Yet another cannibalized post from the email list I'm on - I was asked about priestly celibacy. :-)
Priestly celibacy is one of those things where I don't even try to argue from Scripture :-) Many Catholics will, and our official theology throws in a few Scripture verses to support it, but the honest truth about it is that it's church policy, a rule. If Pope Benedict wanted to (which I highly doubt!) he could send out an encyclical tomorrow that basically said "OK guys - no more celibacy - have fun!"
So let me walk you through a brief history (sorry!) of priestly celibacy.
At first there were no priests the way we understand them now - as far as we can tell we had small communities of believers who met in each others' homes to celebrate an agape meal in addition to their regular Jewish practices.
When the faith spread to non-Jews some elements of Jewish religion were kept, but the centerpiece became the agape meal, celebrated in remembrance (anamnesis) of Jesus.
When Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, house communities became impractical - you couldn't fit 300 people in most homes. :-) So communities started gathering in public places for worship. Once this started to happen, more and more people started having a select few be the ones to lead worship - "professional worship leaders" so to speak.
We still had a leadership structure - a bishop was in charge of large areas of Christians, overseeing them and being the chief teacher for the area. We also had deacons, who were ordered for service in particular areas/ministries (widows, the hungry, etc). But ministers followed the normal course of life - which was to get married.
However, once Christianity became "mainstream" some Christians felt that the faith was "watered down." There were no longer many martyrs, there was no longer very much danger associated with being a follower of the Way. Many people became Christian for purely political or monetary reasons. So some people moved to the solitary desert (emulating one aspect of Jesus' life) and lived a life of prayer, meditation, study, silence, and celibacy (imitating another aspect of Jesus' life).
Many Christians, after hearing of the solitary pursuit of perfection these Desert Fathers and Mothers were practicing, went to them to receive spiritual guidance. They became benchmarks of orthodoxy and arbiters in theological disputes.
Eventually, many of these desert fathers and mothers attracted their own communities; people came to live lives that were simple, prayerful and totally God-focused. From the ranks of these followers we started pulling priests, deacons, and bishops. They brought with them the ideal of a life of service, prayer and study. But they also brought a penchant for celibacy - giving up sexual intercourse and marriage, not because they were evil, but because they were sacrificed for a higher good: total dedication and abandonment to the will of God and the service of His people.
Once we had celibate bishops, then we started to have celibate Popes, and that's when the real trouble started! :-) As early as 400 AD we have bishops recommending that priests and deacons and bishops be celibate. Not a rule, law or commandment, just an observation that without family one can be totally dedicated to the service of the Christian community. It wasn't until around the year 1000 that celibacy became more accepted, and it was shortly afterwards that it became the rule for priests. Even then, it was still ignored by many :-)
During the middle ages it became more of a problem - if priests or bishops were married, when they died the church that they were serving at became the property of their offspring - this caused the loss of much church stuff, as well as much fighting among the less-then-holy offspring of some of the priests and bishops.
In an effort to stop the buying and selling of Church property, the Church got tough in it's enforcement of celibacy. There was a period of time (not a good time) when priests who were still married in defiance of Church law had their families taken from them. (We're not perfect, and this is one of those low points in my church that I wish had never happened). After a while, celibacy became the accepted norm, though I'm sure for a while after there were still priests who had lovers or secret semi-wives - stories of country priests with maids whose children looked remarkably like the priest circulated for years. :-)
Nowadays, most theologically astute Catholics see it for what it is: a discipline imposed on clergy by our Church. Having said that, though, there are some arguments for priestly celibacy:
1) In our day and age it is a radical statement that we are not here solely for sexual pleasure. In America and Europe especially there is a tendency to see sexual intercourse as the be all and end all of life. Priestly (and religious) celibacy argues that while it is a great good, it is not an *ultimate* good.
2) It does let our priests serve 24/7 if needed - without a family to support they can spend more time out and about, which they do. Most priests have three Masses a day to celebrate (early morning, early evening, and then funerals, baptisms, prayer services, masses for special intentions, etc.); sick calls / hospital calls / prayer calls to answer; the parish itself to run; etc. They give so much of their time to the church that very little would be left over for family. [I know that Protestant ministers have much of the same things to do - as a campus minister I find my time crunched as well - however, I do think that many families of ministers suffer in silence - even though a pastor is doing the work of God, if it's at the expense of family time or family neglect, we're missing the point. In my previous position (working under the Bishop doing youth minister) I was working two nights a week and two weekends a month, plus making several extended and shorter trips a year for business - my family time was almost nonexistent! - so I have great respect but also misgivings for those ministers who are married and must live a life of service to their church.]
3) It offers a witness of sacrifice (close to #1 above); that is, it is a living, tangible witness to the sacrifice Jesus made.
4) Many priests do have a calling for a celibate lifestyle.
However, as many Catholics point out, not everyone has that calling (to be celibate). And as a Church we struggle with that. It may be that at some point in the next 2,000 years the rule will change - we are losing priests here in America, but gaining them (I read of a 237% boost in priests coming from Third World nations) in other places - we'll have to wait and see :-)
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo
13 comments:
Thanks for the history lesson. Very enlightening...stuff I didn't learn in my religious education. I may be protestant...but I think celibacy is a genuine calling (not for all clergy), and one that our sexually over-dosed world needs to hear.
I really appreciate your perspective and approach to this and so many subjects you address in your articles and comments. The internal struggles that resulted in the celibacy rule are very similar in nature to the struggles we Congregationalist face. I suspect that were we not autonomous and separate from secular government the results of our struggles would be devastating to say the least. I have read from our minutes what I call modern “witch hunts”, so I sympathize in that there are those times that are “not a good time” in our church. None of us are perfect nor can we, by any means, justify those times. I think your arguments for celibacy are valid for anyone able to maintain him or herself and well within reason and scripture. I suppose my reserve in this is as in most matters where we separate. I only take exception to the authority of the Pope to impose his will upon the sheep. I may need to adjust my perspective on that. It may have been imposed in the past however in our present time it is certainly by choice of free will. I will consider the matter. ;-) Thanks again for the insight!
Neal: Thanks for the comment - I also believe that priestly celibacy is a good thing, though I do come down on the side that wishes we were more like the orthodox churches who only enforce celibacy for bishops, not for priests. :-)
KC: I'm interested in learning more about the struggles you're facing as a denomination - I'm not familiar with the Congregationalist church, so any insight/input would be appreciated. Also, many Catholics feel the same way about Popely authority . . . though I guess if we go with the perspective that no denomination is perfect then it becomes easier to live with. We'll see what happens a few thousand years down the road. :-)
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo
Hugo I’m sorry I may have mislead you. We have a congregationalist chuch governance however our church is Faithway Baptist also known as Landmarkism. It is similar to American Baptist however there are a few differences. We have no salaried ministers or missionaries and we do not teach tithing as being a NT practice hence the “faithway” tag. We belong to a local, state and interstate association of Landmark Baptist churches which associate for the purpose of promoting mission work. Each church is autonomous and the entire membership has a voice and vote in all matters pertaining to the church. Most congrgations are small with some having as few as 20 active members and some as many as 150 active. There is one that may be larger but we have no mega churches. As all good Baptist do, we claim to trace our origin and authority back to Jesus.;-)
The struggles I refered to I percieve to be a microcosm of those in mega churches and churches with episcopalian church governance. Attempts at anarchy, wolves in the flock, greed for power and minor divisions due to doctrinal differences. The witch hunt I refered to pertains to a period a few years (35 or so) back when the elders decided that attendance should be faithful by their own standard and set about to withdraw fellowship from those they found unfaithful in attendance. Would that get you to church? ;-)
Great stuff, Hugo. Always a pleasure to read.
Do you think that the Church will reverse its position on celebacy?
It has always been an issue that I have questioned about the Church. I myself am celebate and unmarried working in a Protestant church. I see the difficulties and strains placed on pastors and their families. I do not have that strain which is nice.
Does anyone ever look at your differently for being married and still serving in a leading ministry position (practically a priest)?
KC: Thanks for the update . . . I hadn't heard the term "congregationalist" before. Couple more questions (if you'll indulge me): 1) How do you do it with A) no paid ministers and B) no tithing? And, no, that last phase of church wouldn't've drawn me in :-) I'd be too scared of getting kicked out because of my blog! :-)
JadedCM: I think if you give us another 500 - 2,000 years we'll see married priests back in the church (yeah - the CC moves pretty slowly on stuff - it took us 500 years to get to a celibate recommendation, 500 more years to make it official, and 500 more years to back up the official teaching . . . so slow is our specialty!)
As for me, sometimes people (both Catholic and non) just assume I'm a priest when they ask what I do . . . if it doesn't come up I don't bother correcting the assumption . . . but if it does come up they usually seem surprised. :-)
I had thought about the priesthood (it's the reason I was studying religion - sortof getting ahead in case I decided for it), but after much praying & thinking I decided not to . . . I definitely have th ecalling to minister/serve, but I'm positive I don;'t have the calling for celibacy! :-)
My prayers are with you as you celibately serve in your church.
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo
Bother indulging you is not only a pleasure but I feel a debt as well. ;-)
The answers to both A and B are by faith of course (grin). The church gives opportunity for all to make offerings of both physical (money, work, etc…) and spiritual (teaching, singing/music, administration, etc…) gifts. Each member makes his or her offering as they have purposed in their heart. Most churches give opportunity to make financial offerings at least once during any given assembly, some at the start of the service, but most at the end. The offerings are “made” not “taken” (We don’t pass the plate) and no record is kept regarding who gives what. Most churches have three specific areas for financial offering; pastor, missions, and the “church” or general fund. Special offerings are common as well. Each member decides where their financial offering will go. The pastors’ offering is given directly to him after each service. The mission offering is usually divided evenly between each of the missionaries the church has voted to support. (Missionaries make reports to the churches via letter or at associational meetings.) The general fund is used to cover expenses, however it is common for the church to vote to give any surplus to mission work and/or the pastor. Logic and reason says this will never work so we have to count on love, hope and faith to keep it going. No one gets wealthy from this but somehow new missions are started and new churches join the various associations. Most churches have no debt, that is the building and grounds are paid for in full. Most often, new construction or additions are accomplished as “pay as you go” projects. You would think we’d have a shortage of ministers but we seem to have a surplus. They are as most in that their theology is best (another grin) yet most seem to be bound in love. I know so far this sounds euphoric but as I pointed out we have “those not so good times” too. I think we may be able to stop them more quickly due to the fact that those type efforts can only be localized and are often brought to light when those initiating them find they are the only ones in attendance (grin). A church will stand or fall on its own work for Christ rather than on the momentum of the association as a whole.
To Kc,
I really do need to get that post done on the ToB, don't I? haha
Hugo,
Great post
Pecheur: Thanks :-) And what's ToB?
KC: Thanks for the info - in the CC we are asked to offer donations every Sunday, usually in an envelope to track our donations and to help us @ tax time. :-) I like the sound of your'all's way of doing things, and I;m glad to hear that not so good times are coming around less and less for y'all.
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo
Hugo “ToB” means "Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carrol. It is (in my opinion), among other things, his attempt to classify “the church” and provide historical evidence of the Baptist lineage to Christ. Pecheur has promised a review of the work. I honestly don’t know what to expect but I’m not going to press him until HE FINISHES HIS THESIS! ;-)
BTW for the record I really like a lot of your'all's ecclesiology too. I may not follow the administrative aspect but I really (and I do mean very much!) appreciate the approach and attitude the CC takes to serving the community. ;-)
KC: Thanks again for the info on ToB . . . I'd be interested in seeing how that works out as well, historically speaking. And thanks for the prise on service . . . most of our religious congregations were formed to provide some kind of service to the rest of the community, Catholic or not, Christian or not.
Sort of like this blog . . . ;-)
Blessings & Peace,
Hugo
Post a Comment