APOLOGETIC'S STUFF Why a Celibate Priesthood?

The spiritual and practical reasons are rife The celibacy of the Catholic priesthood is a sign of great contradiction in our time. Our culture stares at it in blank incomprehension, and on that blankness i t projects numerous fantasies to try to explain it. So we are told both that St. Paul forbade celibacy as a mark of false religion a nd that he was the cause of the whole thing. Many people point to married apostl es of old or married clergy today and say this means the Church cannot legitimat ely legislate celibacy for clergy. Most non-Catholics and even some Catholics are pretty sure that Jesus would oppose a celibate priesthood. We hear that it comes from the Dark Ages and is caused by a Catholic hatred of sex. Some are certain that celibacy is due to repression. Man y are mystified why the Church doesn t just dump the whole celibacy thing and get back to the mission of fitting people for heaven. Partly this is due to a feeling common in our debased and hedonistic post-Christ ian culture: that, married or not, it s simply unnatural for anyone to not engage in sex. As our culture returns to paganism, we make the pagan mistake of the wor ship of created things the perennial favorites being money, sex, and power rather th an of the Creator. A counter-witness to selfishness Since mainstream American culture has no idea what to do with the discipline of celibacy, it regards it with visceral disapproval. Since this is the majority re action, let s start with that gut response that celibacy threatens our mainstream cultural imperative to be a selfish pig and indulge in consequence-free sex. But that s praise, not criticism. The Catholic tradition of consecrated celibacy i s supposed to threaten that debased cultural imperative and provide a counter-wi tness to the mere selfish indulgence of appetite that our consumerist society pr omotes. A civilization founded on the worship of pleasure is a civilization on a fast track toward ceasing to be a civilization. And an argument against celibacy that boils down to Me want sex now is not an argument but something more like the grunt of an animal. The Christian traditions of consecrated virginity and marriage provide counter-w itnesses to the post-Christian Cult of the Pig precisely because they bear witne ss to the fact that we are called to sacrifice our bodies in love for another, n ot feed our piggy appetites at the expense of others. Whether ones makes the sel f-offering through the sacrament of marriage (with its complete giving of the se lf to God, spouse, and children) or by offering oneself as a living sacrifice to God in service to his people, the basic message is the same: It s not all about m e. I find my life by losing it; or I lose my life by selfishly trying to keep it . Beyond the post-Christian culture s selfish suspicion of consecrated virginity is a more principled objection. Those who are familiar with the basics of the gospe l message know that fornication is not compatible with Christian morality. So th ey recognize that, whatever else may be the case, the neo-pagan attempt to criti que celibacy by means of appeal to licentiousness is a bad one. There remains nonetheless a notion as common in Protestant (and dissenting Catho lic) culture as it was in ancient Israel: that it s just unnatural to forgo marria ge. This appears to be backed up by passages in the New Testament like this:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the fait h by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the prete nsions of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and enjoin abs tinence from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those w ho believe and know the truth (1 Tim. 4:1-4). Some Protestants therefore imagine that because priests cannot marry, the Church is enacting the doctrines of demons and forbidding marriage. A higher vocation But this is a hasty assessment, given that the Church also celebrates marriage a s a sacrament. It is also, by the way, a very narrow reading of Paul, who was hi mself a celibate and who urged consecrated celibacy as the higher vocation than marriage: It is well for a man not to touch a woman. But because of the temptation to immo rality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The hu sband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; lik ewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. Do not ref use one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yo urselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through l ack of self-control. I say this by way of concession, not of command. I wish tha t all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of on e kind and one of another (1 Cor. 7:1-7). Paul s basic concern is that to be married is to be distracted from the spiritual: The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lo rd; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife , and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious abou t the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married wo man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband (1 Cor. 7:32-34) . Though he is concerned about that division of heart, Paul denies that marriage i s a sin. He merely insists that it is a lesser state in life than consecrated ce libacy: So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better (1 Cor. 7:38). Paul gets this thinking neither from the Dark Ages nor as the result of repressi on but from a consecrated virgin named Jesus of Nazareth. He, like Paul, was unm arried and commended consecrated celibacy as a gift of God. That s what he s getting at in this incident from Matthew 19:9-12: And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries a nother commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Th e disciples said to him, If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not ex pedient to marry. But he said to them, Not all men can receive this saying, but on ly those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who i s able to receive this, let him receive it. Note how similar Paul s thinking is ult thing, to the degree that, when ly entails, the apostles blanch and mmary of this passage: Not everyone to Jesus . Marriage is a good thing but a diffic Jesus describes what Christian marriage real declare it is not expedient to marry. The su can choose to be celibate, but those who can

should, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. It s exactly the same admonition a s in 1 Corinthians: Marriage is good, but celibacy is better. Since Jesus is celibate, and since, as Paul says, celibacy for the sake of Chris t is a higher state than marriage, and since a priest is an alter Christus ( other Christ ) when he is standing in the place of Christ to celebrate the Eucharist (i .e., the marriage supper of the Lamb), we should not be surprised that in antiqu ity the discipline grew up (spontaneously, from the grass roots) of more and mor e priests likewise choosing to be celibate. The discipline was lived out in different ways, depending on where you were in t he Church. In the East, priests but not bishops may marry. In the West, priests and bishops are celibate. But much the same spirit was at work in both lungs of th e Church. The idea was that celibacy is a higher calling, as well as a superior practical arrangement, given the responsibilities of the priesthood. A matter of legislation? Some will say that because celibacy is now a matter of legislation in the Church rather than grass-roots volunteerism, it is no longer a legitimate practice. Bu t, of course, the Church has a perfect right to order its internal affairs as it pleases. Nor is anybody compelled to be ordained. Rather, what the Church does an d has a perfect right to do is tell the prospective priest that he is welcome to c onsider the priesthood but that if he does, consecrated virginity is part of the package. Why does the Western Church bother with this? After all, even within the Catholi c Church there are rites that do not require priestly celibacy. Even in the Lati n rite which normally does require it there are exceptions made for certain priests who have, for example, converted from other traditions. Partly, celibacy is retained because of the native tendency not to change discip lines without a really good reason. This mind-set is, yet again, in sharp contra st to post-modernity s Cult of the Now, which is perpetually saying, I don t see the point of this! as it recklessly destroys it knows not what, only to discover that it has just smashed a priceless work of art or driven into extinction a plant s pecies that might have cured cancer. It is this reckless mentality G.K. Chesterton addresses with characteristic comm on sense when he says: There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sak e of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away. To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it (The Thing: Why I Am Catholic). An eschatological witness In the case of celibacy, there is something often overlooked in addition to the practical pastoral matters that celibacy helps the Church face (divided wills, t he trouble of playing favorites with family members, domestic distractions, et c etera): the fact that the priest is an eschatological witness. What does that three-dollar word mean? It means that, like Jesus, the priest is a witness to the life of the world to come. That is why it is nonsensical to spe ak of getting rid of celibacy so that the priest can get on with helping people get to heaven. By his celibacy, that is precisely what he is doing. That is, in

part, one of the implications of Jesus saying in the resurrection they neither mar ry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven (Matt. 22:30). The point of this strange saying is not that we lose our bodies. The whole point of the resurrection is that we keep our bodies. Rather, it is first of all that our glorified bodies are no longer afflicted with concupiscence and therefore w e will no longer require oaths of marital fidelity to keep us faithful. More than this, however, is the fact that our bodies will be participants in the ecstatic life of God to such a degree that sexual intercourse will be rendered neither desirable nor necessary. Our inability to conceive of this, as C.S. Lewi s points out in his book Miracles, is rather like a child s inability to conceive of any greater bodily pleasure than a chocolate drop. Sex and marriage will be s uperseded by something far better in the resurrection. And Jesus is the Resurrection (John 11:25). So his celibacy and the celibacy of th e priest who stands as alter Christus in the celebration of the sacrament is not m erely a practical consideration. It is, in fact, a sign of the life of the world to come when the human race, freed to love fully, will find earthly joys swallo wed up in the perfect, self-donating love of God.