Pedophiles are pedophiles. They abuse children specifically. Has nothing to do with being gay. Two different things.
1
u/musicgeek420 18d ago
Definitely different things, not even related. But both are things that factor into this situation.
1
1
3
u/dslpharmer 19d ago
A large institution making decisions based on money and greed?? say it isn’t so!!
1
u/papabearmormont01 19d ago
This is what my (Catholic) high school church history teacher said. It came down to property and inheritance.
1
u/Tsaibatsu 16d ago
Uusally it was the second sons who got into priesthood, so they wouldn't have a lot of land...
51
u/scardeal 19d ago
I'm not a historian, but I've got a lot of domain knowledge on Catholicism...
First, some notes:
Holy Orders has 3 levels, so to speak: deacon, priest and bishop. The role of bishop has always been formally a celibate one. (Despite instances of people violating that.) Deacons can be married before ordination, but if their wife dies, they are not allowed to remarry. In the Latin rite (what we normally think of as Catholics), priests are not allowed to be married at all. There are some rare exceptions, usually of converts. Eastern Catholic (Byzantine, Ruthenian, etc.) rites usually allow married men to become priests, but not bishops. So, celibacy in the priesthood is not absolute.
In addition to the theological aspects (priest being in persona Christi, etc.), there are practical reasons as well. As others have said, property inheritance could/would get hairy at times, but that's not the only thing. Some thoughts:
Not having to worry about a family's welfare gives him more freedom to fulfill his mission as a priest. Priests minister to the sick and the dying. Some are tasked with evangelizing in hostile territory. He never has the nagging worry that if something should happen to him, what would happen to his family. COVID, especially last year, was a scary thing, and that's when having that detachment is very useful.
The other reason is that priests' schedules are full, and the time that they're often busy is the times when people often spend with their families. They're not constantly having to choose between ministry and family. They can be called at a moment's notice to minister to someone in a car accident, for example. Having to split their attention would make them a poorer priest and a poorer husband/father.
Finally, a family would not have to deal with the constant pressure/expectations that being part of a priest's family would have. In Protestant circles, there's often lots of pressure and expectations put on the minister's family. There's a well known stereotype of the PK (Preacher's Kid) being extra rebellious as a result.
19
u/skyblueandblack 19d ago
They're not constantly having to choose between ministry and family.
That's a really good point, and one that probably gets lost in the shuffle a lot of the time.
There's a well known stereotype of the PK (Preacher's Kid) being extra rebellious as a result.
My (Lutheran) pastor had twin boys my age, and it was like having Beevis and Butthead in the room during Chatechism lessons, except without anything to laugh at. He never once even tried to suggest they tone it down. Once in awhile, you get to see how a stereotype originated.
11
u/CUin1993 19d ago
Very good explanation.
Those taking holy orders, a sacrament, eschew holy matrimony, another sacrament, as they are considered “married to the church”. A husband’s and wife’s responsibility to the family unit is supposed to be paramount. A priest, monk or nun not having a spouse allows them to ensure that their responsibility to the church is paramount. For a parish priest, they are responsible for the parish’s congregation. Holy orders differ depending on if the priest (for example) is a Dominican, Paulist or part of the Order of St Benedictine. Some require poverty, others don’t. This is the way it was explained to me during years of catechism.
2
u/eccegallo 18d ago
I also speculate : priest dispense confessions. Much like a therapist this allows them to wield quite a bit of power. Preventing them to marry prevent some avenues of them abusing that power.
0
u/snek-queen 18d ago edited 18d ago
As a "PK" these are all pretty good points, but not exactly spot on.
My dad was busy a lot on Sundays and Christmas (my family now does Christmas a week before!) but was there when I got home from school. Last time he looked for a new church, he was innundated with requests - I don't know the details, but I know he's very well respected and has done good work in building a healthier church. I can't say he's the perfect dad, but he's always tried his best to be, and he's always managed a far better work/life balance than when he was working a standard Mon-Fri 9-5 (and more often a 7-7, which isn't uncommon in a lot of careers). I personally think church and family can be balanced fine, and church leaders shouldn't have to be celibate in the modern age - I could also go into it more, but then we're into philosophy and theology, and a bit beyond me!
I can't say I rebelled more than an average young adult, but I have seen it with freinds in other denominations (specifically Anglican), who really did get pressure from their parents to put on a face and be a good church kid.
37
u/Sad-Armadillo7846 19d ago
This is gonna be my answer before I do any research but for some background, I went to a Catholic school for highschool and I had asked a similar question. The teacher actually had and answer, back then priests were extremely powerful people being part of the political/socioeconomic status of the clergy. With the position priests were given certain powers, (I forget what exactly but for some reason I’m thinking like, immunity from the law, taxes, and other things. I also think for some reason he got to pick his successor). During this time a lot of priests would just choose their son to be their successor and that turned into one of the reasons.
Edit: this also led to a lot of corruption, instead of listening to the “word of God” someone was now listening to the word of his wife for some ass.
9
u/Way-Individual 19d ago
Definitely. The Theodisian Code is an example of the great power given to priests in early Christianity.
6
u/BigBim2112 19d ago
I took a medieval history course in university. The main reasons I was taught were related to nepotism. Priests favoring family in appointments, which was tied to the priesthood turning into family business instead of a calling, meaning corruption and “bad” priests. Loss of church property in the process also a major factor. The religious arguments are mostly irrelevant as most institutions use such arguments to justify decisions after they have already been made, not as an original motivation for making a decision.
5
u/purpleowlie 19d ago
Not really answer to your question but here is the time line that might be interesting.
https://www.futurechurch.org/brief-history-of-celibacy-in-catholic-church
4
u/Mike-The-Pike 19d ago
If you have a family you are obligated to provide for that family. A priest is dedicated to God and distances himself from worldy possessions. It kinda follows a priest with a family would have extra challenges with maintaining a relationship with god and keeping his family taken care of.
0
u/ThoDanII 18d ago
depend on the role of priests in society and religion
1
u/Mike-The-Pike 18d ago
The thread is pretty specific about it being a Catholic priest.
1
u/ThoDanII 18d ago
and you believe they weren´t influenced by the Jewish, persian and greek -roman priesthoods?
1
u/Mike-The-Pike 18d ago
I am believing the point of discussion is Catholic priests. Why are you attempting to distract the conversation
1
u/ThoDanII 18d ago
wasn´t my intent but i consider it could be useful looking outside the catholic church as others did
1
u/Mike-The-Pike 18d ago
But why when the subject is the Catholic church. Seems to overly complicate a very specific question.
0
5
u/latflickr 19d ago
Nepotism and service to the others. They noticed the priests who were married with kids were favouring them instead of the community. Spending money of donations on my family to let them leave in greater comfort rather than using them to feed the poor or for the community? No problem. I am a bishop and I have to nominate a new director of the monastery nearby? My youngest kid will be perfect for the role. And so on
9
u/technicolored_dreams 19d ago
This would be a great question for r/askhistorians ! They will give you well-researched, thorough answers with sources. It usually takes some time for a quality answer to turn up, but they are worth the wait! You might also search there to see if this question has been answered in the past. It's one of my very favorite subs because I always learn something new there.
3
u/ElectricMan324 19d ago
My favorite quote during a homily was "You couldn't afford me if I could get married".
After joking a little he said that the reason was that you couldn't serve two masters. If there was a family then either the parish or home life would suffer.
9
u/JimBeam823 19d ago
Most likely to keep church property with the church instead of being passed down to the priests’ children.
5
u/pthomp821 19d ago
In what way is clerical celibacy “cut and dried” in scripture?
5
u/billionthtimesacharm 18d ago
i am not a catholic historian, but i’ve always thought it stemmed from 1 corinthians 7:8-9. now to the unmarried and the widows i say: it is good for them to stay unmarried as i do. but if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
these are paul’s words. the same paul who wrote about dying to the flesh (romans 6:11 and 8:13, galatians 2:20 and 5:24). jesus talked about denying yourself and following him (luke 9:23).
so as paul frames marriage, it’s encouraged if you can’t control your sexual desires. i see this as another example of paul’s thinly veiled boasting in his faith. like, i have died to my desire and only want to serve jesus which makes me a super christian, but if you aren’t as great as i am then go ahead and get married.
so the church is saying if you want to be clergy, you better have died to your own flesh like paul, in which case you don’t burn with passion and therefore shouldn’t marry.
0
u/pthomp821 18d ago
I see. My understanding is that Paul was expecting Christ to return imminently, so he recommended-recommended, not commanded-people live a celibate life like his. Neither of the passages you quote seem to me to relate to the priestly office. Indeed, at this early stage of the church’s existence the offices of priest, bishop, deacon, prophet, teacher, etc. were extremely fluid, so rules and expectations were likely fluid too.
I would call your attention the person who wrote the letters of Timothy in the name of Paul said bishops should only be married once, so obviously that author was comfortable with married bishops, which in turn seems to refute any claim of a “cut and dried” ban on clerical marriage.
2
u/billionthtimesacharm 18d ago
i’m not saying paul is speaking to clergy; i’m saying in general paul is speaking to the fully committed christian. and who should be more fully committed than clergy? which is why i assumed (with no historicity on my side) that the church incorrectly extrapolated this passage to mean something it was never meant to. as they so often do.
3
u/JayMctheCanadian 19d ago
Good question. Maybe he means because the Bible does not give any sort of provision for clergy to practice celibacy? Instead it consistently affirms the opposite.
4
u/blonderazor 19d ago
My humanities professor in college explained that the church didn't want to be responsible for the families of priests that had passed on (their widows and children). He believed that it was a cost saving measure instead of a religious interpretation of what priests should and shouldn't do. I don't recall when this was supposed to happen.
1
u/reichrunner 18d ago
That's the first I've heard of that reasoning. The most common explanation is nepotism, followed by keeping church property within the church. I tend to doubt that taking care of a widowed wife would be a huge issue seeing as how the church already had convents (and monasterys) where they could put people who weren't actively ministering.
1
u/blonderazor 18d ago
Didn't seem like they'd been that expensive to keep, right? Unless you had lots of kids I guess 😂
2
2
u/anjouempress 18d ago
Along the with the points being made about nepotism and church offices basically becoming like secular ones, another big reason was due to the Gregorian reformists fear that sexual actions polluted the sanctity of the office, most significantly, the Eucharist. People became worried that if their priest was corrupted then that meant the Eucharist he blessed and gave out would also be corrupted, or that when carrying out his duties it would not work/taint those who were associated with that Sacrament or duty. There was a whole philosophical angsty discussion about purity and how one's purity of body affected the their actions. This was part of a broader changing of gender identities in the twelfth century that has been heavily debated by historians (including myself lol at a conference this month).
-2
u/EchoingMultiverse 19d ago
Property probably pays a role.
Additionally, the Abrahamic religions have a long history of suppression of pre-existing forms of worship. Many of these pre-existing forms of worship involved the Goddess, creator of life, the universe, and everything. From Eve, Asherah, Tiamat, and other ancient Goddesses, and continuing onwards as the religion spread beyond the ancient near east.
An aspect of many Goddess traditions was the sacredness of sexuality and procreation. Declaring sexuality to be immoral is a repudiation of these age-old traditions.
The Goddess even appears on churches throughout western and central Europe in the form of Sheela Na Gig, spreading her magical vagina wide.
Most Sheela Na Gig carvings on churches date roughly from 1000 to 1200 CE. 1139 falls squarely in this range, suggesting another round of battle against the Goddess.
1
1
u/Sally_twodicks 19d ago
I remember in college history class being told that land given by the church the priests were settling on was being inherited by the children and that the Catholic church wasn't down with it.
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
Because the church wanted to confiscate their property and have it be inherited by the church
1
u/WakeUpAlreadyDude 18d ago
In addition to the property and inheritance question, I recall a history class where we discussed the priests family. If a priest died and left behind a wife and children, there was a question of who takes care of the family.
In most cases the priests didn’t own the land of the church and the family was left without means. Having priests leaving behind poor homeless families wasn’t good for the church.
There’s also a PR angle here that makes this ideal. An organization with men dedicated to it that are celibate demonstrated that what the church offered was implicitly more important than sex or having a family. I could go on, but getting people to give up something everyone wants is a way of demonstrating power on many levels.
1
u/ckwirey 18d ago
I’m a little confused by the OP’s mention of scriptural reasons and them being cut and dry. Can somebody spell that out for me?
1
u/reichrunner 18d ago
Paul was pretty anti-sex. Bit wasn't necessarily aimed at the clergy, but in general he thought Christians shouldn't have sex.
I'm guessing OP meant that he was familiar with the church's scriptural reasoning and that there isn't a lot of debate about it, rather than because it is super obvious
1
u/ckwirey 16d ago
First, I truly appreciate your response. I’m the type of person who loves good-natured debates—and I’m genuinely interested in this topic. If you’re interested, I’ve offered a couple counter-points below (if I come like a jerk in any way—apologies—that’s not my intent):
Point 1: Was Paul anti-sex, or simply anti-sex outside of marriage? He actually counseled people to get married. And when he laid out the guidelines for elders and deacons (the nearest thing to clergy in the 1st century), it was actually expected that they be married “to just one wife”.
Point 2: I think it’s interesting that you went with Paul, given that Peter is considered the first Pope. The choice is interesting to me because you’ve chosen a select passage from Paul (which, as I read it, is simply his opinion on the matter) rather than Peter’s life as an example. It seems to me that if Catholics went with the latter, there may not be a celibacy doctrine at all, since Peter was married.
2
u/reichrunner 15d ago
So let me preface this by saying this is my interpretation and what little I can remember from a long time ago, it's definitely not any type of official dogma.
1 Corinthians 7:8-9 states that Christians should remain unmarried if they are not already so, showing a preference for celibacy. Paul only councils marriage as the lesser of two evils if the person cannot remain celibate.
As for Peter, my guess is that since he was married before becoming a Christian, it was grandfathered in so to speak. The same thing happens in modern times if someone converts but is already married.
Honestly though, I personally believe the biblical reliance on Paul was a justification, not the reason for celibacy in the priesthood. A legitimate biblical argument can be made for allowing priests to marry. But the church had a reason to not want it, so they found a reason in the bible and ran with it
2
u/ckwirey 15d ago
I solemnly swear I will not treat your words as official Catholic dogma. 😁 And also—I completely agree with your conclusion. In my opinion, i consider priestly celibacy a policy which does more harm than good. So naturally, I think it would have been better for the Catholic Church to be more flat-footed with why it made its decision. Simple policy decisions can be temporary. Reviewed. Adjusted over time. But the moment you pin it to the Bible, it’s there forever!
As for the 1 Corinthians passage, we can simply disagree. No harm, no foul. Neither of us is a scholar, and both our words amount to opinions.
That said, as I read 1 Cor 7…verses 1 & 2 look like Paul is correcting the Corinthian position that: “it is good for a man not to marry”. Paul recognizes people have passions, and thus says “each man should have his own wife; and each woman her own husband”.
Verse 6 is a preface to 7 & 8, which reads to the effect: “this is a concession—not a command”. Then he follows with what I can only presume is his opinion. I say that because he makes the distinction between commandment and opinion several times: verse 6, 10, 12, (possibly 17), 25 (…and 25 is very interesting, since he is couching his comments in “present distress”), 40.
Alrighty…I was a bit extra there. Sorry! I conclude exactly where you did—and you were spot on: “the biblical reliance on Paul was a justification.”
1
1
u/prpslydistracted 18d ago
A priest without heirs leaves their estate to the church. The Roman Catholic Church is the richest church in the world.
1
u/Helpful_James55 17d ago
You wrote: "At the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Catholic Church implemented a rule requiring all priests to remain celibate." I think it is not exactly correct. I believe that the Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate from the moment they enter the seminary, not celibate from the moment they are born. The current pope said that he had a girlfriend before entering the seminary.
-8
u/portuga1 19d ago
It reinforces the false idea that priests would be special beings, above common humans, and with a mandate from heaven. So of course they would have to pretend to be above human "weaknesses" (like having sex and procreating was a weakness, but religion isn't built on logic).
It's all about control of the masses, by pretending to be hollier than thou, because celibacy is only theoretical, no matter what religion claims to uphold it.
0
u/vfioquestions 19d ago edited 19d ago
Look up Nicholaism (also known as clerical marriage, there's also some heretical stuff under the same name). It was reformed out of the Catholic church along with the practice of simony.
Its been awhile since my late middle ages course in college, but I believed it came out of the reforms after the investiture conflict.
edit
The it's hypocritical that you had an elevated class of people preaching the ideas of marriage, monogamy, and abstinence but did not follow the rules themselves. That hypocrisy was prevented by having people remain celibate. Sure, property could have been a contributing factor but it boils down to a "walk the way you talk" scenario.
1
u/[deleted] 19d ago
That's not what nicolaism was
1
u/vfioquestions 18d ago edited 18d ago
First, there was the sin of 'nicholaism', or clerical marriage. The rule of clerical celibacy was not new, having been accepted by the Roman (though not by the Greek) Church as early as the fourth century...
I did also point out that there was another thing that was also named Nicholaism, which you may be referring to. But nicholaism was also the word to describe married clergy.
0
u/scwalton 19d ago
Prevent them from owning and passing on property. All property goes to church when priests die.
0
u/10tion2DETAIL 18d ago edited 18d ago
I thought about this for decades and the answer seems quite simple…when a man and a woman share the gift of marriage, they tend to confide in their partner; some partners are more dominant than others. It would seem, that this was the only way to preserve the sanctity of Confession. It was a Eureka Moment for me and it sure makes sense. I am agnostic, due to all the contradiction I experienced with several organized religions, in the Southern United States. Them scheming women; my son told me about his mother being a master of chess, even though she can’t play the board game. I am not the only person that received the checkmate, over the years: She owns a very desirable house in a very desired location and really hasn’t worked more than 20 hrs a week, doing pedicures and cosmetics.
0
u/MsAnnabel 18d ago edited 18d ago
Bc they weren’t to have any distractions from serving God. I guess molesting little boys wasn’t a distraction bc there was no emotional bond. Instead, they just became a money making big business which is funny bc you can’t serve God AND money. Money always corrupts.
57
u/sitquiet-donothing 19d ago
Hildebrand started to enforce celibacy as a way to raise the prestige of the church, as he saw it. It was tied to his campaign to eliminate Simony. He was in a struggle with the HRE over investiture, Hildebrand's POV was the church is higher than the state because of its God-established moral law and mission. His efforts to stem corruption after the Papacy hit nadir in the 10th century were a part of this. He believed nobody was going to respect an organization that couldn't abide by its own rules or appeared self-serving. He just got done making Henry IV walk to him barefoot in the winter because of his challenging of the church, he was going to do the same to the clergy. He issued an encyclical in 1074 devolving any subjects from clerical rule of married priests or Simoniacs. It was not well received and became a major issue over the next decades. The curia generally sided with Gregory, however the princes of the HRE were still pushing the investiture controversy so the full church eventually came down on the side of celibacy to hinder this.