- Mar 8, 2006
- Reaction score
- Portland, Oregon
You do realize that the subject of discussion here is clerical celibacy, not mere celibacy per se? No one said anything about monasticism.Zenovia said:In your view then, 'monastism' is not a gift from God but merely a discipline? Where then does that leave the saints, since sanctity cannot be achieved without celibacy?Pravoslavbob said:It's really quite simple, though Rome will never admit it. It is a question of power and control. Celibate priests can be (and are) moved around at will by bishops. Think of it: if Rome had lots of married clergy, they would have to consider disruptions to family and married life before moving clergy around. Moreover, having married clergy would really disrupt the whole "men's club" structure that now exists in the Roman hierarchy. Imagine women having a direct effect on the opinions and actions of clergy and of clerics having to adapt to the idea of having women "hanging around" in areas that were hitherto the exclusive domain of a celibate male elite.dzheremi said:....What is it about Rome that makes it talk out of both sides of its mouth regarding such disciplines? Either you have your "two lungs" or you don't....
Above all else, Rome wants current power structures to remain as they are. The more married Eastern clergy are seen to be existing in North American parishes, the more worried the Roman hierarchy is that they will be called out for their hypocrisy on not permitting married Latin rite clergy, and the more threatened they will feel about the existence of a parallel hierarchy in communion with Rome but not following Roman discipline.
And Rome is fully aware that that is all that clerical celibacy is: a discipline. They know that it is not a point of doctrine at all. And yet, from time to time, one notices this or that cardinal or prelate extolling the virtues of clerical celibacy, lauding it as a "precious gift from the Lord to His Church" or some such pseudo-pious rubbish.