Question of celibacy cuts both ways

THAT old chestnut surrounding celibacy in the priesthood has emerged once more in the comments of Peter Murray Spencer (Letters, 17 March), who quotes from scripture in his contribution. He suggests that only an apologist could have any reason to respond. I am not an apologist, just interested in religious beliefs of all kinds.

There are two ways to go on this: one is the justifications that initially emerged from Tertulllian circa AD200, the Council of Elvira circa AD306, where married priests (and there were many) were forbidden to have sexual intercourse with their wives, and in the later Council of Nicea circa AD325.

There were many later clarifications and elaborations on this concept, but basically it was designed to ensure that priests were "pure" and had only spiritual matters to consider rather than have them added to with the travails of family life and so, with various degrees of success, it has remained.

These rules of celibacy also sporadically surfaced in the Gnostic and dualistic practices of the Cathars and the Bogomils. The other and related explanation is that the ruling on celibacy was a purely pragmatic decision on behalf of the Church, designed to avoid any legal issues arising should the dependents of married priests lay claim to church property or other assets.

Both explanations have their merits and both make sense, but the former seems to have greater historical relevance.

BRIAN ALLAN

Keith Street

Kincardine-on-Forth

Jim Carson (Letters, 13 March) claims that priestly celibacy is to blame for the abuse of children. If a priest cannot cope with celibacy he might have an affair with a woman but he will not abuse a child unless he is perverted by nature.

After all, many married men are paedophiles. Their first victims are usually their own children or grandchildren. Also, many married men are adulterers.

MARY BELL

Gourlaybank

Haddington