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

[ninenot]

Gregory VII had to reaffirm it more forcefully 700 years later by invalidating the marriages of ordained priests

So what?

You are married, and I think you have children. How many times have you told little Sinky, JR., NOT to run into the street?

Simply repeating a law is not evidence of prior absence of said law.

[ninenot]

One of the very neat things about Catholicism is that everything is based on common sense. Anglican priests who convert to Catholicism and become ordained are allowed to retain their wives/families--it's common sense.

However, I do NOT recall any authoritative account stating that the Anglo/catholic priests continue sexual congress with their wives. Do you??

[sinkspur]

You are married, and I think you have children. How many times have you told little Sinky, JR., NOT to run into the street?

What a bizarre analogy. There's no evidence of people getting hit by cars not being severely injured, whereas men get married all the time and, most of the time, are better for it.

[joathome]

Sinkspur, some Catholics pride themselves on their differences with the rest of christianity--celibacy being one of the most obvious differences. No amount of history, no amount of talk of discipline instead of dogma, will convince them otherwise. They would rather drive to a church 100 miles away to "receive the sacraments" than be ministered to by a married shepherd of the flock who lives among his people and knows them.

And that's what they're going to get if things don't change.

[sinkspur]

However, I do NOT recall any authoritative account stating that the Anglo/catholic priests continue sexual congress with their wives. Do you??

You actually think, in the 21st century, that the Church, with a straight face, would tell married men to refrain from sex with their wives?

What parallel universe are you living in?

[sinkspur]

Other countries don't kneel from that point on.

My parish doesn't kneel from the Our Father to the distribution of the Eucharist. Quite European of us, isn't it?

[joathome]

Would you mind showing me those aramaic texts?

[ninenot]

Ahh, Sinky: totally incapable of understanding analogy. Aquinas must have been tough for you, my boy.

The analogy was: disobedience is frequent; the law is constant.

Your experience in marriage had nothing to do with the analogy.

OTOH, you don't really respond to points with which you cannot argue. You merely pout off another track.

[ninenot]

Geez, you are denser than I believed. Sacrificing relations for a greater good is a request the Church has made for several centuries.

You must think that all history started at about the time of your birth, as do the editors/publishers of National Catholic Reporter.

[ninenot]

Yes.

Now go back to Europe. I believe that Serbia has a number of bureaucratic positions which you could fill quite adequately.

[joathome]

And you are making assumptions as to what Christ said in Aramaic. You could NEVER win a high school debate with that one.

[sinkspur]

Sacrificing relations for a greater good is a request the Church has made for several centuries.

Can you point out when it has been made in the last two centuries?

The analogy was: disobedience is frequent; the law is constant.

The analogy was: fail to stop your kid from going into the street, and he will be killed versus strongly urge priests not to marry. It was not until Gregory VII invalidated marriages after ordination that celibacy took firm hold. Issuing edicts and threats did NOTHING to curtail the practice of priests marrying.

Aquinas must have been tough for you, my boy.

You want to discuss, let's discuss. If you want to trade insults, you will NOT win that battle!

[Mike Fieschko]

And you are making assumptions as to what Christ said in Aramaic. You could NEVER win a high school debate with that one.

No assumption. I'm quoting.

See St John 1:42: 'And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.'

(I'm using the KJV here.)

[Mike Fieschko]

My parish doesn't kneel from the Our Father to the distribution of the Eucharist. Quite European of us, isn't it?

No, I'll assume that your bishop or parish priest obtained an indult to permit the practice as an option.

I'll assume that, since else it's disobedience to the 'collegially acting' American bishops, or to your local bishop. (Sorry for the awkward phrase.)

[Mike Fieschko]

Good night, folks. And now I lay me down to sleep ...

[Catholicguy]

LOL "Final word on the matter" Just the opposite was being cited. I was speaking of the FIRST words on the matter and as far as we know, Pope Siticius' Decretal IS the initial Document re this current controversy and it was written PRIOR to 400 A.D.

It is interesting to note that Pope Siricius is NOT mandating something NEW. He is reminding ALL priest of an Apostolic admonition of mandatory celibacy. It wasn't new in 400 A.D. It was OLD, even back then.

What passes for "information" in the NCR is a pathetic joke

[joathome]

I don't think Christ had indulgences in mind. Sorry.

[SoothingDave]

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.

Thanks to another poster, I don't need to re-iterate the Biblical argument for such.

The point is that this author spoke of it as an "invention" which is a loaded anti-Catholic term. It is quite obvious he is in dissent.

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?

They are likely the poorly-Catechised fruit of the "spirit of Vatican II." I have seen pollw where half or less of professed "Catholics" believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. Shall we abandon that teaching, since the people don't get it? Shall we mock it or call it an "invention."

SD

[SoothingDave]

My parish doesn't kneel from the Our Father to the distribution of the Eucharist. Quite European of us, isn't it?

Proud of your disobedience, aren't we? Whose idea was it to violate our national norms?

SD

[Askel5]

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

Lol ...

Thanks for your thoughtful replies.