11
$\begingroup$

How can catholic doctrine justify celibacy if the world has a co-creator? is currently on hold as primarily opinion-based, with a comment saying it's unclear. What needs to happen for this question to be reopened?

The question is based on the Catholic church's requirement for celibacy. A comment points out that orthodox churches have no such requirement. It sounds like the OP is assuming Roman Catholic, and if so that should be edited in.

But that could have been handled by a helpful edit (it does seem pretty clear that that's what the OP meant), so maybe there's something else wrong? This is Worldbuilding, so the fact that in our world the church doesn't acknowledge other gods isn't a problem -- the OP wants to have dual gods and retain the celibacy requirement for priests. What's wrong with that?

$\endgroup$
10
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ For what it’s worth, I don’t think that it should be closed, either. It’s definitely Answerable since the whole reason why the RCC introduced priestly celibacy had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with secular issues, so changing the religious doctrine shouldn’t affect that. $\endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Aug 18, 2019 at 22:11
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @nick012000 --- The query is definitely answerable. The issue is simply that it is not at all answerable at the present time! It needs some very serious editing for it to be properly answerable. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Aug 19, 2019 at 1:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @elemtilas I disagree. It’s eminently answerable right now, without any edits at all. $\endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Aug 19, 2019 at 5:03
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm the author of the comment. My comment was not about Orthodox churches. In brief: the One, Holy and Apostolic Catholic church does not have a celibacy requirement for the clergy. The Catholic church is made up of several so-called "particular" churches, of which the Roman church is but one. The Greek Catholic churches are just as Catholic as the Roman Catholic church; there are places in the world where the vast majority of Catholics belong to one of the Byzantine-rite churches, just as there are places in the world where most Catholics follow the Roman rite. $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Aug 19, 2019 at 14:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks @AlexP. I didn't know that, e.g. "Greek Catholic" was a thing, so when you mentioned Greek etc I thought you were referring to the orthodox churches (which, IIUC, consider themselves to be the original line, with RC being an offshoot). If the question says Roman Catholic is that sufficiently specific, or are there still variations there that the OP needs to address? $\endgroup$
    – Monica Cellio
    Aug 19, 2019 at 14:26
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The major point remains that, as @elemtilas said, the querent seems to be clueless about what doctrine is. The celibacy requirement is just canon law; it was introduced by an Ecumenic Council, and another Council can remove it. In recent times, its scope was reduced; originally, all Roman-rite Catholic clergy were required to be not married ("virgin" was never a requirement, as widowers were always acceptable), but nowadays married men are allowed to be ordained as deacons. ("Greek Catholic" is just an umbrella term for those Catholic particular churches which use the Byzantine rite.) $\endgroup$
    – AlexP
    Aug 19, 2019 at 14:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ My understanding of the intended question is: > I've got an alternate world in which one of the many 'the world has a > co-creating god' heresies managed to get adopted into mainstream > Catholicism. [Possible clarification here of exactly which heresy, or which one > is the closest, with any variations.] > > If this organization also wanted to keep priests > celibate, what sorts of justifications might they employ? I'm almost interested enough to try posting this as my own standalone question, but I'm not sure if that's the sort of approach that I should be using in this SE. $\endgroup$
    – Roger
    Aug 19, 2019 at 15:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, Byzantine Catholics -- yes, I've heard of them. This is the danger of commenting without caffeine. :-) $\endgroup$
    – Monica Cellio
    Aug 19, 2019 at 15:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why is the catholic doctrine question.... not at a site where theologians discuss theology. $\endgroup$
    – Mazura
    Aug 30, 2019 at 21:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Mazura for the same reason that the anatomy-of-mermaids questions aren't on Biology, the planet-design questions aren't on Astronomy, the human-survivability-in-X questions aren't on Medical Sciences, and the plants-on-different-types-of-planets questions aren't on the Great Outdoors. $\endgroup$
    – Monica Cellio
    Aug 30, 2019 at 21:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

Naturally it's "opinion based". As I'm fond of saying, 12 out of 10 questions in this forum are opinion based!

That is not why I voted to close.

The rationale for closing as being unclear is that I am not certain the OP understands what "Catholic doctrine" is or what it implies. Very few people are actually aware what the Catholic Church actually teaches on these matters (some are ignorant some are insulting).

The comment in question was I think you may not quite understand what "Catholic doctrine" actually is; therefore it's unclear what you're actually asking. Which kind of Catholic are you talking about (for starters)? Which the OP has partially addressed by specifying the rite in question (Roman rather than, e.g. Maronite or Byzantine).

At present, I remain uncertain if the OP means Roman Catholic priests here in the real world or Roman Catholic priests there in the fictional world. Same goes for the doctrines of the Church: are they the doctrines of here or of there?

Furthermore, the rationales (here) for celibacy (among Roman Rite priests) is not to avoid "distraction". There are Roman Catholic priests who are married; there are non-Roman Catholic priests who are married.

The OP needs to at the very least study and understand actual Roman Catholic doctrine before editing this question. Once these issues are cleared up, then we can look at the question of why would Catholic priests in this fictional world be expected to be celibate at all and perhaps also the question of whether Ashera~Yahweh are understood to be a married couple, are they understood to be gendered Beings (I don't know about Judiasm, but in Christianity God is understood to be without the concept of sex and gender, as those are phenomena of created beings).

When all of these issues are straightened out, I'll be happy to vote to reopen! Until then, the OP, as I said, doesn't know what he's talking about, and is just going to run himself into trouble.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for explaining your position. It seems clear to me that the OP means "my world is like ours except for this change", and is asking about how to maintain priestly celibacy rules in a world that has dual gods. Clarifying the type of Catholic is important, and it appears the OP misunderstands the reason for the rule. (So do some Catholics; I remember asking a priest about it as a teen and he said he was married to the church and couldn't divide his attention. Whether that was dumbed down for a kid, his reason but not the church's reason, or something else, I don't know.) $\endgroup$
    – Monica Cellio
    Aug 19, 2019 at 1:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @MonicaCellio the "my world is like ours except for this change" seems to also need an "alternate-history" or "alternate-reality" tag (I would say reality but its somewhat unclear with the question in its current state) $\endgroup$
    – LinkBerest
    Aug 19, 2019 at 1:51
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @elemitilas Is that really why you voted to close? It’s obvious that he was talking about a hypothetical alternate universe; this is the Worldbuilding StackExchange, after all. $\endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Aug 19, 2019 at 1:53
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The problem is that the justification for celibacy in that alternative universe wouldn't have to be any different from the justification in this one, @nick. The problem they're trying to solve is based on a misunderstanding of our Roman Catholic theology, not an alternative one. It's akin to asking, "in this world, there is no atmosphere - how can I keep people from just floating off into space?" $\endgroup$
    – Shog9
    Aug 19, 2019 at 2:00
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Shog9 Yes. Like I said, it’s eminently answerable and does not need editing. $\endgroup$
    – nick012000
    Aug 19, 2019 at 5:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @nick012000 Were we faced with the question "in my world, you can burn diamonds with a really hot flame (3000°C). Since diamonds can be burned, how would this change jewellery in my world" - then the responses are A) we don't use diamond in jewellery for its resistance to flame, and B) with a stream of pure oxygen, diamond already burns at under 1000°C. As the underlying premise is flawed, the question should be closed, but possibly as "Unclear What You are Asking", rather than "Primarily Opinion Based" (Since "Insufficient Research" isn't an available reason on WorldBuilding...) $\endgroup$
    – Chronocidal
    Aug 19, 2019 at 15:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Chronocidal "Insufficient research", or more precisely "does not show research effort", is very much a reason to vote on Worldbuilding SE. It's one of the canonical question downvote reasons. Also, I would argue that the underlying premise of a question being flawed isn't a reason to close in any case. Rather, if someone wants to take a stab at it, it's an opportunity to enlighten someone. A few sites in the network have "this can be answered by standard reference works" as a close reason, but we don't, and I can't imagine what those reference works would even be if we did... $\endgroup$
    – user
    Aug 19, 2019 at 15:54
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure your expectations are wholly reasonable in this situation. That someone does some research is certainly reasonable. That said, from past experience I know you are quite knowledgeable in this subject area but keep in mind not everyone else is, and expecting them to have your level, or a greater level of knowledge kind of defeats the point of the site. I'd offer that maybe consider your expectations are higher on this subject matter than they may be elsewhere...? $\endgroup$
    – James
    Aug 19, 2019 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .