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

[sinkspur]

What makes it particularly poignant is that this priest left the Church and became an Episcopalian minister specifically because he wanted to marry -- and the Church recruited him back anyway.

Interesting. That's almost as bizarre as men who left, married, divorced, and are now being welcomed back.

You can renounce your faith, or renounce your wife, and still be a Catholic priest.

[SteamshipTime]

In other words, having no logical arguments to advance, you're cutting and running, asserting after the fact that you never meant for non-Catholics to join the fray. This is a public forum frequented by all shapes and sizes. If you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

I would prefer if the Western Rite of the Catholic Church adopt the centuries-old practice of the Eastern Rite of the Catholic Church: ordain married men, but no priest may marry after ordination and reserve the episcopacy for celibates.

Are there not those in the Church that consider celibacy to be unchangeable dogma?

On another forum, I read that the Pope has declared the all-male Priesthood to be dogma and not open to discussion. Does the Pope consider the issue of celibacy to not be open to discussion as well?

P.S. I'm still in my office and have several hours of work left before I can call it a day. I'll be back to this thread later.

[beckett]

Nice column with a lot of hard truths in it. My conservative disposition, anathema to a writer for the National Catholic Reporter, can no longer excuse these 11th century conceits. Enough is enough.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

It's obvious that nothing anyone said would change your opinions about anything. So, why should anyone bother? Bye.

[SteamshipTime]

Who cares whether my opinion can be changed? Post a logical deconstruction of the author's arguments. Sinkspur's eating your lunch.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

He's got the century correct, but not the content, assuming that he's referring to the criticism of Pope Callistus by Hippolytus of Rome.

Hippolytus had many criticisms of that pope, and one of them was that the pope was allowing priests to marry.

The problem for Christianity was that it started to become financially prosperous.

In the third century ??? !!!! Bwwaahh --- Hippolytus died in 235 (or thereabouts) three score and ten BEFORE the persecution of Diocletian.

In the 11th century, five popes in a row said: “Enough already.” Then came tough Gregory VII.

Why go all the way to the 11th century without mentioning Pope st Leo the Great, who in 458 or 459, wrote to Bishop Rusticus of Narbonne (458/9):

"The law of continence is the same for the ministers of the altar, for the bishops and for the priests; when they were (still) lay people or lectors, they could freely take a wife and beget children. But once they have reached the ranks mentioned above, what had been permitted is no longer so."

I guess that the Church was so overloaded with riches after the Barbarian Invasions, that they decided to prohibit clerical marriage.

[Mike Fieschko]

Was John XXII, fondly referred to as the "whore of Avignon" and whose reputation was so sullied no one would take his papal name for the next 700 years, infallible?

[snip]

William of Occam would grab you by the ear and tell you to get thee to a Jesuit for some schooling in the trivium.

Since infallibility doesn't mean impeccability (sinlessness), what is your point about Pope John XXII ? Are you trying to prove something logically ?

[Eva]

Interesting that you would post this today. I had a long chat with a nun (while waiting for my husband's open heart surgery to be completed) about the Catholic church and the gay problem. She actually brought up the subject. 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. She said that the priests have become more businessmen than clergy men and that they no longer pray to God for guidance. She told me lots of stories to back up her premise. I basicly have to agree with her.

[Mike Fieschko]

You can renounce your faith, or renounce your wife, and still be a Catholic priest.

Sort of like Peter, who (possibly) abandoned his wife and three times ... ah, we all know the story.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

Which passing on of property, the nepotism of inherited benefices and church ministries, and the secular alliances (often military) between the nobility and the bishops, would only be valid or effective if married.

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.

They didn't have a jot or tittle to say about the evils attendant on a secular-religious alliance? Go back to your books.

[Mike Fieschko]

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.

When these grants of land were being made, they weren't grants in fee, they carried feudal obligations, including the obligation to supply one's secular lord with knights. The vassals couldn't just substitute another in their place, the lord had to consent.

It took centuries for the Church to rid Herself of these obligations, and if She had to battle the landed priestly families at the same time as She battled the nobility, my guess is that it would have taken a lot longer.

[Malcolm]

This is the TOTAL context of the chapter that the Catholic Church ERRANTLY draws their authority from:

Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" 14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" 16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

However, check this out and see who the ROCK actually is:

1 Corinthians 1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. 3 They all ate the same spiritual food 4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that ROCK was CHRIST.

Peter/Cephas means "little rock," much like Christian means "little Christ." Peter, is not "THE ROCK," but a rock. Jesus did not build his Church on a man! Plus, Jesus never specified a continual organization along the lines that Catholics maintain. Christ is the head of the Church, and always has been. The Church is certainly not the exclusive preserve of the Catholic Church, the fallible men who are running it, despite their protests to the contrary.....

[SteamshipTime]

Infallible, per Webster's, means inter alia"incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals." As I have read, admittedly not much, John XXII was suspect in both. You are drawing an extremely fine distinction by saying sinful, fallen man can be sinful in life yet infallible when promulgating doctrine. "For now we see through a glass dimly..."

As I read your posts, you argue that celibacy should be retained because popes all the way back to 500 years after the death of Christ say it should be. Well and good--a number of godly, wise men believed celibacy was correct doctrine therefore we can presume it is well grounded. This still does not address the underpinnings of the author's arguments, which are that neither St. Paul nor Christ considered celibacy a requirement for discipleship and indeed, the Church's first Pope, appointed by Christ Himself, was married. Therefore, the requirement of celibacy is a purely human policy which, in the author's opinion, should be changed.

By contrast, the response to this reasoned article (NB: I do not say correct) is a snarling denunciation that the author must be "anti-Catholic."

[afraidfortherepublic]

Was John XXII....St. Peter, who denied Christ three times, infallible?

You don't understand what the principle of "infallibility" means. The Pope is "infallible" only when he makes a grave pronouncement on a subject of faith or morals -- not in his every day actions. And "infallible" pronouncements are set apart from other writings and announced after a great deal of studying and praying. And they don't happen very often, as another poster pointed out.

[uncbob]

If you find yourself agreeing with this article as you read it, you have no idea what the Catholic Church is all about -- just like the author.

Pretty Carte Blanche or as the author world say All Powerful Statement.
You haven't refuted any of his logic

[sinkspur]

On another forum, I read that the Pope has declared the all-male Priesthood to be dogma and not open to discussion.

That is true.

Does the Pope consider the issue of celibacy to not be open to discussion as well?

The Pope doesn't want to talk about it, but celibacy for priests is not dogma, nor is it even a teaching.

[a history buff]

Many priests (privately) find the ill-informed laity who insist on "truths" the priests know not to be true to be one of the biggest dangers to the church. The avowed enemies are much easier to handle.

[uncbob]

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.

What begat what

Maybe they don't pray anymore because the entered the priesthood for the wrong reason and don't really believe the Church's teachings but found a good secure job with fringe benefits

[Mike Fieschko]

John XXII was suspect in both. You are drawing an extremely fine distinction by saying sinful, fallen man can be sinful in life yet infallible when promulgating doctrine. "For now we see through a glass dimly..."

Pope John XXII's sermonized once where he said that the faithful would not see the Beatific Vision at their particular judgments, but only at the last judgment. This opinion he changed during his pontificate. There is no evidence (that I am aware of) that John XXII intended this sermon to be a 'teaching', to which all Catholics must assent. If there's other evidence, and it's on the net or in a book, let me know.

As for someone being sinful in his life yet infallible, that's on the basis that the Holy Spirit protects the Church (not just the pope) from error.