Defending Celibacy

ON THE DEFENSE OF CELIBACY IN THE PRIESTHOOD

(I do caution, this is not the most brilliantly written letter, and thus it could cause confusion to some who read it. I tend to be scatter brained and leap from one subject to the next. So if I do indeed do so, I do apologize. Remember, you have been warned in advance!)

 

     People fear what they do not understand. People hate what they fear. People persecute what they hate.

     These three sentences are so very important to today's standards and issues. Especially in dealing with the unfortunate sexual abuse scandals rocking the Universal Church of Christ, aka the Roman Catholic Church. (I will say to my Protestant friends, please no debating on THIS issue, as I don't want to detract from the main point of this essay, thank you very much).

     Get rid of the doctrine of celibacy in the priesthood, and we cure all that ails us, right? That's what most people think. Let this men serve God and their families, their wives and children. After all, the deacons are able to do it, why not the priests too?

     The problem is, and not everyone who advocates this is a member of the revolution, indeed many are good and decent minded people, but the need to get rid of celibacy is an act of the sexual revolution. Indeed it is the last bastion so to speak against the revolution's opponents from the sixties that they have yet to truly vanquish. Should celibacy be removed, those who have been seeking "total freedom" for the masses, will revel and continue to push the world further down the tubes.

     One main issue of the thought against celibacy is that should these men be allowed to marry and use their urges properly, innocent children would be spared. Fair enough, and reasonable enough I admit. Indeed many wouldn't be so tempted to harm the most innocent among us in their urges. But this does NOT include the pedophiles or the homosexuals in their ranks (well, perhaps the homosexuals too, yes). But most certainly NOT the pedophiles. These "married" priests who have such urges would most certainly take their urges out on their own children, and even if they thought they could get away with it, other children. Look how many married ministers in other religions have touched and molested children. Has married life helped them overcome the need to abuse the most innocent? I think not. So how would allowing Catholic Priests to marry end the abuse of the children?

     I have read at least two accounts of politicians, as well as other like minded individuals suggesting that either the Church create a committee to look into these matters, or allow the state to do so, with the bishop of each diocease on the board but with not legal right to vote on matters. These "independent" individuals would be a breathe of fresh air and give new perspective of certain situations. The problem with this… at least in America (at least the America I know and love), is that it goes against separation of Church and State. Why on Earth would any religious body want a committee made up of individuals outside of their own religious beliefs trying to "judge" or "dictate" or any other form of legislation telling them what to do? Even if the majority of such a committee might be made up of people from your faith, those with very little knowledge of the Church, or Church Law (and sadly there are far too many of these, even among our own priests, bishops, cardinals and theologians) to decide what is correct in that religion's actions or principles? (An actual case in point, one priest I had at my old parish had no idea what kind of government style the Catholic Church was!)

     Faith is not a republic, nor a democracy. No pure acting religion really is. Oh, sure there are those small groups that attempt this, but in the blink of a popular fad or thinking, ground beliefs are thrown out of the window at any given situation. Such a moment is NOT a basis for a fundamental stone walled organization to continue to exist. It would constantly be reinventing itself and become more of a fad than a true structure of belief.

     The thinking of such a committee idea is that it would force the hands of the leaders of the Church to come clean with such transgressors. Now personally I do believe that the Church leaders need, when confronted with such individuals, to come out, and remove them from their posts in order to protect their flock. Not move them from one parish or diocese to the next. There should be no fear of confusion in this, or doubt amongst the people. The Church, herself, is Divinely Created, but run by flawed, human beings, who are sinners. One need only look at the past to see that. How many immoral popes were there with illegitimate children out of wedlock? Of course our leaders are flawed… they too are human.

     So I believe the leadership has indeed made a grave mistake in keeping quiet as these matters have grown. Spoken words and actions are the basis of a strong trust. Now that being said, let's play "devil's advocate" here. One reason for the silence is a form of "protection" of those that have sinned so heinously. Granted they deserve our anger, and emotions of betrayal, but look how many pedophiles are persecuted to the ends of the earth! Humans again, are flawed. There are those hate mongers who feed on emotions, and rally torch and pitch forked crowds into a frenzy in trying to get at these men who, criminals as they are, would like to live in solitude (a good many of them anyway, even if not the majority). How many individuals would hunt these traitor priests to the ends of the earth, persecuting them to the point where such individuals lose hope and faith?

     I'm not saying the Church should "protect" them entirely… but it is in her duty to guard those who would be harmed. (One reason the Church was "silent" during the WWII years was so many Jews, and Allied soldiers who either escaped from capture or shot down, were in Rome. Had Pius XII spoken up as fiercely as his opponents wished him to, Hitler would have razed Rome, and so many more innocent individuals would have died. Don't believe me? Explain his insane plan to kidnap Pius as the Allies marched on Rome, or the German cartoons in the papers who portrayed Pius as a Jew).

     Yes… yes I firmly understand those who have lead the Church through the centuries have been strangely void of this guarding the innocent I have spoken about. But again, keep in mind that the Church while Divinely Founded was run by flawed humans! (How many times did Pope St. Peter enjoy placing his foot in his mouth?)

     Speaking of our good saint;

     Opponents 1. Many critics would argue that he was married, along with most of the early popes… proving "forced" celibacy was wrong.

     Catholic Position: Yes it is true, Peter had a wife…., as did many other popes… but it is EQUALLY true that many of the early leaders were NOT married. Look at St. Paul. Not only was he not married… but he preached with equal passion the merits of both celibacy and the married life.

  Opponents 2.   Yes… yes, but it's a fact that the Manichaeism Heresy had an impact on the Catholic Church, and that their anti material stance lead to the ideas of Celibate Priests. So therefore, it was a heretical teaching that brought forth celibacy in the priesthood, and thus it is not Divine teaching, which means we should toss it out of the window.

     Catholic Response: Um…. No. Not a fact. How do we know this? Well lets examine some quick facts.

     1. For one thing, this heresy rose in the early two hundreds, aka the third century. How do you explain St. Paul's exhortation on the values of celibacy nearly one hundred and sixty years before, if in fact devoted celibacy came from Manichaeism?!

     2. Second, the Church's teaching on celibacy has never been the same as the Manichaeism held it. The Manichaeism believed that there were two worlds, the physical and the spiritual (fair enough) but believed the material or physical was corrupt and thus created by an evil entity. Therefore anything physical was evil and to be avoided. This included sex. The Catholic position is quite different. It extols the virtue of celibacy as the Manichaeism did, but also of the married life and of course sex. It never once condemned sex as evil (yes there are sexual actions it considered and considers intrinsically evil, but its never damned the act in its entirety as immoral as the Manichaeism did). And yes, there were Church leaders who seemed to have an aversion to it in their writings, but keep in mind the Church was young then, and that the OFFICIAL teaching never matched those leaders' individual thought patterns. And since their basic doctrinal beliefs do not match.

     Opponents 3: Yes, but come now, even the Manichians knew enough to allow some sexual countenance.

     Catholic Position:

True, they did, because they knew not everyone could control themselves. Thus they divided their ranks already into a class environment type status. Those that taught, and subsequently "did" control themselves, were called the Elect. Those that served them were called the "hearers". These are those who could not be counted on to control themselves. And thus, hoped one day to be "born in a future life" as an Elect. </P>

     The Catholic Church does NOT teach nor believe in reincarnation, unlike what the heresy did. There also wasn't any other form of elitism in the teaching of the Church about sexuality. While the critics may CLAIM that the Church uses a class system on this debate it has no basis in strength nor truth.

      I would like to point out, that a great deal many Fundamentalist Protestant Churches who see sex as all bad, and the human race as evil, and to weep bitterly at one's sinful evil existence in front of a mirror, had MUCH in common with the heresy (Accelerated Christian Education comes to mind, I went to school with that group). So if we were to be playing a game of "blame" dodge ball, I've kinda just tossed that ball right back at one set of accusers, lol.

****

     Opponents 4: Irish singer, Sinead O' Connor, has recently suggested that Catholics of all stripes, to get attention of the leadership of Rome, stop attending Mass. A few others have suggested to ignore the priests, or forgo any other Sacrament. This, in my opinion, is fool hardy. Why?

     Catholic Position: Because Catholics believe the Sacraments are founded by Christ, for the benefit of our spiritual lives. How many times did Jesus say we should eat and drink of His flesh and blood, in John 6? He was trying to make a point there. To ignore the Sacraments and the grace they bring to help us, just to protest something is foolish. It would be like refusing to take anti-biotic because the leadership of a nation's medical organization was corrupt. Or to refuse to go to the dentist, because the leadership of that organization was silent on an important issue.

     Yes we should be upset… yes we should speak out, and demand to know the truth from those who are supposed to be the holders of it. But to slap the face of Christ, who established these Sacraments, in order to get the attention of human, corrupted leadership, is to be as bad as those who sit in silence themselves. It, quite frankly, does us NO good.

     Opponents 5: Ah, the critics say, but consider, if no one attended Mass, which meant no collection. You'd hurt them where it hurt the most! Point!

     Catholic Position: Ah, but even if (lets face it this figure as much as some would love to say is true, isn't) 99% of that money goes to the corrupted pockets and whatnot, what of the 1% that goes to where it is most needed?! To deny even a penny to the poor, and the hungry, the homeless and despairing, is a mortal sin if it is avoided with intention of hurting others or making a point.

     Opponents 6: Why, the critics say. What good does a penny do for these poor creatures, and whose to tell us we can't donate elsewhere?

     Catholic Position: First, a single penny shows those who need it, that there are those out there, that care. It brings hope. Which is holy. To deny this is to indulge in the curse of despair, which is not. Second, there isn't anything or anyone telling you that you can not donate elsewhere. But again, even if the radically flawed thinking of only 1 percent or less is given to the poor in the collection baskets, were true, think of those poor that depend on that COLLECTION itself. Point checked, and countered. Reason, flawed as it is against the aide of humanity.

     I feel that to be honest, reconstruction in the process of becoming a priest is needed, not an end to celibacy. These young boys who enter the seminaries must be taught in great detail that simply becoming a priest and giving yourself to the Church as its spouse, does not end sexual desire.

     They need in greater detail to know what it is to be celibate, what they will go through, and what they will not. And the leaders need to get rid of the red tape and allow due process of law so that offenders will be taken out of the system, and yet at the same time, protected against mob mentality, before, during and after they serve their time. An eye for an eye is an obsolete thinking. Jesus, who is God, Himself said this as much.

     If reform came to wither or not celibacy was an issue in the priesthood, I personally favor an element that would allow the boys to decide which path to take, a married priest, or a celibate one, with massive training for either path. The truth is, the Eastern rite of the Church does allow for men to marry and become priests (so long as once their wife dies, much like the deacons, they then turn to celibacy). The Western rite also allows Episcipalian (Anglican) priests who are married to remain so if they convert to the Catholic faith.  There are rites with married priests that are loyal to the Magisterial of the Church.

     So in truth, now, just as then, we, the Roman Catholic Church, still do allow for married priests as well as celibate ones. We always have, and we always will. To go against that, either way, would be to turn against  what we've always held.

     Funny thing is, not many people know this. And I'll return to my first words of this essay. People fear what they do not understand. People hate what they fear. People persecute what they hate.

     The old saying is, "Almost no one hates the Catholic Church, but many hate what they think the Catholic Church is."

     Tis true of celibacy too.