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

[Rum Tum Tugger]

The author of this article proves that one does not have to be a non-Catholic to be anti-Catholic.

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.

[SteamshipTime]

The author asserts that neither Jesus nor the apostle Paul considered celibacy to be a requisite for discipleship, and until Gregory VII, after the Church had already existed with married priests for over 1,000 years, no one else did either. Thus, celibacy appears to be a purely human gloss on St. Paul's teachings that can be rescinded for any rational reason. The debate then shifts to the purely human realm of whether there are valid reasons to retain celibacy or not. You insist that merely by provoking this rational debate, the author is anti-Catholic. I don't see how that follows from this article.

[poetknowit]

Sounds like ENRON II: Destruction by self.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

During the course of the article, the author slams Catholic teaching on many subjects other than celibacy. For example, he questions whether Christ founded his Church on Peter -- a direct attack on the very foundation of the Church. He also attacks Papal infallibility. I'd say that's anti-Catholic. I suspect you agree with the author though.

[fporretto]

Actually, in its historical citations, the article is right on target.

The Church maintained much temporal power through the early Middle Ages, including the power to tax and a system of courts with as much power of life and death as any court in history. As a secular nobility arose in Europe following the collapse of the Roman Empire, clashes occurred between these two networks of temporal power. Those clashes were lessened most effectively by the renunciation, by the holders of benefices and bishoprics, of the privilege of engendering families that could inherit their positions and accumulations. Apparently the secular nobles felt that clerics who had no dynastic aspirations could be trusted better to wield the temporal powers they claimed. Over time, this became uniform Church policy. But as late as the 5th Century, it was noncontroversial for priests to marry and beget.

Christ never said anything about celibacy as a requirement for the priesthood. But then, He never spoke of a priesthood in the first place. It's the way the Church chose to organize itself; its celibacy requirement is a personnel policy, rather than an absolute graven into stone like the Ten Commandments. As an example, there are a handful of married Catholic priests even today. They were ordained Catholic, left the Church for an Anglican or Episcopalian ministry, and were then "recruited back" into the Roman order, and allowed to keep their wives and families. Therefore, even the Holy See does not regard priestly celibacy as a Divine requirement. Whether it's the policy of the Church is, of course, solely for the Holy See to determine.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Brian Kopp DPM]

CATHOLIC WATCHDOG GROUP CALLS ON U.S. CARDINALS TO AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHING WHILE IN ROME

Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. | April 17, 2002 | Stephen G. Brady

Posted on 4/17/02 5:17 PM Eastern by Dr. Brian Kopp

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1 PM EDT, April 17, 2002

CATHOLIC WATCHDOG GROUP CALLS ON U.S. CARDINALS TO AFFIRM CHURCH TEACHING WHILE IN ROME

An international group of faithful Roman Catholics has contacted Vatican prelates and all active U.S. cardinals and asked them to publicly affirm the Church's 1961 pronouncement against admitting homosexuals or pedophiles to the priesthood.

Stephen G. Brady, the president of Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF) issued a statement on Wednesday that was directed to 8 active U.S. cardinals as well as a number of additional American and Vatican prelates. The American cardinals include Roger Mahony of Los Angeles, Francis George of Chicago, Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., William Keeler of Baltimore, Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia, Edward Egan of New York City, Adam Maida of Detroit, and the currently embattled Bernard Law of Boston. They will be traveling to Rome next week with National Conference of Catholic Bishops president Bishop Wilton Gregory and others at the summons of the Holy Father. They will be participating in closed-door meetings with Vatican representatives to address the scandal and damage the Church in America is undergoing due to an increasing number of sexual abuse cases coming to light. A number of prelates have been accused of protecting abusive priests and moving them to other areas, where they have repeated their predatory acts with new victims. An overwhelming number of offenses have involved homosexual acts.

"As a measure of their sincerity in addressing this horrible crisis inflicting so much damage on the souls of the innocent," Brady charged, "we challenge each and every one of these princes of the Church to sign a statement agreeing they will follow the direction of a letter issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome." Brady is asking each prelate to affirm the following declaration: "I, ________ Cardinal ________, hereby agree to follow the direction of the letter issued by the Sacred Congregation for Religious in Rome in 1961, which states: 'Those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination'". The Church directive has never been rescinded and is still officially in force.

"If a cardinal is not willing to sign this document," Brady stated, "then there is no point in his traveling to Rome. Moreover, if he travels to Rome and doesn't sign it, I wish he'd do us a favor and just stay there."

Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc. (RCF) is a not-for-profit lay organization, with many religious members, dedicated to promoting orthodox Catholic teaching and fighting heterodoxy and corruption within the Catholic hierarchy.

ROMAN CATHOLIC FAITHFUL, INC.
P.O. Box 109
Petersburg, IL 62675
Phone 217-632-5920
Fax 217-632-7054
Web www.rcf.org

Press Release

Contact: Stephen G. Brady
Phone: (217) 632-5920

---

[ Report Abuse | Bookmark Discussion ]

---

From NRO Online The Corner:

BEST NEWS I'VE HEARD ALL DAY: [Rod Dreher] Michael Rose, author of Goodbye, Good Men, the blockbuster expose of homosexuality and heresy in American seminaries, e-mails to say he just filled an order from a Polish monsignor in the Vatican, who ordered four copies and promised to do his best to get a copy into the Holy Father's hands before the pontiff meets next week with the American cardinals. You go, Monsignor! If John Paul reads only chapter four, "The Gay Subculture," he will meet the cardinals with fire blazing in his eyes. In other good news, Regnery Publishing has bought rights to Goodbye, Good Men, which is now out only in paperback, and will be rushing a hardcover edition into stores next month. Regnery's involvement means this extremely important book will get huge distribution and exposure. Posted 1:50 PM | [Link]

1 posted on 4/17/02 5:17 PM Eastern by Dr. Brian Kopp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Great news.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

QED

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Great news.

[sinkspur]

For example, he questions whether Christ founded his Church on Peter -- a direct attack on the very foundation of the Church.

He doesn't. He questions the idea of the papacy as a monarchy, which the Pope was; for centuries he headed a civil state. Did Jesus intend for the Pope to head a state?

Vatican II wrestled with the place of the Pope and came up with the term collegiality, with the Pope as first among equals.

He also attacks Papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary were defined infallibly, but had been held by Catholics for nearly 2000 years. So, these definitions were a bit redundant.

The third time it has been used was in 1870, when the dogma of Papal infallibility itself was defined.

Popes themselves are reluctant to invoke it; Paul VI specifically crossed out the word "infallible" in Humanae Vitae, and John Paul II has not formally defined anything infallibly either.

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.

I do find myself agreeing with the author's historical perspective of celibacy because, in fact, it is correct.

[sinkspur]

They were ordained Catholic, left the Church for an Anglican or Episcopalian ministry, and were then "recruited back" into the Roman order, and allowed to keep their wives and families.

Actually, they weren't. They were ordained as Episcopalians or even Lutherans originally, left those denominations, and were welcomed into the Catholic priesthood. There are about 100 of them in the United States.

There are Catholic priests who left the priesthood in the 70's or 80's, married, fathered children (in some cases), and divorced, and are now being accepted back into the priesthood. They are NOT allowed to bring their families, as they are not married validly in the eyes of the Church.

[Malcolm]

I have enough of an "idea" to stay away from it. Not being a Catholic doesn't mean being an anti-Christian.....

[fporretto]

Well, Sink, I have to demur on that, because I know one personally. I shan't mention his name or parish, since all the action is in the past by several decades, and he'd rather not become a focus of controversy again. Granted that it hasn't happened much; still, it has happened. 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.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[Alberta's Child]

There’s no evidence Jesus intended Peter to be the first ruler of an absolute monarchy.

To paraphrase Jesus Christ:

"I declare, Simon, that you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and it will last until the end of time."

If that isn't the establishment of an absolute, monarchical form of church "government," then I don't know what it is. In specifically elevating ONE of his closest disciples (and not his "favorite" one in a personal sense) above the other twelve, Jesus established a monarchy, not a senate.

[SteamshipTime]

he questions whether Christ founded his Church on Peter
No he doesn't. He says Christ chose Peter as his first Pope but didn't intend him to be the ruler of an absolute monarchy. Many theologians agree that Christ did not intend the Church to play any part in secular government.

He also attacks Papal infallibility. I'd say that's anti-Catholic.
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? Was St. Peter, who denied Christ three times, infallible? Again, this is a doctrine which was promulgated by men 1900 years into the Church's history. The Church has had theological debates over such issues throughout its existence. Just because someone differs with you doesn't make them "anti-Catholic" any more than the debate over the poverty of Christ rendered either of the opposing sides "anti-Catholic."

I suspect you agree with the author though.
So what? That is only an assertion ad hominem and not a valid deconstruction of the arguments presented.

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

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Well, I certainly have a different take on this article than you. While it is on the face a discussion of celibacy and does contain some facts, it seems clear to me that the article is intended to be an attack on Church doctrine in as many ways as the author could fit into a brief article.

He doesn't. He questions the idea of the papacy as a monarchy, which the Pope was; for centuries he headed a civil state. Did Jesus intend for the Pope to head a state?

From the early days the Church used the monarchical form for its organization structure. Whether the Pope is a head of state has nothing to do with it. According to Church teachings, Jesus did intend the Pope to be the head of his Church. Given that the normal form of organization structure at the time of Jesus was the monarchy, it's a safe bet Jesus had a monarchy in mind. Also, it's hard to refute that the organization structure of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is a triune monarchy.

I read the author's intent to be an attack on the foundation of the Church by attacking its organizational structure.

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: the dogmas of the Assumption and Immaculate Conception of Mary were defined infallibly, but had been held by Catholics for nearly 2000 years. So, these definitions were a bit redundant.

I'm not sure how your comments about Papal infallibility are relevant. However, I had the impression that when the concept of Papal infallibility became dogma, it was intended to apply retroactively to past Papal dogmatic proclamations. It has been my understanding, however, that confusion arises because the Church has not specifically declared which past proclamations are infallible.

I do find myself agreeing with the author's historical perspective of celibacy because, in fact, it is correct.

One of the oldest tricks in the book is to throw some facts with which a reader will agree into what is in essence a diatribe.

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would I be correct in recalling that on other threads, you have supported the end of celibacy?

[sinkspur]

I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would I be correct in recalling that on other threads, you have supported the end of celibacy?

No. I don't want to end celibacy.

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.

[sinkspur]

Given that the normal form of organization structure at the time of Jesus was the monarchy, it's a safe bet Jesus had a monarchy in mind.

How would you know what was in Jesus' mind? He never defined the structure of what is now Holy Orders. He allowed the Church to do that. There were no priests among the apostles; in fact, they didn't even call themselves "bishops." And there was constant conflict among the apostles as to who had how much authority. That even involved Peter, though no one challenged him as the "Head." Organizationally, the Church could constitute itself differently, as long as the Pope remained at the spiritual center of the episcopacy, as the first among equals.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

You seem to be missing my point in posting this article.

I posted this article for Catholics. I wanted to hear from them as to whether this article was as anti-Catholic as it appears to me.

I realized when I posted it though, that good people like you (non-Catholics) would not be able to resist using it as you are using it.

When I said that I suspect that you agree with the author, it was a subtle attempt to refer you to my opening comments in the hope that you would get the hint and step aside.

I certainly did not intend the thread to become a discussion of Catholic beliefs between Catholics and non-Catholics. So, if you would respect my intent, I would like to end our exchange.

[Rum Tum Tugger]

How would you know what was in Jesus' mind? He never defined the structure of what is now Holy Orders. He allowed the Church to do that.

Well, if Jesus allowed the Church to define its organizational structure, if the Church chose the monarchical form, and if the Church is guided by Jesus, do you think Jesus would have had some other form in mind?