The difficulty is that we don't actually have a fact set for the COGA, since we can't observe it directly. So people are substituting observations of the various Christian churches, and since for most people that means the Western churches...
It is assumed, since Himself hasn't actually explained his model TTBOMK, that the dynastic structure of the COGA is an extrapolation of what seems to have been happening in the Roman Church before the 10th-century crack-down on celibacy. [it can be noted, BTW, that the nepotism lasted a very long time - the office of Cardinal Nephew was abolished very late in the 18th century, although it wasn't invariably occupied by a nephew of the Pope] How accurate the extrapolation [or the assumption, for that matter] being made is, is an open question, actually. AFAIK, the Eastern Churches, which have maintained a married priesthood, haven't faced any significant problems with nepotism or 'family churches', so it doesn't seem to be an inevitable consequence. However, my guess it that that is in large part due to the power that the monasteries have retained in those churches: it appears that bishops and patriarchs are much more likely to come from the monastic, and therefore celibate, clergy. The governing structure of the COGA, as originally constituted, doesn't really correspond to anything in the Christian churches. As it actually developed, OTOH, it bears a considerable resemblance to the Roman Church in combination with the Italian nobility, as they operated from roughly the 12th to the 18th centuries, although with the balance tilted towards the religious side as the ultimate source of power and patronage. While the Orders are powerful in the COGA, they aren't primarily monastic; monasticism seems in fact to be an incidental, and doesn't assume the importance it has historically held for Christianity. Whether the profound corruption of the COGA can be attributed to that, of course, is something to be debated. Personally I would hold that the fault lies at the foundation itself.
Larry wrote:Since we're going to talk about my Church (Roman Catholic) and celibacy allow me to point you to the churches own arguments in support of it.
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articl ... priesthoodhttp://www.catholic.com/tracts/celibacy ... priesthoodThis will at least give you the theological basis for the churchs position.
This article on the History News Network may cover some of the sociological reason for the change.
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/696And finally my own two cents. I remember reading somewhere, and I can't find a reference so perhaps I should be suspicious of my memory, that one of the contributing factors was that the church needed to cleanse itself of what were becoming family dynasties in control of various diocese or even regions. Dad the Bishop would help his sons the priests to work their way up the internal church structure. Since inevitably higher rank churchman were often related to the political powers of Europe it was getting a bit nasty when the Universal church started looking more like an organ of the various national powers. Eliminating married priests meant the nepotism stopped. Maybe not immediately, but over time.
SO celibate priests were a way of cleaning up the priesthood. As I said though, I can't recall my source, so that's not as authoritative a view as I'd like.
In any case, shall we get back to the Church of God Awaiting and the Church of Charis as our fact set? The theological arguments regarding the doctrine, policy, tradition, and canon law of the RC Church could well overwhelm this board and flood out the inter-wibble. We've been refining our positions and logic for 2000 years, so the best way to describe most of it gets to be "it's complicated."
Larry