For a history of clerical celibacy (no wife) and continence (living with a wife, but abstaining from sex) have a look at this document: Priestly celibacy in patristics and in the history of the Church

He goes on to discuss several writers who observe that a a church blessing for marriage was only required of priests. For example (quoting Korbinian Ritzer);

“Indeed, the most learned authority on the subject argued forcefully that for the first thousand years Christianity required nuptial blessings only for priests; for the laity, an ecclesiastical ceremony was an honour, only permitted to those being married (to their own class) for the first time. ”

If priests getting married were required to do so in church, surely that can be taken that some were indeed getting married after ordination.

This was very difficult to get accepted. In at least the Swedish (Sweden/Finland) and Icelandic Church Provinces it could never be enforced. Mandatory Celibacy was to contrary to the customs of all lands.

Inheritance was on a more basic level than the Diocese. Diocese were often the priviliege of the local Princely families, but not inhereted, the way local Parishes and later Canonicates were.

Separately, there appears to be confusion regarding Latin Rite Roman priests and celibacy. There are two types of Latin Rite Roman priests; diocesan and religious. Only priests in religious orders make a vow of celibacy. The rules by which diocesan priests live require celibacy, but they do not make a vow of celibacy.

There is an old, confluence of Gnostic, Manichean and patriarchal bias in the Catholic tradition against women and sex. If the tradition is in error in some things, then it is our responsibility to correct it, to act in charity, and serve justice, rather than serve rules.

This is a matter of discernment, not simply a legalistic, juridical matter of stare decisis among canon lawyers.

Sorry I can’t add to the academic, canon law discussion. There is something to be said for the Orthodox adage that theology is best done on one’s knees.

Quite heavy handed, but it seems to have worked after a fashion. However, it doesn’t explain the 500 year success of the Lutheran, Anglican and Reformed traditions who have not had dynasty problems with their married priests and bishops. So, maybe it wasn’t such a good idea in the first place?

God Bless,
Pastor Dan

There are a few cases in which a presbyter in my tradition lost his wife, either through death or divorce, and then married a member of the church he was serving.

I think this was in bad taste. I’m not sure how faithfully you can serve a community pastorally while “on the prowl.” Not to mention the strange dynamics with the new pastor’s wife. Perhaps this could be a reason for the rule?

In the Orthodox Church there is a tradition of obstaining from sex before the celebration of liturgy. We often joke that is why we do not have daily liturgy. I am sure this is found in some liturgical book but I cannot lay my hands on it right now.

There is some evidence that in the Oriental Church one can marry after ordination to deacon but before priest and in some cases priests have been allowed to remarry if their wife dies and he has small children.

There was never any word as far as I know in the Catholic Church of not having sex before partaking of sacraments, which would have been considered probably quite ridiculous as it’s in the bible to “go and multiply”. There was a time that we could not eat anything for 24 hours before receiving Communion but that became 1 hour and nowadays, not sure if anyone really remembers. Well, there you have it, my thoughts on the matter, for what they are worth.

Our ancient laws (14th century) stipulate about the inheritance of Bishops…

In the 1430es there was even a Bishop divorced and remarried (severally). In Åbo Diocese, however, continental mores seem to have manifested themselves in that various Bishops (all nephews and Uncles) required monies to “dispensate” Priests’ marriages…

In 1537 (?) the first Lutheran Arch-Bishop Laurentius Petri Nericius ordered Priests to make Spouses of their Wives…

But that doesn’t answer the question: was there a distinction in the earliest church between ordination after marriage or before it? I have no hard answers, but I will share two observations from my reading.

First, although I have often come across the observation of the rule applying to the Eastern Church, I have never seen even a mention of it for the West. This would seem to suggest that there was no such rule.

Second,in the very earliest church, there cannot have been a ban on marriage after ordination, for the simple reason that there was no practice of formal ordination. The institution of the priesthood as a distinct class within the church did not evolve until some time after deacons, bishops and finally presbyters – who became the priests, I think in about the 4th C.
On the other hand, I have never seen any reference to when the distinction of the order began in the Eastern Church – and in the very earliest years, there was not the sharp contrast between East and West that emerged after the division of the Empire.

The question intrigues me. I have a strong interest in the whole question of compulsory celibacy. If I learn anything in my further reading, I will let you know.,