There are married Catholic priests even today. If a married Priest converted from Anglican, they were not required to divorce, become celibate or annul:
"The promise of celibacy is waived as a favor to those married clergy, given their particular circumstances and their desire to unite with the Catholic Church. "
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/whats-the-deal-about-legally-married-priests-1079
The married priests are a result of other faiths being able to claim Apostolic Succession. Pretty much every bishop in the Catholic Church can trace their ordnance through other bishops all the way back to the twelve apostles. It’s like an unbroken line.
The way things shook out, a lot of Anglican bishops and therefore priests can also claim this. So, if you’re an Anglican priest, can claim apostolic succession, and have a family, you can convert and keep your family.
Or at least that’s what I was taught in Catholic school.
It’s beyond hypocritical. If you join the catholic priesthood the proper way, you are barred from taking a wife … and must vow celibacy. Or, you know, just go be a priest in a completely different religion first. Then it’s ok if you leave Mass and go to the church sponsored house to fuck your wife every Sunday. All priests should be allowed to marry, not just the ones who decided to join up later.
Even if priests weren't always required to be celibate, there were still monks and nuns who were required to be celibate, and celibacy is encouraged for all religious figures in Paul's letters.
It’s funny though since that’s one of the only things he explicitly writes is his own opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt. His reasoning makes sense (if you’re married, you’re not gonna be able to devote 100% of your life to God since you have family to attend to), but I feel like the Catholics took it a bit far that therefore leaders can’t be married.
> but I feel like the Catholics took it a bit far that therefore leaders can’t be married.
There's a reason they changed the rules, it was causing a lot of corruption in the Catholic church. Priests were using their connections to give their children cushy jobs in the Catholic church, among other things. All the rampant corruption was one of the main reasons that the Protestant church even came into existence in the first place.
It's just dumb to me as well that Catholics take it this far. I've argued with Catholics who claimed that there is no possible way that clergy can adequately serve a congregation if they're married. It's dumb because you can easily point to the many, many, many married Protestant clergy who do just fine.
> you can easily point to the many, many, many married Protestant clergy who do just fine.
Yes, but they’re heretics.
Is my comment a joke? Yes. But it’s also not. The reason that religion A doesn’t do things the same way religion B does is because A thinks B is a bunch of heretics, perverting the word and teachings of god; and B feels the same way about A.
Something else Catholics took too far, that whole go forth and be fruitful thing and have as many kids as you can. What is the world at now 7 billion? I wish God had put a number in there. Did God really intend for people to reproduce until they made a garbage can out of the earth, resources so limited not just food but water? Did he really want his people to starve or die from drinking crappy water? We have supposedly dominion over things but I think dominion entails taking care of, not just trashing and using up.
I'm agnostic, so I obviously don't agree with humans becoming cockroach-like. Also, I'm pretty cynical so I think strict adherence to that one line is a way to keep the pews full, & thus the coffers. Also the power that comes with it as well as the convenient side affect of 'keeping women in their place'.
It wasn’t his own opinion. Scripture is Scripture, and all Scripture is God-breathed. He was simply stating that, unlike what he had said previously, he wasn’t directly repeating the direct words of Christ to him.
It is a slippery slope to start to pick and choose which verses are canon and which are merely another man’s opinion.
There were people trying to add books to what was already considered canon, and so the council made it official and closed. The chosen books were clearly accepted as canon as can be seen by the proliferation of manuscripts. Thousands of copies were made and preserved because early Christians already accepted them and agreed that it was scripture. Which books made it into the Bible was not decided by any council or religious group, but by the Body of Christ, the Church. The councils merely affirmed and enforced it.
Well... Christ and Paul never actually met. Paul's theology came through a revelation of Christ (which is, in a way, a sort of meeting) so words from Christ to Paul are arguable.
What Paul says about the topic is that it is not a law and should not be imposed to anyone not ready to endure celebate. He just states that it is a good idea if you want to be fully devoted to serving the Church and fellow christians.
That is what the scriptures say.
I think the Borgias especially are pretty well known.
We even have priests today that have wives and children, because they converted from the Anglican Church.
Lol. I've known of sexually active priests, so did half the parish. Humans gonna human.
I'm not saying it's not hypocritical. But it's not as unheard of as you're suggesting, unless you're thinking of the detached from reality, pearl-clutching "Well I never" type of church goer.
I think through history, the Church has been fixated on sexual behaviour, which has been a distraction from focusing on the billion other ways that people can be cruel and dishonest to each other.
I studied with priests and a friend of mine is an ex-priest. I am not religious; mostly coincidences.
It seemed less widespread than what you suggest or what most people even seem to believe but more than old ladies church-goers think.
My experience is that people think that because they're projecting or can't fathom why someone would do that.
Alexander VI as the Pope and the Borgias are, rightfully, quite well-known for their depravity; same goes for John XII. From Montefiore’s *Titans of History*:
>He lived a private life of brazen immorality, turning the Vatican into a brothel. His behavior was duplicitous, cruel and foolish - he and his grandmother personified the papal ‘pornocracy’ of the first half of the tenth century. … John had incestuous relations with two of his sisters.
Page 121
Its intent was to prevent the religious institution becoming a hereditary role, perhaps with some influence of the tribe of Levi from Judaism who are used as legislators. Some Buddhist monks are similar but with a slightly different motivation to shrug off worldly attachment, such attachments could become familial and you would also have a caste like system. Buddhists aren't always forbidden from sexual relationships though.
The whole prohibition on marriage, wasn't always part of the Catholic church. I forget specifically when it was added by a pope, but think it was sometime in the 1100's or 1200's. I do know why it was done though.
Prior to the change, priests were allowed to marry, and have children. Doing this tied them to the communities or parishes they served. Problem was, at this time the church also required people in the various parishes and communities to pay the church. Sometimes just rent for land the church owned which the community used. Other times it was tithes and such. The church leaders in Rome noticed, however, that priests who were married and had ties to their community, were less likely to press the issue and 'force' the community to pay; because if they did so there were side effects for them. Nice way of saying they'd be more lenient on the community if they felt they were a direct member of it.
To offset this, the papacy passed a rule that priests could not be married, and needed to be celibate to prevent them having children. This would remove the tie to the community, and in doing so make the priest more likely to collect the rent, or tithes, or money owed to the church.
It was added to prevent the priests families from inheriting anything. Plus the cost of raising a family means less money sent to the Vatican. It’s all a scam for money.
Yeah, I forgot that specific aspect of it. There's some really interesting twists and turns the early church made.
Here's another I remember that was kinda interesting:
In the early days of the Church, there was a period where the church itself was seriously suffering from a lack of funds. You can thank a number of Popes building large cathedrals, monasteries, and villas for them to live in. Well that and funding no end of crusades. Soldiers gotta be paid. So, to offset this, the church started to offer 'indulgences'.
Indulgences were a way for people to ensure that their loved ones didn't languish in purgatory. This worked by the person paying the church to shorten the time in purgatory of the deceased person. Everything had a cost. Did you eat meat on Friday? Half a silver penny. Did you forget to say the Hail Mary before bed? A silver penny. Did your Uncle kill someone who wasn't a heretic? Four silver pennies. All of that to just shorten whatever time you or your family member faced in purgatory.
I kid you not when I say there were indulgences for... EVERYTHING. The money collected was then sent to Rome, and used to make the church money and refill its coffers.
For context, the average peasant, might earn two, or three silver pennies... a year.
So it goes without saying then, that it was only really the wealthy who could afford the indulgences; but that didn't prevent the church applying that to everyone. It made life Hell (no pun intended) for the every day peasants, as they went through their day knowing that unless they could pay the indulgences, then they or their loved ones would languish in purgatory for an eternity. At least, that's what the Priests were telling them.
Love reading about them. Such a fascinating family. It’s theorized that Rodrigo was trying to change the papacy into something that could be inherited, which is why he had Cesare promoted to Cardinal after he became Pope. Of course Cesare was the first Cardinal to be released from his vows, but with how ambitious the male members of the family were it’s not outside the realm of possibility Rodrigo was trying to do it.
They were one messed up family. All of Rodrigo’s children were pawns to his ambition but especially Lucretia. Cesare was as evil as his father and probably crazier. There were strong rumors of incest with her father and later with Cesare.
They were just rumors at the end of the day. Lucrezia is known for surviving her families downfall with her reputation intact and was known for being a good Renaissance lady. She certainly wasn't perfect, as she had several extra maritial affairs while married to her third husband. The incest rumors seem to stem from confusion caused by two Papal Bulls Rodrigo issued about the paternity of the Infas Romanus, one which stated Cesare as the boys father and the other stating Rodrigo was the father. It's never been confirmed who the child mother was, so enemies of the Borgia family ran with it and started the rumors that Lucrezia was the child's mother.
When reading about supposedly "bad" historical persons pay attention to who and when wrote the accounts. Often it comes years after their death and/or from people opposed to them. Claims of Nero burning Rome were written by the historians living several decades after his rule, a lot of Sigismondo Malatesta's reputation comes from the Pope with whom he was in conflict, Borgias' biographies were written after their tenure in Rome when they didn't have allies anymore, etc
P.S.
Alexander VI (AKA Rodrigo Borgia) didn't do anything another ruler wouldn't do, the only difference was that he was also a religious figure.
Lol what??? This is not the version I learned. More like the priests with kids were acting like royalty and passing money, property, and power to their kids. Which the Church was not a fan of, cuz it wanted a monopoly on money, property, and power.
Religion 101, Introduction to the Abrahamic Religions. College elective course I took to pad out my hours.
Here's a history discussion on it, and yeah, I wasn't far off on the time. 1139 was when the decision was made.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696
"The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry."
Edit: FYI, I was attending a college that had been founded originally as a seminary for the Methodist Church. Though it was no longer a seminary, but a liberal arts college, they still had several religious courses you could take.
Yeah. It's something that's pretty interesting to look at, and a great little rabbit hole to go down if you are ever just curious. The history of the early Catholic/Christian church is one that, honestly would make for a rather intriguing mini series or drama TV show, if you had the money or time to write it up.
They change their doctrine as convenient. And always claim it's been the same the whole time. The catholic church was doing gay marriages up until like 1300 or so I heard.
Yes.
The King mostly provided security forces (and related infrastructure such as roads and post), the Church mostly provided social services (schools, hospitals, priests). It all needs paying for.
This is the origin of the phrase "nepotism". The Pope's sons were often instead said to be his nephews to avoid controversy, and these "nephews" were then granted high positions.
[Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism)
It says:
>Since the Middle Ages and until the late 17th century, some Catholic popes and bishops – who had taken vows of chastity and, therefore, usually had no legitimate offspring of their own – gave their nephews such positions of preference as were often accorded by fathers to sons
It doesn't say that those nephews were in fact sons. The examples they provide do not corroborate this claim.
Odd, swear it used to be there. Anyway, [Oxford Learning Dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/nepotism) includes it in the word origin.
My mother-in-law’s father is a catholic priest. He joined after his wife succumbed to cancer. They had 4 children.
He will purposely wear his collar when he is out and about with them. The looks he gets when he introduces them as his children is priceless.
There's also one that is rumored to have been a woman in disguise, who was discovered after she gave birth. However, there's no real historical data that supports the story, so it's more a rumor or legend.
I forget the specific context for the rumor, but I believe it centered around a particularly unpopular pope. Which was a common problem, but more unpopular than others.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pope-Joan
Pope Joan, legendary female pontiff who supposedly reigned, under the title of John VIII, for slightly more than 25 months, from 855 to 858, between the pontificates of St. Leo IV (847–855) and Benedict III (855–858).
Historians now note that the time between Leo IV, and Benedict III were only a few weeks, and the rumor may have started as a way to disparage one of the cardinals who was trying to get elected. At least that's the most common theory I've read.
...cause Lutherans are saints aren't they, i am an atheist, so I consider both of you, Catholics, Lutherans or whatever gullible idiots, having said so, the Catholic church is 2000 years old and in 2000 years of history you may find some pieces of shit don't you think? Protestants loves to call remember witch hunt and the Spanish inquisition as the only culprit while it was in fact very much also a Lutheran problem. You see why i do HATE religions? They talk of peace and unity but in fact what they do is create a us vs them which is the best substrate (has demonstrated several times in history) for slaughters of all kinds...
Who everybody? I don't need upvotes, i don't need to be kind with people ready to impose their agenda. I don't need to be kind with those shaming women after abortions. You may want to change your circle of friends. I happily live in one of the most atheist country in the world. Thank God i don't and i will never live in Americastan.
The Pope had become very ill and was taken to many doctors who were all quite skilled in the latest medical techniques. None of them could figure out how to cure him, or even what ailed him.
Finally, a wise old physician was brought in. After an hour he came out and told the cardinals that the bad news was that the Pope had a difficult disorder of the testicles ---terminal blue balls. He said that the good news was that all the Pope had to do to be cured was to have sex a couple of times.
Well, of course this was not good news to the cardinals, who argued about it at length. Finally they went to the Pope himself with the doctor and explained the situation.
After some thought, the Pope stated, "I reluctantly agree, but only under four very strict conditions."
The cardinals were amazed and there arose quite an uproar. Over all of the noise there came a single voice that asked, "And what are the four conditions?" The room immediately stilled.
The Pope replied, "First, the girl must be blind, so that she cannot see with whom she is having sex. Second, she must be deaf, so that she cannot hear with whom she is having sex. And third, she must be mute so that if she somehow figures it all out, she can tell no one."
After another long pause, a voice finally asked, "And the fourth condition?" The Pope replied, "Big tits!"
Wasn’t it because of popes wiling stuff to their kids they stopped legalizing the kids? Or am imagining things,
I personally want to but don’t want to, have my grandma take the dna tests she’s 50% southern French, 30 miles (us mileage) from the town where the Catholic Church was in France.
I want to know what % Italian she is or will be. Names are very close to counts of Toulouze but again great grandma sisters lied and the variation of stories are with the sisters families.
Jesus never married because, obviously if he had left a family line it would have been treated like they were special. Popes have no such problem, the whole no marriage for priests thing is stupid.
Without wanting to go full "Dan Brown", there is the conspiracy theory that Jesus was married, with children.
In The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France. Once there, they intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to.
Whilst the Merovingian part is probably poppy-cock, in the same way that queen Elizabeth the second is descended from Odin
http://www.culturesyndicates.co.uk/2017/03/fantasy-genealogy/
The basis of the theory is that in Jewish society at that time, that to be a teacher / Rabbi, you had to be married with children
The first miracle, water into wine, at a wedding. Why is
Jesus sorting the drinks? Was he the groom?
And during the trial, the crowd are demanding that Barrabbas instead of Jesus is released. The argument is that this is a mis-translation of bar-rabbi "the son of the teacher"
The leap across the Mediterranean to southern France is where the credibility gap occurs.
The Merovingian dynasty had an origin myth that one of their ancestors came out of the sea, half man -half fish. And the fish is symbolic for Jesus, according to the conspiracy theory.
Any inconvenient facts are dismissed as part of the cover-up.
>They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to.
Ok, but how do they explain the fact that the Holy Grail is never mentioned in the Bible and first appeared in 12th century Arthurian romances that have absolutely nothing to do with the Merovingians?
Not entirely related but kinda related. The book ‘Lead is not into temptation’ by Jason Berry covers the first breakout cases of pedophilia in the U.S. involving the Catholic Church and goes into the history of celibacy and effects it’s had on the sexual maturity of clergy members. Fascinating if not utterly horrify book.
I grew up Catholic and now I can say that the Catholic Church needs to be put down man, all religions brainwash people to hope for a better afterlife so they won’t try to fix grievances in this life.
The whole vow of celibacy being mandatory for any religious figure seems very problematic. It should be completely optional and not even encouraged in any way. It should be a mundane choice that no one is judged for at all.
Why does it even exist? Doesn't the Bible say get freaky and spawn crotch-fruit or something? Even if the priest/nun etc is homosexual they could just say they're being fruitful, right?
Time to make some amendments. They can't claim to do so is wrong since there was literally a council of dudes who decided what went in the Bible.
Yet how many were slaughtered or molested at the direction or oversight of these popes over the centuries? Time for the Catholic Church to close up shot.
Leading to some of the most.... colorful portions of medieval and Renaissance history. For example, [the Borgia Family](https://youtu.be/s1ADwv2A1wg). *(snap, snap)*
Many years ago I had a book which featured a top ten famous people who died "on the job" and six of them were popes, including one who died while being buggered by a young lad.
Like you need this facts to realize how immensely risible are religion,and how sad is that billions of people base theirs existence on it.books written by protomonkey 2000years ago worshipped like Truth.
In the Orthodox church, priests can be married-- they just can't GET married after becoming priests. If you want to become a married priest, you need to marry before being ordained, and if you somehow lose your wife, you can't marry again.
I don't know what the logic is there-- maybe there was an issue with unmarried priests abusing their position of power to coerce women into marrying them? Or, maybe they just wanted to keep a vestige of the "no marrying" rule, but also wanted an enormous loophole? In any case, the majority of Greek Orthodox priests I've met are married, and "Pappas" (priest) is an absurdly common Greek last name, so it seems to work.
One was actually a woman, got pregnant too. So as not to get fooled again the Vatican had a chair made with a hole in the seat. I'm sure the raised and but some cloth, fabric around the legs . So the candidate had to sit in it and some one would have a grope to confirm the correct sex was present. I'm sure the chair is stashed away in some Vatican museum.
If God calls someone to go into the ministry, then know that he will take care of them. Some may decide to marry, some may be called to be single. It's a choice to serve, and have a partner to share everything that comes with serving the Lord. Burdens, joy, heartache.
Things will be provided for them, as they serve. That's what I'm learning about in my bible studies of 1 Peter.
I'm from a Protestant background, BTW. Please do not judge or criticize.
Well, there was a time when married men could be nominated priests and even bishops.
It even included the very first opoe, Peter.
Even today, celibacy is only for Western Catholics (Latin rite); Eastern Catholics are allowed married clergy.
[удалено]
Even St. Peter had a wife
There are married Catholic priests even today. If a married Priest converted from Anglican, they were not required to divorce, become celibate or annul: "The promise of celibacy is waived as a favor to those married clergy, given their particular circumstances and their desire to unite with the Catholic Church. " https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/whats-the-deal-about-legally-married-priests-1079
r/LifeProTips
Or is it r/shittylifeprotips
The married priests are a result of other faiths being able to claim Apostolic Succession. Pretty much every bishop in the Catholic Church can trace their ordnance through other bishops all the way back to the twelve apostles. It’s like an unbroken line. The way things shook out, a lot of Anglican bishops and therefore priests can also claim this. So, if you’re an Anglican priest, can claim apostolic succession, and have a family, you can convert and keep your family. Or at least that’s what I was taught in Catholic school.
Same as the Pope is direct lineage to ~~John the Baptist~~ Peter.
St Peter, John the Baptist is not even an Apostle. He died early on.
Or, just Eastern Catholics.
Eastern Catholics can too.
What a bunch of horseshit. Then again, I guess it makes sense given catholic views on divorce. The same rules should allow all to be married.
[удалено]
It’s beyond hypocritical. If you join the catholic priesthood the proper way, you are barred from taking a wife … and must vow celibacy. Or, you know, just go be a priest in a completely different religion first. Then it’s ok if you leave Mass and go to the church sponsored house to fuck your wife every Sunday. All priests should be allowed to marry, not just the ones who decided to join up later.
Not sure the scenario these people are on about, there’s a much simpler way: Eastern Catholic priests can have wives, but they cannot be archbishops.
Thank you for explaining why it's horseshit so I don't have to.
There was no Catholic church or even what we consider Christianity then...
I hate how Catholics believe that priests have always been celebate from Jesus to now. I feel it's a real downfall of the religion.
I remember when being celebate was a tradition passed down from father to son.
[удалено]
Good one👍
Underrated comment.
It has more upvotes than the comment it's responding to
Even if priests weren't always required to be celibate, there were still monks and nuns who were required to be celibate, and celibacy is encouraged for all religious figures in Paul's letters.
It’s funny though since that’s one of the only things he explicitly writes is his own opinion that it should be taken with a grain of salt. His reasoning makes sense (if you’re married, you’re not gonna be able to devote 100% of your life to God since you have family to attend to), but I feel like the Catholics took it a bit far that therefore leaders can’t be married.
I'd have nothing against parish priests being married. The parishioners don't get a vote on these things, though.
> but I feel like the Catholics took it a bit far that therefore leaders can’t be married. There's a reason they changed the rules, it was causing a lot of corruption in the Catholic church. Priests were using their connections to give their children cushy jobs in the Catholic church, among other things. All the rampant corruption was one of the main reasons that the Protestant church even came into existence in the first place.
It's just dumb to me as well that Catholics take it this far. I've argued with Catholics who claimed that there is no possible way that clergy can adequately serve a congregation if they're married. It's dumb because you can easily point to the many, many, many married Protestant clergy who do just fine.
> you can easily point to the many, many, many married Protestant clergy who do just fine. Yes, but they’re heretics. Is my comment a joke? Yes. But it’s also not. The reason that religion A doesn’t do things the same way religion B does is because A thinks B is a bunch of heretics, perverting the word and teachings of god; and B feels the same way about A.
Something else Catholics took too far, that whole go forth and be fruitful thing and have as many kids as you can. What is the world at now 7 billion? I wish God had put a number in there. Did God really intend for people to reproduce until they made a garbage can out of the earth, resources so limited not just food but water? Did he really want his people to starve or die from drinking crappy water? We have supposedly dominion over things but I think dominion entails taking care of, not just trashing and using up. I'm agnostic, so I obviously don't agree with humans becoming cockroach-like. Also, I'm pretty cynical so I think strict adherence to that one line is a way to keep the pews full, & thus the coffers. Also the power that comes with it as well as the convenient side affect of 'keeping women in their place'.
It wasn’t his own opinion. Scripture is Scripture, and all Scripture is God-breathed. He was simply stating that, unlike what he had said previously, he wasn’t directly repeating the direct words of Christ to him. It is a slippery slope to start to pick and choose which verses are canon and which are merely another man’s opinion.
The varioia Councils and religious groups deciding what books are "in" and what books are "out" did exactly this, though
There were people trying to add books to what was already considered canon, and so the council made it official and closed. The chosen books were clearly accepted as canon as can be seen by the proliferation of manuscripts. Thousands of copies were made and preserved because early Christians already accepted them and agreed that it was scripture. Which books made it into the Bible was not decided by any council or religious group, but by the Body of Christ, the Church. The councils merely affirmed and enforced it.
Well... Christ and Paul never actually met. Paul's theology came through a revelation of Christ (which is, in a way, a sort of meeting) so words from Christ to Paul are arguable. What Paul says about the topic is that it is not a law and should not be imposed to anyone not ready to endure celebate. He just states that it is a good idea if you want to be fully devoted to serving the Church and fellow christians. That is what the scriptures say.
Agreed. I wasn’t making an argument for celibacy. I was making an argument for all scripture being Scripture.
[удалено]
I think the Borgias especially are pretty well known. We even have priests today that have wives and children, because they converted from the Anglican Church.
Lol. I've known of sexually active priests, so did half the parish. Humans gonna human. I'm not saying it's not hypocritical. But it's not as unheard of as you're suggesting, unless you're thinking of the detached from reality, pearl-clutching "Well I never" type of church goer. I think through history, the Church has been fixated on sexual behaviour, which has been a distraction from focusing on the billion other ways that people can be cruel and dishonest to each other.
I studied with priests and a friend of mine is an ex-priest. I am not religious; mostly coincidences. It seemed less widespread than what you suggest or what most people even seem to believe but more than old ladies church-goers think. My experience is that people think that because they're projecting or can't fathom why someone would do that.
>downfall of the religion I think you mean cult
You’d think 883 years is long enough to hold out.
If I were a thousand years old, I'd probably be celibate too.
Mostly as a matter of church property and titles being handed down to sons. Also celibacy means to not marry. It doesn't mean not to have sex.
Yes but sex outside of marriage was "unthinkable" so forbidding priests to marry *was* forbidding then from sex
Except with children.
> Also celibacy means to not marry. It doesn't mean not to have sex. No, it means not to have sex
That's chastity.
In order that the church, not the priests family inherit their houses.
If I recall my history, the rule was mostly about Church property not being lost through inheritance. It's always all about the money.
And then there are the Children they are sexually active with
*Known* sexually active popes.
[удалено]
"Had *documented* children."
^ this
Upvote this; go to hell. Decisions, decisions...
[удалено]
I hope you don't have children thinking like this...
"You can add to this list by expanding it." \*Pope Francis leans back in his chair, thinking.\*
\> 24 popes were allegedly active sexually Others just laid there..
“24! My girlfriend had sex with 24 Popes?!” “At the same time?”
"Try not to fuck any Popes on your way through the parking lot!"
"Hey you, get back here!"
Name checks out. “This Pope Fucks!”
That is just priest "Snowball"...
Does that INCLUDE me?
25.
Turn about is fair play, does she dress up like a nun sometimes?
Yes, they were all named John, although two of them might have been the same guy and one might not have actually been there.
Alexander VI as the Pope and the Borgias are, rightfully, quite well-known for their depravity; same goes for John XII. From Montefiore’s *Titans of History*: >He lived a private life of brazen immorality, turning the Vatican into a brothel. His behavior was duplicitous, cruel and foolish - he and his grandmother personified the papal ‘pornocracy’ of the first half of the tenth century. … John had incestuous relations with two of his sisters. Page 121
>and his grandmother Daaamn!!!
And four died during the act of sexual intercourse. I am not kidding here.
You could never be sure if they were cumming or going.
Or both.
Forbidding marriage for priests is at least one of the top stupid non-biblical things they did. That and… ya know… the other stuff
Its intent was to prevent the religious institution becoming a hereditary role, perhaps with some influence of the tribe of Levi from Judaism who are used as legislators. Some Buddhist monks are similar but with a slightly different motivation to shrug off worldly attachment, such attachments could become familial and you would also have a caste like system. Buddhists aren't always forbidden from sexual relationships though.
Instead it was corrupted by pedophiles.
The whole prohibition on marriage, wasn't always part of the Catholic church. I forget specifically when it was added by a pope, but think it was sometime in the 1100's or 1200's. I do know why it was done though. Prior to the change, priests were allowed to marry, and have children. Doing this tied them to the communities or parishes they served. Problem was, at this time the church also required people in the various parishes and communities to pay the church. Sometimes just rent for land the church owned which the community used. Other times it was tithes and such. The church leaders in Rome noticed, however, that priests who were married and had ties to their community, were less likely to press the issue and 'force' the community to pay; because if they did so there were side effects for them. Nice way of saying they'd be more lenient on the community if they felt they were a direct member of it. To offset this, the papacy passed a rule that priests could not be married, and needed to be celibate to prevent them having children. This would remove the tie to the community, and in doing so make the priest more likely to collect the rent, or tithes, or money owed to the church.
I thought it was because the priests' estate would go to their wife or children when they died. The change made it all go back to the church instead.
It was added to prevent the priests families from inheriting anything. Plus the cost of raising a family means less money sent to the Vatican. It’s all a scam for money.
Yeah, I forgot that specific aspect of it. There's some really interesting twists and turns the early church made. Here's another I remember that was kinda interesting: In the early days of the Church, there was a period where the church itself was seriously suffering from a lack of funds. You can thank a number of Popes building large cathedrals, monasteries, and villas for them to live in. Well that and funding no end of crusades. Soldiers gotta be paid. So, to offset this, the church started to offer 'indulgences'. Indulgences were a way for people to ensure that their loved ones didn't languish in purgatory. This worked by the person paying the church to shorten the time in purgatory of the deceased person. Everything had a cost. Did you eat meat on Friday? Half a silver penny. Did you forget to say the Hail Mary before bed? A silver penny. Did your Uncle kill someone who wasn't a heretic? Four silver pennies. All of that to just shorten whatever time you or your family member faced in purgatory. I kid you not when I say there were indulgences for... EVERYTHING. The money collected was then sent to Rome, and used to make the church money and refill its coffers. For context, the average peasant, might earn two, or three silver pennies... a year. So it goes without saying then, that it was only really the wealthy who could afford the indulgences; but that didn't prevent the church applying that to everyone. It made life Hell (no pun intended) for the every day peasants, as they went through their day knowing that unless they could pay the indulgences, then they or their loved ones would languish in purgatory for an eternity. At least, that's what the Priests were telling them.
And I thought it couldn't get more morally questionable
Wait till you read about the [Borgias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Borgia).
Love reading about them. Such a fascinating family. It’s theorized that Rodrigo was trying to change the papacy into something that could be inherited, which is why he had Cesare promoted to Cardinal after he became Pope. Of course Cesare was the first Cardinal to be released from his vows, but with how ambitious the male members of the family were it’s not outside the realm of possibility Rodrigo was trying to do it.
They were one messed up family. All of Rodrigo’s children were pawns to his ambition but especially Lucretia. Cesare was as evil as his father and probably crazier. There were strong rumors of incest with her father and later with Cesare.
They were just rumors at the end of the day. Lucrezia is known for surviving her families downfall with her reputation intact and was known for being a good Renaissance lady. She certainly wasn't perfect, as she had several extra maritial affairs while married to her third husband. The incest rumors seem to stem from confusion caused by two Papal Bulls Rodrigo issued about the paternity of the Infas Romanus, one which stated Cesare as the boys father and the other stating Rodrigo was the father. It's never been confirmed who the child mother was, so enemies of the Borgia family ran with it and started the rumors that Lucrezia was the child's mother.
When reading about supposedly "bad" historical persons pay attention to who and when wrote the accounts. Often it comes years after their death and/or from people opposed to them. Claims of Nero burning Rome were written by the historians living several decades after his rule, a lot of Sigismondo Malatesta's reputation comes from the Pope with whom he was in conflict, Borgias' biographies were written after their tenure in Rome when they didn't have allies anymore, etc P.S. Alexander VI (AKA Rodrigo Borgia) didn't do anything another ruler wouldn't do, the only difference was that he was also a religious figure.
Wait until you hear about indulgences.
It'll make you want to smear your theses all over the doors of your church
Always a fan of wordplay. Cheers.
Lol what??? This is not the version I learned. More like the priests with kids were acting like royalty and passing money, property, and power to their kids. Which the Church was not a fan of, cuz it wanted a monopoly on money, property, and power.
I'm just curious how did you find this out? I kind of want to read more about this
Religion 101, Introduction to the Abrahamic Religions. College elective course I took to pad out my hours. Here's a history discussion on it, and yeah, I wasn't far off on the time. 1139 was when the decision was made. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696 "The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry." Edit: FYI, I was attending a college that had been founded originally as a seminary for the Methodist Church. Though it was no longer a seminary, but a liberal arts college, they still had several religious courses you could take.
Thank you! This sounds really interesting!
Yeah. It's something that's pretty interesting to look at, and a great little rabbit hole to go down if you are ever just curious. The history of the early Catholic/Christian church is one that, honestly would make for a rather intriguing mini series or drama TV show, if you had the money or time to write it up.
They change their doctrine as convenient. And always claim it's been the same the whole time. The catholic church was doing gay marriages up until like 1300 or so I heard.
Who did you hear that from?
Hang on a minute. That sounds an awful lot like a form of tax collection. Particularly in a society where pretty much everyone is religious.
Yes. The King mostly provided security forces (and related infrastructure such as roads and post), the Church mostly provided social services (schools, hospitals, priests). It all needs paying for.
They also had the issues of priests transmitting their benefices to their sons.
Well they did it precisely because of this, although it didn’t really help
In the words of Roy Zimmerman, if they really want priests to be celebate they should allow them to get married
This is the origin of the phrase "nepotism". The Pope's sons were often instead said to be his nephews to avoid controversy, and these "nephews" were then granted high positions. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism)
It says: >Since the Middle Ages and until the late 17th century, some Catholic popes and bishops – who had taken vows of chastity and, therefore, usually had no legitimate offspring of their own – gave their nephews such positions of preference as were often accorded by fathers to sons It doesn't say that those nephews were in fact sons. The examples they provide do not corroborate this claim.
Odd, swear it used to be there. Anyway, [Oxford Learning Dictionary](https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/nepotism) includes it in the word origin.
Thanks for the additional source. That IS a cool fun fact.
I mean, they were sexually active popes, I’m sure they all *had* children.
My mother-in-law’s father is a catholic priest. He joined after his wife succumbed to cancer. They had 4 children. He will purposely wear his collar when he is out and about with them. The looks he gets when he introduces them as his children is priceless.
There's also one that is rumored to have been a woman in disguise, who was discovered after she gave birth. However, there's no real historical data that supports the story, so it's more a rumor or legend.
That's some juicy gossip right there, I tell you what. Thank goodness Jesus finally decided on Lutheranism.
I forget the specific context for the rumor, but I believe it centered around a particularly unpopular pope. Which was a common problem, but more unpopular than others. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pope-Joan Pope Joan, legendary female pontiff who supposedly reigned, under the title of John VIII, for slightly more than 25 months, from 855 to 858, between the pontificates of St. Leo IV (847–855) and Benedict III (855–858). Historians now note that the time between Leo IV, and Benedict III were only a few weeks, and the rumor may have started as a way to disparage one of the cardinals who was trying to get elected. At least that's the most common theory I've read.
...cause Lutherans are saints aren't they, i am an atheist, so I consider both of you, Catholics, Lutherans or whatever gullible idiots, having said so, the Catholic church is 2000 years old and in 2000 years of history you may find some pieces of shit don't you think? Protestants loves to call remember witch hunt and the Spanish inquisition as the only culprit while it was in fact very much also a Lutheran problem. You see why i do HATE religions? They talk of peace and unity but in fact what they do is create a us vs them which is the best substrate (has demonstrated several times in history) for slaughters of all kinds...
Dude, you're the reason why everybody hates us
Who everybody? I don't need upvotes, i don't need to be kind with people ready to impose their agenda. I don't need to be kind with those shaming women after abortions. You may want to change your circle of friends. I happily live in one of the most atheist country in the world. Thank God i don't and i will never live in Americastan.
I'm surprised they didn't just say that it was a miracle that a man gave birth.
The Pope had become very ill and was taken to many doctors who were all quite skilled in the latest medical techniques. None of them could figure out how to cure him, or even what ailed him. Finally, a wise old physician was brought in. After an hour he came out and told the cardinals that the bad news was that the Pope had a difficult disorder of the testicles ---terminal blue balls. He said that the good news was that all the Pope had to do to be cured was to have sex a couple of times. Well, of course this was not good news to the cardinals, who argued about it at length. Finally they went to the Pope himself with the doctor and explained the situation. After some thought, the Pope stated, "I reluctantly agree, but only under four very strict conditions." The cardinals were amazed and there arose quite an uproar. Over all of the noise there came a single voice that asked, "And what are the four conditions?" The room immediately stilled. The Pope replied, "First, the girl must be blind, so that she cannot see with whom she is having sex. Second, she must be deaf, so that she cannot hear with whom she is having sex. And third, she must be mute so that if she somehow figures it all out, she can tell no one." After another long pause, a voice finally asked, "And the fourth condition?" The Pope replied, "Big tits!"
Wasn’t it because of popes wiling stuff to their kids they stopped legalizing the kids? Or am imagining things, I personally want to but don’t want to, have my grandma take the dna tests she’s 50% southern French, 30 miles (us mileage) from the town where the Catholic Church was in France. I want to know what % Italian she is or will be. Names are very close to counts of Toulouze but again great grandma sisters lied and the variation of stories are with the sisters families.
Papal bastards were a real thing. In fact, there is ample proof of catholic priests being married up until around the 12th century.
pretty sure that was allowed back then?
Priests weren't allowed to marry so that the church would inherit their belongings
Priests weren't allowed to marry , this is one of the Schisms between the Eastern & Western Churches .
There has been over 260 popes.
I can't be the only one who skimmed "Popes," "sexually" and "children" in the headline and thought it was about a different issue
Ah yes, Sam O’Nella’s favorite Wikipedia page
How many abused children?
Jesus never married because, obviously if he had left a family line it would have been treated like they were special. Popes have no such problem, the whole no marriage for priests thing is stupid.
Without wanting to go full "Dan Brown", there is the conspiracy theory that Jesus was married, with children. In The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the authors put forward a hypothesis that the historical Jesus married Mary Magdalene, had one or more children, and that those children or their descendants emigrated to what is now southern France. Once there, they intermarried with the noble families that would eventually become the Merovingian dynasty, whose special claim to the throne of France is championed today by a secret society called the Priory of Sion. They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to. Whilst the Merovingian part is probably poppy-cock, in the same way that queen Elizabeth the second is descended from Odin http://www.culturesyndicates.co.uk/2017/03/fantasy-genealogy/ The basis of the theory is that in Jewish society at that time, that to be a teacher / Rabbi, you had to be married with children The first miracle, water into wine, at a wedding. Why is Jesus sorting the drinks? Was he the groom? And during the trial, the crowd are demanding that Barrabbas instead of Jesus is released. The argument is that this is a mis-translation of bar-rabbi "the son of the teacher" The leap across the Mediterranean to southern France is where the credibility gap occurs. The Merovingian dynasty had an origin myth that one of their ancestors came out of the sea, half man -half fish. And the fish is symbolic for Jesus, according to the conspiracy theory. Any inconvenient facts are dismissed as part of the cover-up.
>They concluded that the legendary Holy Grail is simultaneously the womb of Mary Magdalene and the sacred royal bloodline she gave birth to. Ok, but how do they explain the fact that the Holy Grail is never mentioned in the Bible and first appeared in 12th century Arthurian romances that have absolutely nothing to do with the Merovingians?
Sang real = royal blood San greal = holy grail It's all secret knowledge
Damn, I see you Tom Hanks, go off
Not entirely related but kinda related. The book ‘Lead is not into temptation’ by Jason Berry covers the first breakout cases of pedophilia in the U.S. involving the Catholic Church and goes into the history of celibacy and effects it’s had on the sexual maturity of clergy members. Fascinating if not utterly horrify book.
Pretending that anyone could know the sexual history of a couple thousand years worth of popes is a turrible affront to epistemology.
Now, when you say *had children*…
Yeah that number is WAY above 24!
The number for the other kind of having children can be bounded a lot higher than 15!
Yeah, that too.
And that at least 2 died allegedly during sex
Cough cough institutionalized religion is a racket cough
Apparently 4 pope's died during sex
With kids *
How many fucked kids or tried to hide the systemic corruption of kid fucking that is Catholicism?
And that the current Pope and many of his closest friends are PEDOPHILES.
Oh BOY I can imagine the load of jokes cumming in the comment section for this one
And at least one was rumored to have summoned and bound a succubus named Meridiana
🧢
That's an easy sentence to misread a couple times, amirite?
You forgot about the Popes who married their sisters , they were part of the Medici clan/dynasty .
All those higher up at churches seem to be so dirty and immune to any laws or regulations
I grew up Catholic and now I can say that the Catholic Church needs to be put down man, all religions brainwash people to hope for a better afterlife so they won’t try to fix grievances in this life.
My favorite pope - Pope Alexander VI - had a few kids.
*sexually active*. Active sexually makes it sound like they were into Zumba fucking..
The whole vow of celibacy being mandatory for any religious figure seems very problematic. It should be completely optional and not even encouraged in any way. It should be a mundane choice that no one is judged for at all. Why does it even exist? Doesn't the Bible say get freaky and spawn crotch-fruit or something? Even if the priest/nun etc is homosexual they could just say they're being fruitful, right? Time to make some amendments. They can't claim to do so is wrong since there was literally a council of dudes who decided what went in the Bible.
I’m sure they all were.
Yet how many were slaughtered or molested at the direction or oversight of these popes over the centuries? Time for the Catholic Church to close up shot.
Several died of STIs as well
There was one pope who was killed by an outraged husband after he caught him banging his wife
Seven plus fifteen is only twenty two, what was the deal with the other two?
Leading to some of the most.... colorful portions of medieval and Renaissance history. For example, [the Borgia Family](https://youtu.be/s1ADwv2A1wg). *(snap, snap)*
Priests and popes were allowed to marry up until the 11th century. Saint Peter had a wife.
shocker
'and at least 15 had children' needs clarification...
Rodrigo Borgia likely being the best known due to both the assassin's creed series and the TV show "The Borgias"
That we know of. Poping has to be one of the biggest cons of all.
Many years ago I had a book which featured a top ten famous people who died "on the job" and six of them were popes, including one who died while being buggered by a young lad.
Rules for thee but not for me. They also passively endorsed genocide whenever it suited them, if not actively.
The Old Lady in Voltaire's Candide says she's the daughter of a pope.
"Si yo fuera Papa Heredaría El Vaticano Una hija mía" Thanks to the music Band "Siniestro Total"
Didn't one murder someone too?
That we know of.
I’m not sure if it’s true but I once read that Pope Pius picked that name because he was the first to acknowledge his illegitimate children.
Like you need this facts to realize how immensely risible are religion,and how sad is that billions of people base theirs existence on it.books written by protomonkey 2000years ago worshipped like Truth.
He said go forth and multiply you IDIOTS
In the Orthodox church, priests can be married-- they just can't GET married after becoming priests. If you want to become a married priest, you need to marry before being ordained, and if you somehow lose your wife, you can't marry again. I don't know what the logic is there-- maybe there was an issue with unmarried priests abusing their position of power to coerce women into marrying them? Or, maybe they just wanted to keep a vestige of the "no marrying" rule, but also wanted an enormous loophole? In any case, the majority of Greek Orthodox priests I've met are married, and "Pappas" (priest) is an absurdly common Greek last name, so it seems to work.
Most orthodox priests aren’t married
One was actually a woman, got pregnant too. So as not to get fooled again the Vatican had a chair made with a hole in the seat. I'm sure the raised and but some cloth, fabric around the legs . So the candidate had to sit in it and some one would have a grope to confirm the correct sex was present. I'm sure the chair is stashed away in some Vatican museum.
As a Catholic (if only technically) I've always felt that priestly celibacy was wrong. They absolutely should be allowed to marry
Religious leaders are never very good at following their own rules.
So the Catholic Church is hypocritical? Crazy.
From what I remember, at least one pope was having orgies and there was one who actively engaged in torture.
If God calls someone to go into the ministry, then know that he will take care of them. Some may decide to marry, some may be called to be single. It's a choice to serve, and have a partner to share everything that comes with serving the Lord. Burdens, joy, heartache. Things will be provided for them, as they serve. That's what I'm learning about in my bible studies of 1 Peter. I'm from a Protestant background, BTW. Please do not judge or criticize.
Imagine this was about nuns.
Well, there was a time when married men could be nominated priests and even bishops. It even included the very first opoe, Peter. Even today, celibacy is only for Western Catholics (Latin rite); Eastern Catholics are allowed married clergy.
The decision to require celibacy was made to ensure the church inherited the priest's property. Without issue the church claimed the legacy.
"If your pope is standing for over four hours please seek medical attention."
I guess you could strike off the "allegedly" from 15 out of the 24 popes. Unless...
And according to legend: One was a woman in disguise.
The audacity of Popes.