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

[uncbob]

That will come as a suprise to many buddhist traditions that've been practising celibacy for quite some time now.

So they say
Maybe they have their own skeletons

[Mike Fieschko]

Peter/Cephas means "little rock,"

The exact translation of the Aramaic 'kepha' into Greek translates the Aramaic into 'petras', a feminine noun, inappropriate for an adult married male. I wonder if any womynchurch folks try to use the feminine form to argue for priestesses.

'Kepha' in Aramaic does not mean 'little rock'. The little vs. large distinction is introduced when the text is translated from Aramaic into Greek. At that point we have to chose between 'petras' (feminine) and 'petros' (masculine, 'small rock').

[Mike Fieschko]

Therefore, the requirement of celibacy is a purely human policy which, in the author's opinion, should be changed.

That it is a human policy is true. That it is this newspaper editor's opinion is also true.

I don't have a paper with a nationwide circulation, but the guy's a layman (I'm assuming), so his opinion and mine carry equal weight with the hierarchy.

If I used sneering, mocking, snide, etc. remarks in broadcasting my thoughts to my readership, I'd be speaking volumes about what I considered their intellectual abilities.

[Aliska]

The article must have been ghost written by Dave Hunt. ;-).

[SoothingDave]

Tugger, you're not imagining things. This should serve as a warning to any serious Catholic who still reads this rag of a "Catholic" newspaper.

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).

This guy here doubts two elements of the Catholic faith, and broadcasts this to his allegedly Catholic audience. He not only denies Purgatory, he also denies that the Church's Magisterium was given the power to bind and loose.

In short, this man is not a Catholic.

SD

[Mike Fieschko]

This should serve as a warning to any serious Catholic who still reads this rag of a "Catholic" newspaper.

This just in, Jack Chick to draw a weekly cartoon for 'National Catholic Reporter'.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Thanks for posting that rebuttal, Mike. I get so sick of hearing the twisted logic and mental gymnastics of those who deny the clear, plain sense of scripture regarding Peter being the Rock, or even John 6:53 for that matter, that I hardly even bother rebutting it any more. Scripture is clear. Peter is the Rock. Christ built a Church, gave it the keys, gave it authority to lose and bind and forgive men's sins in His name. Early Christians understood this, even if the reformers and their heirs reject it.

[Malcolm]

Rebut it all you want, or not at all. The Rock is Christ. If you don't accept it, that's not the last word on it.....

[LadyDoc]

The NCREporter is the catholic equivalent of the National Enquirer. Except the National Enquirer has to check it's facts first.

Celibacy in those who seek holiness is not limited to Catholics. The tradition is ancient in the Eastern church, where married men can become priests but priests cannot marry, and where bishops come from the unmarried clergy.

Hindu holy men do not marry, nor do most Buddist monks, for example. Gandhi, for example, was married but became celibate later in his life when he decided to become a holy man. Indeed, one legal reason for divorce in India is if one's husband leaves to become a holy man.

Many "mystery" cults that predate Christianity encouraged celibacy (mainly in the East.).

Some of this is due to the "gnostic" influence, which feels that bodily functions including sex, are evil, and only the spirit is good. Christianity rejected that idea, but some influence remained. And, of course, what Paul said stays true today: That a married man or woman has to use much of their time pleasing the spouse, but an unmarried person can do the Lord's work full time.

[Mike Fieschko]

Thanks for posting that rebuttal, Mike.

Kind of providential that today's first reading is Acts 8:26-40, where

'Philip ran up and heard him [the Ethiopian] reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?"'

Whereupon Philip began to instruct him.

And the second reading is St John 6:44-51, where Our Lord says

'I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world.'

[sinkspur]

In short, this man is not a Catholic.

What is the biblical basis for purgatory?

Purgatory was defined by Catholic Tradition, which makes it binding on Catholics to believe. But you won't find anything about it in Scripture.

And belief or non-belief in indulgences is indicative of nothing. I would wager half of today's Catholics don't know anything about them, except for Luther's railing against the selling of them, nor have 95% of Catholics tried to obtain an indulgence.

Are these folks not Catholic either?

[Mike Fieschko]

Rebut it all you want, or not at all. The Rock is Christ. If you don't accept it, that's not the last word on it.....

Far from me to go against Our Lord's very (in the sense of truthful) words handed down to us by St Matthew (16:18).

[sinkspur]

Celibacy in those who seek holiness is not limited to Catholics.

So I suppose we married schmucks are just out of luck when it comes to holiness?

Monks used to flagellate themselves too, in the name of holiness.

John Paul II has done more to counter the continuing influence of gnosticism in the Church than any Pope in history.

[Catholicguy]

Actually, the article is a farrago of modernistic claptrap and ghastly "scholarship" festooned with typical liberal griping.

The definitive text is "The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" by Christian Cochini. Please read the book before biting on the bitter bait trolled by those adrift from the barque of Peter. The NCR promotes authentic Catholicism as well as the Sierra Club promotes authentic care of the environment

Christian Cichini's book is packed with evidence and real actual Documents. Documents such as the Decretal written by Pope Siricius prior to 400 A.D. In this text, the Pope reminds ALL priests of their DUTY of perpetual continence (celibacy). He reasons the O.T. priests had the requirement to spend their year in the Temple without sexual congress with their wives. The N.T. priests do not sacrifice for just one year. They sacrificed daily; ergo, perpetual celibacy.

Cochini's scholarship is called remarkable. Henri Cardinal de Lubac; "This work is of first importance. It is the result of serious and extensive research. There is nothing even remotely comparable to this work in this whole 20th century"

I have owned my book for YEARS. Buy it yourself and quit the perfidy and ignorance of the NCR

[sinkspur]

Documents such as the Decretal written by Pope Siricius prior to 400 A.D. In this text, the Pope reminds ALL priests of their DUTY of perpetual continence (celibacy.

Siricius' Decretal was obviously not the final word on the matter, as Gregory VII had to reaffirm it more forcefully 700 years later by invalidating the marriages of ordained priests.

[Mike Fieschko]

What is the biblical basis for purgatory?

When Christ descended to the dead and preached the gospel (1 Peter 3:18-20, the Apostle's Creed), if those souls were in Hell, what was the point? If they weren't in Hell, 'where' were they?

[Mike Fieschko]

Siricius' Decretal was obviously not the final word on the matter, as Gregory VII had to reaffirm it more forcefully 700 years later by invalidating the marriages of ordained priests.

You are right to point out that over time, we humans become lax and disobedient. We need to persevere.

[Malcolm]

Not to be contrary, but Jesus did not commission the "Catholic" Church. Like I said, if you don't accept that, it's certainly not the last word on it. Why don't you read Fox's Book of Martyrs. It's an excellent demonstration of Catholicism. Not that "protestants" are innocent, but we don't claim that our church is the exclusive church either. I'm not a Catholic hater, just a truth lover, and I say again, Jesus did not commission the Catholic Church. Read into Scripture whatever comfirms what you already believe, but I will never believe that I have to be a Catholic to be saved or to be approved. It's Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, not infallible Popes, Cardinals, and their "Church" that decide that, and that I am truly thankful for.....