|
Tracing the Glorious Origins
of Celibacy
by Luiz Sérgio Solimeo
Self-appointed reformers always arise in
times of crises offering “brilliant” solutions that
attempt to demolish the Church’s most venerable traditions.
Priestly celibacy, a glorious trait of the
Latin Church, has been a constant target of these so-called
reformers.
Curiously enough, abolishing priestly celibacy
comes hand-in-hand with destroying the indissolubility of
marriage. This is easy to understand since it is based on
the idea that chastity is impossible to observe. Thus, not
only celibate continence is cast aside but also conjugal
chastity and fidelity in marriage. Historically this happened
with Eastern Orthodox schismatics, Protestants, Anglicans
and others. The total or partial abolition of priestly celibacy
either came together with or was preceded by permission
to divorce.
Pseudo Arguments Against
Celibacy
The present sex scandals, so trumped up by the media, have
served as a pretext to intensify the campaign against priestly
celibacy. Sectors of the media, as well as organizations of
married priests and liberal Catholics, are insisting on this
matter.
In addition to pseudo-scientific arguments used to prove the
impossibility of observing chastity, we often find the claim
that celibacy is a purely disciplinary policy introduced only
later in Church legislation. It can therefore be abolished.
Others say that it should at least be made optional.
Actually there are many studies, some very
recent, totally debunking this supposedly historic-canonical
argument.
Let us cite three among the most important
studies: Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, by
Fr. Christian Cochini, S.J.(Ignatius, San Francisco, 1990);
The Case for Clerical Celibacy, by Alfons Maria Cardinal
Stickler (Ignatius, San Francisco, 1995); Celibacy in the
Early Church, by Fr. Stefan Heid, (Ignatius, San Francisco,
2000).
Early Church Tradition
Based on solid documentation, these authors show that although
one cannot speak of celibacy in the strict sense of
the word (not being married), it is certain that since apostolic
times the Church had as a norm that men elevated to the deaconate,
priesthood and the episcopate should observe continence. If
candidates happened to be married – a very common occurrence
in the early Church – they were supposed to cease, with
the consent of their spouses, not only marital life but even
cohabitation under the same roof.
Let us limit ourselves to the short yet substantial
book by Cardinal Stickler, a well-respected Canon Law historian,
expert on Roman Congregations, and former head of the Vatican
Library.
He explains that both the apostolic and early
Church did not require that a man be single or widowed in
order to be ordained priest or designated bishop.
Since a large number of Christians were adult
converts, (a typical example is Saint Augustine, who converted
at 30), it was common for a married man to be ordained priest
and made bishop. However, the Epistles of St. Paul to Titus
and Timothy clearly state a bishop had to be a “man of
only one woman” (I Tim 3:2; 3:12; Titus 1:6). According
to the interpretation commonly adopted in the early Church
(and attested to by the Fathers of the Church), a candidate
could not be married more than once. Thus, a widower who remarried
was ineligible.
Moreover, Church officials believed a person
in those conditions would hardly have sufficient strength
to halt marital relations and live under the same roof. Cardinal
Stickler emphasizes that because of the mutually self-giving
nature of matrimony; a separation would always take place
only with the full consent the wife, who, for her part, would
make a commitment to live in chastity in a community of women
religious.
The Apostolic Tradition
Among the Apostles, only St. Peter is known to have been married
due to the fact his mother-in-law is mentioned in the Gospels.
Some of the others might have been married but there is a
clear indication that they left everything, including their
families, to follow Christ.
Thus, in the Gospels, one reads that St.
Peter asked Our Lord, “What about us? We left all
we had to follow you.” The Divine Master answered: “I
tell you solemnly, there is no one who has left house, wife,
brothers, parents or children for the sake of the kingdom
of God, who will not be given repayment many times over in
this present time and, in the world to come, eternal life”
(Lk 18:28-30, cf. Mt 19:27-30; Mk 10:20-21).
Early Church Councils Reaffirm Practice
This brief overview does not allow us to look at the whole
history of celibacy amply documented by Cardinal Stickler.
Let us present some of the most outstanding cases. The Council
of Elvira in Spain (310) dealt with priestly chastity (canon
33), and presented perfect continence as a norm that must
be maintained and observed and not as an innovation. The lack
of any revolt or surprise attested to its widespread practice.
At the Council of the Church of Africa (390)
and above all at the Council of Carthage, (419), which St.
Augustine attended, similar norms were adopted. These councils
recalled the ecclesiastical praxis of the obligation of perfect
chastity, affirming that such praxis is of apostolic tradition.
Pope Siricius answering a specific consultation
about clerical celibacy in 385 affirmed that bishops and priests
who continue marital relations after ordination violate an
irrevocable law from the very inception of the Church that
binds them to continence.
Several other popes and regional councils,
particularly in Gaul, present day France, continued to recall
the tradition of celibacy and punish abuse.
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) when struggling
against the intervention of the Holy Roman Emperor in church
affairs, had to fight simony – the purchase of Church
posts – and Nicolaitism – the heresy that preaches,
among other things, priestly marriage.
Some mistakenly conclude that St. Gregory
VII introduced the law of celibacy into the Church. Quite
the contrary. What St. Gregory VII, and later the Second Lateran
Council (1139) did was not to “introduce” the law
of celibacy but simply confirm that it was in force and issue
regulations for its observance. Since most recruiting for
the priesthood was already among the unmarried, the Second
Lateran Council forbade priestly marriage, declaring it null
and void in the case of priests, deacons or anyone with a
solemn vow of religion.
The Case of Paphnutius
The main argument of those who deny the apostolic tradition
of priestly continence comes from an incident during the first
Council of Nicea (325). Paphnutius, a bishop from Egypt, was
reported to have protested in the name of tradition when the
Conciliar Fathers tried to impose priestly continence. Because
of his protest, the Council is said to have refused to impose
such continence.
Cardinal Stickler adeptly deals with the
case. He points out that Eusebius of Cesarea, the Council’s
historian, was actually present during the whole event. He
makes no reference to any such protest, which he certainly
would have noted had it really happened.
The story of Paphnutius only appears almost
a century after the Council of Nicea in the writings of two
Byzantine authors, Socrates and Sozomen. The first cites as
his source his conversation as a young man, with an elderly
man who claimed he was at the Council. The veracity of this
story is questionable since Socrates was born more than fifty
years after the Council. His interlocutor had to be at least
seventy years old when he was born and practically in his
nineties at the time of the supposed conversation.
The story of Paphnutius’ protest was
also always held in suspicion because his name was not on
the roster of Fathers who came from Egypt to participate in
the Council of Nicea. This was affirmed by Valesius, editor
of the works of Socrates and Sozomen in the Greek Patrology
of Migne.
However, Cardinal Stickler claims the decisive argument against
the Paphnutius story comes from the second Council of Trullo
(691). During this council of the Eastern Church, the Council
Fathers, under pressure from the Emperor, allowed matrimony
for priests (not for bishops) – going against the tradition
both in the East and West. These same Fathers failed to present
the testimony of Paphnutius to justify their break with the
tradition of priestly continence even though they had everything
to gain by doing so. Instead of citing Paphnutius, they sought
to justify their position, never recognized by the Western
Church, by invoking the Council of Carthage. However, this
Council clearly ruled in defense of the apostolic tradition
of continence. Thus, they resorted to falsifying its decrees,
a fact even schismatic historians now recognize.
Cardinal Stickler laments that historians
of weight like Funk, at the end of the 19th century, accepted
the story of Paphnutius as valid even as his contemporaries
had already rejected it as false. One of the people responsible
for spreading this error was the Frenchmen, E. Vacandard,
through the prestigious Dictionnaire de Théologie
Catholique.
An Identity Crisis
Finally, Cardinal Stickler argues that the reason for priestly
celibacy is not a functional one. Unlike the Old Testament,
where the priesthood was merely a temporary function
received by way of inheritance, the priesthood in the New
Testament is a vocation, a calling that transforms the person
and confiscates him entirely. He is a sanctifier, a mediator.
Above all, the priesthood in the New Testament
is a participation in the Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
the High Priest. And, therefore, the priest has a mysterious
and special bond with Christ, in whose name and by whose power
he offers the bloodless sacrifice (in persona Christi).
The most profound reason for priestly celibacy comes from
this supernatural bond with the Savior.
The Cardinal points out that the main reason
celibacy is in question today is because the clergy faces
an identity crisis. Only by restoring the true identity of
the priest, can the profound reasons for celibacy be understood
and practiced.
This identity crisis cannot be resolved
by returning to “the origins of the Church,” a solution
proposed by proponents favoring married priests and their
sympathizers. Those origins would simply not allow them to
cohabit with their wives and continue to exert their priestly
ministry.
Let us hope that, with the help of grace, the true identity
of the Catholic priest will be restored soon so that all the
present-day madness may come to an end.
|
