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

[LadyDoc]

Holiness in married couples is different.

Married couples seek the holiness of daily life (doing small things for love of God, for example, a married lady who cooks and uses that action as a prayer. See "the little way" of St Theresa).

however, some are called to a different holiness, that of seeking God alone. This is why many religions have hermits, or holy men in forests, or groups of holy men who learn to seek God via prayer and silence.

The Biblical verse for this is where Martha is doing all the work and Mary is sitting just listening to Jesus. Martha complained, but was told that Mary sought the better thing and it would not be taken from her. Cathoics interpret this as those who sacrifice family life in order to seek God have a special calling and should not be criticized by more practical people.

[Malcolm]

Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says: "I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church. . . ." Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is. The misuse of this verse has led people to wrongly believe that the church was built on St. Peter, who was supposed to have been "the visible head of the church" and the first Pope. Most importantly, such a belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has led to a wrong idea of how one finds salvation.

Thank G-d for the resources of the Internet to "rebut" these people, and that with authority......

[Mike Fieschko]

Why don't you read Fox's Book of Martyrs

Do you agree with his praise of the Emperor Constantine, in chapters two and three?

[heyheyhey]

Purgatory was defined by Catholic Tradition... but you won't find anything about it in Scripture.

I was right!
You have been reading the NCR again!
Such a true Bible Christian, like yourself!?

Here is a purgatorial selection especially for you to ponder upon (it took Google 0.15 seconds to find :-)

[Mike Fieschko]

Regarding Mt. 16:18, the Amplified Bible says: "I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church. . . ." Peter is "a large piece of rock," but the church is built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar"! Peter is also masculine gender and not feminine gender as petra is.

You're agreeing with me.

Our Lord said Simon Bar-Jonah was 'Rock' (giving Simon a new name), not 'Lady Rock' or 'Miss Rock'. The distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' doesn't exist in the Aramaic: the same word is used in both instances.

You're using the accident of a foreign language translation (Aramaic to Greek), and the limits of that new language, to interpret Our Lord's words.

[heyheyhey]

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

But the whole NCR mob IS in fact non-Catholic, and yes, very much anti-Catholic.
It's worth repeating what I wrote the other time,

There is nothing "Catholic" about the NCR. Right under their big title they stick a little "Independent Weekly."
NCR has a history of being adverse to the Church authority and teachings. Every new pronouncement from the Vatican is instantly attacked and ridiculed by the NCR mob. They are promoters of homosexual clergy, married clergy, priestesses, and of anything contrary to the Catholic doctrine.

[BlessedBeGod]

Free Republic Prayers for Priests

[BlessedBeGod]

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times: t

Papal infallibility is exercised every time the Holy Father says it is, which is frequently, with encyclicals, etc.

It is also exercised every time the Holy Father declares someone a saint.

[BlessedBeGod]

Corrected version:

Papal infallibility has been exercised three times...

Papal infallibility is exercised every time the Holy Father says it is, which is frequently, with encyclicals, etc.

It is also exercised every time the Holy Father declares someone a saint.

[sinkspur]

Papal infallibility is exercised every time the Holy Father says it is, which is frequently, with encyclicals, etc.

You and I have been through this before. What you say is simply not true. Invoking papal infallibility has occurred three times. If you wish to pretend that it occurs like the rising of the sun, then you are free to believe that.

Catholics are not required, under pain of sin and loss of their immortal souls, that particular people are saints.

[BlessedBeGod]

You and I have been through this before. What you say is simply not true. Invoking papal infallibility has occurred three times. If you wish to pretend that it occurs like the rising of the sun, then you are free to believe that.

I already proved to you on another thread that the Holy Father declared that only men could be ordained priests infallibly. The fact that you refuse to believe infallible pronouncements have been made outside of your three examples is a problem you have with the faith, not me.

Catholics are not required, under pain of sin and loss of their immortal souls, that particular people are saints.

True, but they are still declared so infallibly, which is without error.

[Mike Fieschko]

Invoking papal infallibility has occurred three times.

You're right that there are only three instances where a dogma has been 'defined' (a technical term).

There are other types of infallibility, which may be the cause of this disagreement.

The motu proprio Ad tuendam fidem and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's Commentary on the motu proprio, discuss the different types.

[Rule of Law]

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 don't think he questions whether Christ founded his Church on Peter. He is just saying that he does not believe that Christ intended that Peter (or the Pope) become an absolute monarch.

As for attacking the Pope's infallibility, you're right. That makes him a Protestant because the Infallibility of the Pope in matters of religion is an article of faith in the Catholic Church. You can't pick and choose. You have to buy the entire package.

That's one reason I'm a Protestant. Catholic doctrine has changed over the years. That means that either the current Pope is wrong about a matter of religion or a former Pope was -- since I don't believe that God is changing His mind. Therefore, I cannot believe in the infallibility of the Pope. It is a logical impossiblity.

As for the rest, I really don't care if Catholic priests are celibate. There's no scriptural basis for the requirement, but it's your religion. You can do what you want and there is a great deal to be said for tradition.

I will point out that I do not believe that the media attacks are really about allowing priests to marry. That's just phase 1. Next it will be allowing priests to be openly homosexual. That's the real agenda.

[ninenot]

OK and thanks for the post. Anyone who pays ANY attention to the ranting in the Mational (anti-)Catholic )(rag/)Reporter is nuts. Even The Wanderer presents more facts--albeit they are also somewhat selective.

NCR has, for years, been the mouthpiece for a number of disaffected Bishops, priests, and laymen who STILL don't understand that the Church is not 'American' in any way, shape, fashion, or form.

Even some respondents on this page seem to ignore the fact that the Church is a SPIRITUAL body whose Head is Christ--and Peter is His representative on earth.

Even though some Peters were not, ah, well-bred, NONE of them has EVER contradicted doctrine or dogma--the REAL business of the Church.

Christ certainly did not establish a secular state--nor did He care much, likely, that the Church became one. Eventually, the Church figured it out and bailed out on most of its territories.

Now the Church has a postage-stamp inside of Rome.

So what?

[ninenot]

You state that Peter was married. If you wish to argue that "Peter was married" then you MUST argue that he continued sexual relations. You can't: you don't know. NONE of us know with moral certainty that Peter and his wife engaged in sexual relations AFTER his appointment as the Head of the Church on earth.

NONE of us know the bed-time practices of the other Apostles.

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.

Parallel: the Assumption was 'observed' by the Faithful LONG before the proclamation was made in the early 1950's.

[ninenot]

celibacy for priests is not dogma, nor is it even a teaching.

Sinky, it is at least a discipline.

One could also argue that insofar as it is a VERY long-standing tradition, affirmed in writing around 300 AD, that it has the force of permanent law.

Seems that many of the posters on this thread have forgotten about Tradition, which is fully ONE-HALF of the 'Scripture and Tradition' foundation of Church teaching and law.

[history_matters]

This is the sort of piece that any CINO would love or any Catholic deeply infected by the spirit of Schillebeecx, Kung and lesser antiluminaries like Rosemary Radford Ruether and Mary Daly.

We can always depend on the AmChurch and NCR to pick up where the anti-Catholics bigots leave off. I take this time to thank God for all who have worked to save the Church over the last years of struggle - God bless Fr. Joseph Fessio, SJ, Mother Angelica, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, Archbishop Chaput, Fr. Benedict Groeschel, CFR, Fr. Andrew Apostoli, CFR, Johnette Benkovic, Fr. Ed Sylvia, the staff of Catholic Answers, Bud Macfarlane, Jr., Michael O'Brien, and ...

[sinkspur]

One could also argue that insofar as it is a VERY long-standing tradition, affirmed in writing around 300 AD, that it has the force of permanent law.

Law? It's a discipline. If it were a law, there wouldn't be any exceptions to it, would there?

[Bob J]

Broadcasting live RIGHT NOW! "Trueblackman" will be broadcasting his inaugural show on RadioFR! Tonight it's a FREEPFORALL! TBM will be discussing several current issues! Call in with your questions and topics!

Click HERE to listen LIVE while you FReep!

RadioFR is brought to you by the Free Republic Network!

[Mike Fieschko]

If it were a law, there wouldn't be any exceptions to it, would there?

Canon Law allows 'exceptions', sometimes called 'derogations'. When made/issued/permitted, they can be accomplished, for example, through indults.

For example, when we in the United States kneel at Mass from the 'ecce Agnus Dei' ('this is the Lamb of God'), it's because the US bishops requested and received an 'indult' from the posture prescribed in the General Instruction. Other countries don't kneel from that point on.