Celibacy s history of power and money

National Catholic Reporter ^ | 4/12/2002 | Arthur Jones

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Perspective Celibacy’s history of power and money By ARTHUR JONES Whoa, slow down a minute on the celibacy talk and married priests. Let’s remind ourselves how the Catholic church got into the celibacy mess. It didn’t have anything to do with sex, purity and holiness. It was the money. And when one mixes money and the Catholic church, there’s usually a mess. That’s how we got a Reformation. Selling indulgences -- guarantees of time off in purgatory. If the church tried selling indulgences today it would be prosecuted under the RICO law. Indulgences were and are guarantees signed and sealed by folks in no position to deliver on the promise. Indulgences were sold by those who had invented the idea of purgatory in the first place (there is no biblical basis for purgatory). Having created this terror -- a sort of Universal Studios for the visiting soul -- the church convinced the same people they could (for a modest beneficence in cold hard cash) ameliorate the terror’s worst effects. Martin Luther, a sort of one-man medieval equivalent of the Securities and Exchange Commission (indulgences division) blew the whistle. And signaled the fate of all future whistleblowers. Obloquy, and a formal apology 400 years too late. Now celibacy. Religions have always had a place for virgins. But it customarily meant women, as in pagan Rome’s vestal virgins. Emperor Augustus, incidentally, frowned on celibacy. Celibate males weren’t allowed to inherit property. (Hold that thought from Roman law. A thousand years later it gave us today’s problems.) Then came Jesus, and then came priests. In the Jewish tradition, priests were the sons of priests -- it was a local family firm. Jesus had no trouble with that. He chose Peter, a married man, to be his first pope. The following isn’t just an aside, it’s a steppingstone to where we’re headed. There’s no evidence Jesus intended Peter to be the first ruler of an absolute monarchy. And there’s every evidence that’s what it became -- giving rise to the Catholic Lord Acton’s comment on the papacy: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” (Acton was an earnest man and a deep thinker who served the church by refusing to be bamboozled by it. Acton spoke for many of us -- he loved the church deeply, it was “dearer” to him “than life itself.”) Onward. Jesus knew about men living abstemious lives for spiritual reasons. The desert-dwelling Essenes had been around for a couple of centuries. He’d been in the desert himself. There’s every reason to think he admired their discipline -- and he certainly never condemned them the way he did the Scribes and Pharisees. St. Paul wasn’t arguing for celibacy. Admittedly, he said it was easier to be a member of a missionary group if you weren’t encumbered with a wife and children, but the CEO of many a corporation harbors the same feelings (though perhaps remains reluctant to voice them publicly). When Paul dealt with qualifications for bishops, elders and deacons, his restriction was only that they be “the husband of one wife.” By the third century, bishops were being denied the right to a second marriage. The problem for Christianity was it started to become financially prosperous. The rich, the thoughtful ones who understood that their earthly goods were barriers to heaven, were delighted to hand over chunks of wealth to the priests and bishops as a down payment on easier transmission from one place to the next. (The soul’s equivalent, the wealthy presumed, of time-sharing a jet instead of having to stand in line at a purgatorial Southwest counter.) Not only were priests and bishops becoming wealthier, they were becoming worldier. Many were married, others just had “open marriages” -- concubines. Worse than that -- in the church’s eyes -- the priests and bishops begetting sons regarded the endowments being made to the church as personal property. So the same rollicking clerics were setting themselves up as landed gentry and passing the fortunes along to their primogenitor sons and heirs. In the 11th century, five popes in a row said: “Enough already.” Then came tough Gregory VII. He overreacted. He told married priests they couldn’t say Mass, and ordered the laity not to attend Masses said by married priests and naughty priests. The obvious happened. Members of the laity soon were complaining they had nowhere to go to Mass. The edict was softened a bit to allow Mass-going. As usual, the women were blamed. Concubines were ordered scourged. Effectively though, the idea of priestly celibacy was in -- though not universally welcomed among the clerics themselves. And handing over church money to sons of priests and bishops was out. The early, reforming religious orders, Franciscans and Dominicans, were scandalized by the licentious priests. And that’s the point -- it was the concubinage scandal and money, not the marriage that was at issue. Indeed, at two 15th-century church councils, serious proposals were made to reintroduce clerical marriage. These proposals were fought back -- how modern it all seems -- by a group of ultra-orthodox church leaders (for whom marriage was probably too late a possibility anyway) because they’d come up with a better idea. They’d started to give out the impression that celibacy was of apostolic origin -- that it had been built in at the beginning. That’s power. Reinvent history. Naturally, this is all tied in with the notion of the pope as the supreme power. Like celibacy, supreme power was an 11th-century imposition, too. The same Gregory VII declared himself the supreme power over all souls and bishops and priests and people. Let’s face it, there wasn’t much people could do about it, except nod their heads. Or shake them. (To illustrate how some things never change, Gregory drafted a few ideas; his curia embellished them into a theocratic constitution. The more powerful the boss, the more powerful the minions.) And then in the 19th century, supreme power was transformed into the ultimate big stick -- infallibility. (Though at least two American bishops voted against the infallible idea, and some Europeans didn’t go along either.) So there we have it. A thousand years, a millennial mindset on celibacy and papal supremeness, created out of chaos and ordained as if it were something God had enjoined on the world. I mean it really is enough to make one ask not: WWJD? But: ITWJI? (Not: What would Jesus do? But: Is this what Jesus intended?) Enough to make one realize also that the whole issue of clerical celibacy is nothing more than a power play with incense for the smoke, as in smoke and mirrors. Arthur Jones is NCR’s editor at large. His e-mail is ajones96@aol.com National Catholic Reporter, April 12, 2002 Previous: EDITORIAL: Needed: coherent, even-handed Mideast policy Next: Special Section: Destinations Top of page

[Askel5]

men get married all the time and, most of the time, are better for it.

No doubt ... it's in the taking on of responsibilities (particularly for his children) that he is pushed to do his best and increases in maturity, wisdom and self-control but also is endowed with the very real authority and sovereignty commensurate with his taking on of responsibility.

You've always struck me as a good father and a faithful husband. While I'm very happy for you and your loved ones in that regard, I'll admit I'm also grateful you were saved from further inculcation by what passed for Catholic instruction at your seminary and relieved your posts do not carry the authority of "Father Sinkspur, Schillebeeckx fan".

[Askel5]

=)

[MudPuppy]

Hallelujah!

A new FREE tape is available from the Mary Foundation

God Bless Bud Macfarlane!

[history_matters]

God bless Bud Macfarlane indeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See post #103

[Slyfox]

National Catholic Reporter

Enough said. Wouldn't trust as Gospel anything written on that loathsome excuse for a newspaper.

[Gophack]

There are so many problems with this article I don't know where to begin.

First, there were serious problems among some in the church when Martin Luther decided to leave it. Few dispute that. However, instead of working within the church to correct the problems, Luther chose to leave the faith and make his own religion, accepting some of the doctrines and disgarding others, removing seven books of the Bible on his say.

Today, many Protestants have rejected the teachings of Luther, and therefore we have over 33,000 separate Protestant Churches with different takes and interpretations on the Bible and what God "meant" when He said something. For example, I bet many Protestants would be shocked to discover that Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary, Holy Mother of God. Today, Protestants think that it's ridiculous that we can expect that Joseph refrained from having sex with his wife. (His wife that everyone agrees gave birth to our Lord, Jesus Christ). Now, if you really believe in the immaculate conception, in the angels coming down to Mary and Joseph, in God's revelation to the shepherds and wise men the night Jesus was born, in miracles, and that Jesus died, rose for the dead and ascended into Heaven (all of which Catholics and other Christians believe with all their heart); what's so difficult about believing that Joseph and Mary didn't have sex?

Now, during our current scandals and the purification that the Church is going through, most of the Catholic faithful believe that we must stand by our Church -- because the Church is not the priests, the Church is the Church established by Christ, who gave us the Sacraments, who gave us Himself in the Holy Eucharist. Mass is about Jesus Christ dying for our sins and rising again from the dead; Mass is about hope and salvation and grace. Mass is not about one charismatic minister preaching ... Mass is, and always has been, centered and directed towards God through His son Jesus Christ.

People who leave the Church, like Luther, leave the body of Christ. They desert Jesus because of the fallen few in His ministry. Jesus Himself said that some of those who call out his name will not see the kingdom of Heaven. When there is wicked in the Church, the faithful need to root it out from within. You don't just leave and start a new religion, changing what you don't like.

This writer makes so many blanket statements as if they were fact ... like no Biblical support for purgatory. He is obviously biased, obviously doesn't not understand the Catholic faith, and I hope that anyone who reads this realizes that.

[SoothingDave]

Now, if you really believe in the immaculate conception, in the angels coming down to Mary and Joseph, in God's revelation to the shepherds and wise men the night Jesus was born, in miracles, and that Jesus died, rose for the dead and ascended into Heaven (all of which Catholics and other Christians believe with all their heart); what's so difficult about believing that Joseph and Mary didn't have sex?

I think you mean "Virgin Birth" not "Immaculate Conception." You don't find non-Catholics believing in the IC, which is wholly different.

Otherwise, right on.

SD

[Gophack]

Peter was a man, and it would have been silly for Jesus to call him "Petra" when "Petros" would be the masculine for "Petra".

First, why would Jesus rename Simon Bar-Jonah in the first place? Just because he felt like it? It was obviously something important, because He did it AND it was written in the Gospels. It was an important things.

Second, why would Jesus give Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven if he putting Peter in charge?

Mt 16:19-20
I will give you (singular) the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Why would Jesus rename Peter a "little pebble", then give him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven and the power to bind and loose?

Early church fathers -- as early as the second and third centuries -- never doubted Peter's Primacy. In Acts, the Apostles deferred to Peter, and it is obvious from numerous references that Peter was their leader.

There is an unbroken line of succession from St. Peter to Pope John Paul II. Throughout the 2,000 years since Jesus Christ came, died, and rose from the dead, no doctrine has been changed by the Catholic Church. Doctrine remains as it had been since the time of the apostles, again showing how the Holy Spirit is working.

If you would like to read a paper with many Scriptural references on Peter, please go to: The Primacy of Peter or go to Peter the Rock. I won't post them here for length. There are many more things I can show you if you are at all interested.

God bless.

[Gophack]

Thanks for pointing that out. :-)

[Gophack]

Anyway, I asked her why the gay priests were having such a tough time keeping their celibacy vows. She said that there is only one reason, they don't pray any more.

That's powerful antidotal evidence of the problems in some of our diocese.

I was pleased when at our parish, the priests interviewed the children, including my daughter, preparing to receive their First Eucharist. He asked many good questions to make sure that she knew details about the Lord's Supper, what Jesus said, and why he said it. Then he asked if she prayed. She said yes, every day at school and at dinner. He continued, talking about how many minutes there were in the day, and taking five minutes to pray to God wasn't really a lot of time, but she should do it every day.

My daughter asked me if I prayed, and I realized that all my prayers are in church or when I'm alone or, at the dinner table when we say Grace. It was an eye opener for me ... I need to set the example. So we've started praying together at night, just a short prayer now, and as my kids get older we can read more Scripture and pray on it.

[Gophack]

What we DO know is that celibacy has been a written rule for Roman Rite priests (often broken, like other rules, by sinners...) since around the year 300 AD, and the WRITTEN rule may have been long preceded by the OBSERVED rule.

I think what bugs me the most about non-Catholics who think that our celibacy rules for priests are archaic or non-scriptural or whatever is, why do they care? Is like when the Democrats talk about how if the Republicans just accepted a "woman's right to choose" they would win more elections. Since when do Republicans take advice from Democrats? Since when do Democrats offer advice so Republicans can win?

Should the Church ever change the 1700 year rules on celibacy, it should be done after long and thoughtful prayer and meditation, study, debate, analysis, and opening our hearts to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I, for one, strongly support celibacy among our priests, and I think that most priests (the ones who keep their vows) agree. Married priests would do nothing to solve the problem: active homosexuality in certain seminaries. Let's fix the problem.

[humbletheFiend]

I think what bugs me the most about non-Catholics who think that our celibacy rules for priests are archaic or non-scriptural or whatever is, why do they care?

Amen. This is a decision for Catholics to make.

[nickcarraway]

For one, check the Acts of the Apostles. The other apostles all already accepted Peter as Pope. For example, when he chose a successor to Judas, it was his decision, he didn't hold a vote.

[foghornleghorn]

No, just bringing up the issue is not "anti-Catholic", but the author's distortion and outright falsification of history borders on it. For just one instance, papal supremacy and infallibility were accepted as far back as the third century, in available records, and undoubtedly had a long history before that. These were no "late inventions", even if celibacy (a mere regulation, not a doctrine) may have been.

[foghornleghorn]

All well and good, but the "5th century" was nowhere near the "early Middle Ages".

[SteamshipTime]

In reviewing this thread, I think if the Pope were to wake up tomorrow and declare that priests should administer the Sacraments stark naked, it would cause less of a stir.

[ninenot]

You said a mouthful. Completely ignored in this whole thread is the theological reasoning. In a nutshell, the priest is an alter Christi (another Christ.) Since Christ is the model for priests, the imitation of Christ is the objective. He did not take a wife.

Lost in the dust and din following the II Vatican Council (I hasten to add that I do NOT disagree with its teachings, although a few are vague) is a large theological segment having to do with the nature of ordination (and the Mass.)

The results of the new "spin" put forth by a variety of not-orthodox Catholics (and some who are also internal enemies of the Church) have been questionable, at best.

Thank God that the efficacy of the Mass has not changed.

[sfousa]

With Catholics like this writer, who needs Protestants?

[Gophack]

I tend to get wordy when I write ... apologies.

Regarding Vatican II ... I think most people misunderstand what happened there. I know I don't understand it completely. But I do know they didn't change one iota of doctrine. Nothing changed about what Catholics believe and have believed for 2,000 years. I believe what changed were outward trappings, some good changes some bad changes, but not the faith.