Tracing the Glorious
Origins of Celibacy
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).
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.
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;
Mk10:20-21).
St. Augustine
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.
While many attribute priestly celibacy
to St. Gregory the Great, there
is
evidence to suggest that it dates back to apostolic times. 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 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.
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.
Return to FaithfulVoice.com
main page