Talk:Clerical marriage

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region#cite ref-11|Synod of Bishops for the Pan-Amazon region]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Actually, Thomas Muentzer and some others married before Luther. Renke

What the?

Why does "Nicolaitism" link here? I read somewhere else that Nicolaitism is an obscure doctrine denounced in the Revelations section of the Bible--it didn't say anything about clerical marriage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.95.23.122 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Nicolaitism would be very helpful to be mentioned here, and its related issue of German feudalism concerning land ownership which forced the western church into clerical celibacy in the first place. Also helpful would be a mention of the canons of Nicea which allow clergy to be married, as well as other ancient canons which require bishops to be celibate. 69.74.234.178 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Sarah[reply]

Clerogamy

I have seen the term clerogamy used in a disparaging way by critics of clerical marriage. (Cf WP-FR[1]) It is a strange term, somewhat akin to monogamy or polygamy, but is has nevertheless been used by opponents of clerical marriage within the Latin Church in the past, and especialy during the medieval era. ADM (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical gay marriage

I'm not sure it is really notable on the page, but there have been some unusual cases of clerical marriages that are also gay marriages, such as this one in an Anglican church ceremony. [2] ADM (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better definition

Let's clarify the distinction between men who are already ordained priests, getting married - as opposed to married men becoming priests. That is, let's distinguish between the state of marriage (i.e., leading a married life) and the act of getting married (i.e., wedding).

Also, does this apply to women, or is it "understood" that the issue only affects male priests because it's common knowledge that the churches in question don't ordain women? As for clerical gay marriage, I'm not sure which (major?) churches have gay clergy; I thought the issue related only to those churches which prefer clergy to be:

ordained
celibate
men

Anyone want to help with this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodox

Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox exclude this practice for their priests, while accepting already married men for ordination to priesthood. I don't know much about the Oriental Orthodox, but the Eastern Orthodox (at least the Romanian one, but I think it goes for others too) has two kinds of priests:

married clergy - 'clerul căsătorit' ('clerul secular', sau 'de mir'), that cannot become (the process is called "hirotonisire") a priest unless he is married before (and it's the case for most of the priests) and

monastery clergy - 'clerul monahal', that can only be a priest if he never gets married (this is available for priests in monasteries and for the clerical upper hierarchy positions)^[1]^[2] So most of the (Romanian) Orthodox priests are married except for those in monasteries and some that have certain positions such as patriarch, bishop. Călușaru' (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Most Eastern Orthodox priests are married

Churches such as the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox exclude this practice for their priests, while accepting already married men for ordination to priesthood. I don't know much about the Oriental Orthodox, but the Eastern Orthodox (at least the Romanian one, but I think it goes for others too) has two kinds of priests:

married clergy - 'clerul căsătorit' ('clerul secular', sau 'de mir'), that cannot become (the process is called "hirotonisire") a priest unless he is married before (and it's the case for most of the priests) and
monastery clergy - 'clerul monahal', that can only be a priest if he never gets married (this is available for priests in monasteries and for the clerical upper hierarchy positions)^[1]^[2] So most of the (Romanian) Orthodox priests are married except for those in monasteries and some that have certain positions such as patriarch, bishop. Călușaru' (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the double post, my browser was blocked. Călușaru' (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"This practice" meant clergy marrying after ordination. The married clergy of these churches are those who married before ordination, when they were still laymen. I have now specified in the article what is meant by "this practice". Esoglou (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Esoglou. But I have to say, we should include Eastern Orhtodox amongst the ones who admit marriage for priests (Protestantism, Judaism, Anglicanism, Independent Catholic Churches). It's not that they just admit that, but it's obligatory for priests who are not monks. It's OK to say that they exclude ordination after marriage, but the Eastern Orthodox should also feature amongst those who admit clerical marriage. What do you think? Călușaru' (talk) 12:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As indicated in its opening words, this article is about clergy marrying, not about married laymen becoming clergy (as happens even in the Catholic and Orthodox churches), nor about requiring a preceding marriage (when still a layman, not yet a cleric) as a condition for ordination to some particular category of clergy (as you say is obligatory in the Romanian Orthodox Church). In the Orthodox and Catholic churches, under the present discipline (which some, especially, it seems, within the Romanian Orthodox Church, wish to change), members even of that particular category of clergy, from the moment that they are ordained, are not allowed to marry, even if their wife dies. Protestants and the like allow their clergy to marry, in some cases to marry more than once; Eastern and Oriental Orthodox do not.

To satisfy you, I have added to the article the phrase "even requiring a previous marriage as a condition for ordination in some categories of clergy". This needs to be backed up by some reliable source, not just by your unsupported affirmation that it is so. Can you cite some reliable source that actually says that in the Romanian Orthodox Church ordination of married men for service as parish clergy is not only the practice (nobody denies that, and the article already states: "Eastern parish clergy are usually married"), but that a previous marriage is actually an obligatory requirement for ordination as a parish priest, as I understand you to say? If you cannot, someone may demand a supporting citation and, if none is found, the addition will then have to be removed. Indeed, if within a reasonable time no such citation is provided, I may find it necessary to undo my own addition. Esoglou (talk) 19:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't have to satisfy me. I'm not a religious person. And I'm not 100% sure that this article is about priests getting married or not, but also about priests being married or having to be married in order to become priests. I just read the introduction of the article and it didn't seem to be very clear about the Eastern (or rather Romanian, because I only assume it's the same in other East-European countries) Orthodox priests and marriage. You are right about my unsupported affirmation even if I have two cousins who are priests and my family name means Deacon (Diaconu) :P , but I can't find anything in English... Ah, here's something to read The last paragraph is pretty clear about that: "Orthodoxy sees marriage as the normative state. Unmarried priests usually live in monasteries since it is there that the unmarried state is the norm" Călușaru' (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that it's not that the Romanian Orthodox wishes to change, they are more conservative than the Catholics or the Protestants. It's been like that for centuries. Călușaru' (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation, which states that unmarried priests are sometimes assigned to parishes, making clear that exceptions are permitted. I have rewritten the final sentence of the lead in light of it. Let me know what you think of the rewriting.

It is a long time since I read that the then Romanian Patriarch proposed a revision of the rule concerning remarriage of widowed clergy. I can no longer cite the (perhaps mistaken) source. The Holy Synod of the Church of Greece responded to the suggestion by saying it was for the planned Pan-Orthodox Synod to discuss a question of this kind. Esoglou (talk) 09:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe an unmarried priest can be assigned to a parish only in exceptional cases (missionary or something similar). I don't know anything about the revision proposal you mentioned, but I can ask this person here if you formulate some simple and clear questions that I could translate and ask him. Or you can ask him yourself, he seems to know French and English. But keep in mind to speak to him politely because he really is the person in that picture. Călușaru' (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Regarding the exceptional cases, the cited source that you provided is enough for Wikipedia. The proposed change of discipline is not mentioned in the article and need not be pursued. Esoglou (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for clearing things up in the introduction of the article. Cheers! Călușaru' (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

First picture

The picture seen at the top of the page is misleading, as it features a cleric from a church which does not permit clerical marriage. 8bitW (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Similarly, a lot of the material in this article is not related to the topic as specified in the intro. Such material should probably be moved to the article on Clerical celibacy. --Bistropha (talk) 02:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Clerical marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a large ammount of Eastern Catholic content

I saw this edit. I make no judgment on whether it is right to remove this content, but thought it was worth mentioning on the talk page, so that those in the know can discuss it. Yaris678 (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.crestinortodox.ro/carti-ortodoxe/noul-statut-bor/numirea-personalului-bisericesc-parohii-81292.html

[2] (Romanian)

[3] ttp://www.crestinortodox.ro/carti-ortodoxe/noul-statut-bor/numirea-personalului-bisericesc-parohii-81292.html

[4] (Romanian)

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]