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

[saradippity]

I hope you will pursue the Church teachings on celibacy and perhaps read the new testament yourself. This article,while it does show why so many Catholics are so woefully misinformed,is drivel.The fact that it was published in a purportedly Catholic newspaper is a clear indication of the contention of many that there is a church within the Church,that is gnawing away at the structure for the distinct purpose of collapsing it. If the USCCB was anything other than an oppurtunity for bishops to go on r&r and schmooze and booze they would take steps to put this propaganda machine out of business.Although given the way they have addressed or non-addressed the present scandal,they probably subsidize the NCR.

[saradippity]

Pardon me, but why in the world would priests who find the ill informed laity,who want Truths, which they know are not true, stay in the priesthood? Obviously they are oppurtunistic,hypocritical,lying dirt-bags.Perhaps they do not believe what the Church teaches,all they have to do is leave,like Martin Luther did. At least he had integrity,although at the end,in his lucid moments he did see the error of a lot of his ways.

Anyway the next time you talk to one of your many priest friends ask them if they don't find it hard to live and be sustained by lies. I really think they would enhance their self esteem if they left,and lived an "authentic" life.

[saradippity]

The only thing we know about Peter's marital status is that at one time he was married. We know this because he had a mother-in-law. For all the talk it is quite possible his wife died before Jesus chose him. I had a mother-in-law 20 years after my husband died.

[It's me]

...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"...

Here, Here! I'll second that! and a very big AMEN! :)

[a history buff]

You completely misunderstood my posting. What concerns them are members of the laity, who, not knowing or understanding the complete history of some ideas, so insist on their implementation in an extreme form, that it becomes an embarassment. An extreme example would be the Italian peasantry who began an armed revolt when, during the Counter-reformation, restrictions were placed on the excessive veneration of saints. Every religious group, bar none, has some teachings that go down better with grains of salt. In the Catholic church, people without such discernment are said to be trying to be "more Catholic than the Pope."

For the record, I have yet to meet any priest, who in his own way, however flawed, is not trying to do the best he can for the Church. Disgusted as I am, I think that the recent problems are the result of bishops being overwhelmed, and not having the guts to make unpleasant decisions. Enron's auditors are among the many who could sing a similar tune.

[a history buff]

see # 68.

[sobieski]

NCR has pushed its agenda for married priests throughout the scandal. But as a extreme left wing publication, it has yet to touch the fact that this is a homosexuality question, not a celibacy question. Allowing married priests won't change the behavior of gays.

[heyheyhey]

With Catholics like this writer, who needs Protestants?

All Protestant Christians are actually more "Catholic" than this anti-Christian NCR mob.

[saradippity]

Sorry I misunderstood,if I did. A large number of priests I have been exposed to lately are haughty and speak of truth as relative and subject to change and personal interpretation.Since you are a history buff and since so many of the deconstructionists use "Jesus Seminar" techniques based on the historical Jesus,and there,find almost nothing to be Truth,I made an assumption that may have been incorrect.

Just last week I heard the Eucharistic Prayer changed to incorporate a "community in communion with one another" as the primary reason for our Sunday celebration. I frequently hear of the miracles Jesus performed as not miracles at all but just a way of getting people to share. When the abbot of the shrine of of Our Lady of Guadalupe made some remarks questioning the truth of the events,many Anglo priests here jumped at that and were oh,so concerned about how to tell these simple Hispanic believers that their favorite event probably did not occur. It was pathetic to listen to the priests feigned concern over this. They could hardly contain their glee. I guess I was conditioned to respond to your remark from my experience with priests who consider themselves "prophets".

Well,if you run into those kinds of priest tell them to do the honest thing and leave. They should preach the truth as they see it from someone else's pulpit.

[sfousa]

All Protestant Christians are actually more "Catholic" than this anti-Christian NCR mob

True, when it comes to biblical precepts.

But when it comes to history and development of such precepts, most protestants I encounter sound exactly like this article. They seemed bent on undermining the Church! Why don't these NCR mob just go away and join the protestants?

Notice that in this article, they have no mention at all of the Lord's reference to the "eunuchs for the kingdom" Mt 9:12 but instead, simplemindedly reduced the celibacy evangelican counsel to a matter of money.

How sad that NCR even considers itself Catholic!

[a history buff]

Deconstruction can go far too far. But excessive rigidity can also be very problematic.

[sfousa]

To: SteamshipTime

That it is a human policy is true.

Celibacy is not a "purely human policy" but an evangelical counsel, based on the Bible.

"Not all can accept this teaching; but those to whom it is given...There are eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let him accept it who can." Mt: 19:12

Presumably, those who enter the priesthood think they can, and therefore they accept it. Those who cannot accept this requirement of the Church should not enter the priesthood.

And that's ALL RIGHT. There have been plenty of married Cathoic people have been proclaiming Jesus Christ for generations. And married protestant ministers have also been doing such great job - really great jobs - preaching the Gospel.

But this article misses the point when it says it's all about money. How pathetic!

[sfousa]

Ooops, the typo - sorry! That should be MATTHEW Chapter 19, verse 12.

God bless.

[Mike Fieschko]

Celibacy is not a "purely human policy" but an evangelical counsel, based on the Bible.

Thank you for the distinction.

[connectthedots]

Bump for later reading.

[ejo]

In reply to #29 ....It is true that years ago( without divulging my age) one always noticed the priests using the breviary which contained daily offices and prayers. There were designated hours one spent in prayer. Has this been discontinued by our clergy? And if so, then perphaps it should once again become the hallmark of their day.

[Eva]

The Nun that I was speaking to, gave me an example of a conference that she attended recently in Van Couver, BC, she said that after the speaker was finished and the question and answer period was over, there was time for prayer and devotions. None of the priests attended, they all went to play golf instead.

[GenXFreedomFighter]

How sad that NCR even considers itself Catholic!

And the New York Times considers itself a fair, unbiased, objective newspaper committed to reporting the truth. Go figure!

[foghornleghorn]

I don't get the point. Look, we have several cross currents at work here. First, there is the issue of true pedophelia, sexual activity with young girls/boys before puberty. This is a separate clinical issue. Then we have the problem of homosexuals in the priesthood, and their seeming inability to keep their pants up around teenage boys. This is a behaviorial issue. Both these kinds of people are relatively evenly dispersed in society, and will show up in other religions, in schools, in other institutions. But the two kinds need to be dealt with differently. Of course, any priest (or other person in a position of trust) that sexually accosts a minor of any age should be terminated and immediately reported to the authorities. It is a civil crime, as well as a sin. Now, having said that, the Church is in the business of forgiveness. Not civil forgiveness, but spiritual. These men still have to pay the civil penalty. Many church leaders in the past have given far too much leeway to these men, in the name of "compassion" and forgiveness. this can no onger be tolerated.

But in the process of addressing this, how do we prevent hysteria from taking over, like happened in the McMartin madness, the "pedophiles under the bed" frenzy that gripped many communities several years ago? Most of those allegations proved totally bogus. Several innocent lives were ruined. How do we protect good priests from the disgruntled, the anti-Catholic bigot, and the mentally disturbed? How do we dispassionately review allegations? Remember, men who enter the priesthood essentially give up everything for God, and all they have left are their reputations. It would be a terrible injustice to allow them to be smeared with such ugly charges without a reasonable chace at fair review.

Then there is the issue of recent, or ongoing acts versus those that happened many years ago. It appears that many acts occurred during the "let it all hang out" era of the sixties and seventies. Many of these persons have subsequently repented, or grown up, and now are straight and narrow. Should they be punished for a 30 year old act? If there still is criminal liability, yes. But if not? I don't know. They should probably be kept from minors to be safe, but can they contribute positively in other ways? I would hope so.

Like so may things in life, it's not that there is no right or wrong, but that there are so many subdivisions in which right and wrong have to be determined. I hope that when the bishops meet later in Texas they will carefully consider all the ramifications of this scandal, and that the spirit will be with them in their decisions.