The Politics of Celibacy
Undercut Catholic Theology

By William F. Finucane

Pope Adrian the Second, in 867A.D., ascended to the papacy.

The Catholic Church was unified. There were no protestants. Christ’s Church had been on the earth for more than eight centuries, it was well established, having world-wide recognition.

But before naming the man pope, the Church had one small wrinkle with which to contend. Pope Adrian the Second was married!

Yet no matter; he became pope.

It took another seven hundred years before Rome got the marriage problem ironed out, at least to its own satisfaction. Unfortunately, the only thing benefiting from fixing the marriage problem was Catholicism, the state of Catholicism, not the Church itself.

From the time of the Council of Elvira in 308 A.D. through Carthage Three and Four 397 A.D., and up to Christmas 800 A.D. when Pope Leo the Third placed the crown on the head of Charlemagne, and then up to 1139 A.D. when Pope Innocent the Second pronounced clerical marriage invalid, to the Council of Trent, between 1545 and 1562 A.D., at which the Catholic Church did, finally, face Protestantism, celibacy was argued.

Finally, it became part of Catholic Church law.

Those wanting marriage had to go through the church, and no priests could marry.

                But why was there all the fuss over people getting married?

                One of the largest issues was the question of property, wealth. If you have no family, no wife and kids, you have no one to whom you can give your wealth. It naturally stands to go to the Church if is priestly wealth.

Those who wonder if this matters, really, should remember that Pope Leo the Third put the church’s political stamp on the world when he crowned Charlemagne. That made Catholicism a state in addition to being a Church.

For a state, wealth is very important.

Priests were mobile, unencumbered with land or family, well read and carried their Church and their state with them everywhere. They were formidable ambassadors for Rome and Catholicism.

Celibacy was a victory for those who wanted a strong state-church pope. Celibate priests were strong and loyal soldiers. Remember, these centuries were in the Dark Ages.

People had no books. The priests in these cultures were rich in knowledge and often in personal wealth of varying forms, either brought with them through inheritance or acquired as a result of a learned and diverse life unencumbered by family obligations.

Men of those times became priests for many reasons, some pious, some as the only way out of poverty, some to gain riches for themselves. So many joined for so many reasons it is hard to isolate a single motivating factor, yet celibacy carried and kept all the priests’ wealth and power within the Catholic Church. Quite tidy.

That power was now the pope’s; precious gems, stones, villas and the like now belonged unquestionably to the Church.

When the Catholic Church took over marriage, making it a Church sacrament, it completed its victory over its rivals for priestly goods. It had taken its victory from priest’s families and made it part of the Church’s hoard.

The end of the marriage problem was at hand.

But it had its problems.

It also made Catholic marriage counseling over the next millennium a sham. Some of the basics simply got lost, such as the clear truth that marriage, no matter how high and holy or no matter how profane and lowly, is an agreement between a woman and a man. The church tries to convince us that it is sanctified by the Church’s blessing, but the man and woman actually perform and complete their marriage.

The Church is an onlooker, nothing more.

Another clear virtue, illustrated by history, is that the agreement of marriage predates celibacy, whether forced or chosen. Universal celibacy, after all, would last just one generation and our race would disappear.

Celibacy is not and never was a vow made to God or Jesus. Celibacy is a promise priests make to the Catholic Church. That is the Church’s definition.

There are also certain circumstances where it can be waived.

Now, nearly 1,000 years from its institution as a mandatory church rule – not a Biblical injunction or command from any god – the time has come to look at it anew.

Specifically, the United States needs to look at this ancient attitude toward married priests. This country is a far cry from Trent in 1545-62 A.D. The papacy’s role in making world history is diminished. Its ability to counsel married couples is made nearly impossible because a celibate man has no idea what a real marriage is about.

                True, there might be countries with little education and dire poverty that cannot be ministered to in the way modern nations like the United States and Europe are approached by Catholicism. And it is true the Catholic Church seeks to make sure its message is carried forth with uniformity in the world; therefore, celibacy should be the same everywhere, argue the papists.

But here the Church is fooling itself.

Celibacy is a promise to the Church, so it can be changed, from the pope, instantly. It is no point of faith. It is no hard rock of truth that we all are supposed to adhere to and to teach. God never asked for this vow, the Church need not come up with some tortured reasoning to make this happen.

The church can change this rule today. 

It was a convenience for a Church that was also a massive political force 1,000 years ago, and needed priests to be able to travel for the Church to the four corners of the world, and that needed to have unencumbered representatives who could pitch their collective weight against all the other thrones and powers on earth.

The question now is whether celibacy is any longer convenient for the church.

Actually, the answer is that it is inconvenient.

Inconvenient for religious reasons, in fact.

Priests cannot effectively help married couples with marriage problems because they know nothing about the problems. This is not hard to figure out.

You want someone to fix your car, you go to a mechanic. You want someone to fix a broken leg, you find a doctor. You want help with your taxes, find an accountant.

If you need someone to tackle the hard questions, you go to an expert.

Priests are experts at many things. And 1,000 years ago they might well have been the only people who could read in a village, so priests knew much that others didn’t. Priests were knowledgeable in many things; marriage, however, is not one of them.

If they follow their promise of celibacy, priests have either never had intercourse with a woman or have foresworn ever enjoying such intimacy again.

This is a somewhat singular element of experience to leave out of the marriage equation. How can a priest know your marriage when he knows nothing of such intimacy, or for reasons of his own was able to deny himself from every experiencing it again?

He can’t.

Can he know about bad breath in the morning, your overweight problem, her inability to do what you feel best at sexually, how you talk past each other, the sudden feeling that your life’s partner is a stranger, and know what to do to fix any of  these crucial problems. These are marriage issues.

Priests can counsel couples on much, but not on what counts most when it comes to scratching these very human itches. And its scratchier now that it is clear the itches are not all heterosexual.

Access to marriage was removed from priests 1,000 years ago for other reasons completely divorced from today’s realities.

But the Catholic Church will not consider any discussion on getting rid of celibacy. There are problems of priests with pedophilia and homosexuality gaining huge popular knowledge right now, and Rome remains blind.

All over the United States, from Boston to Florida to the West Coast, stories abound of lecherous, perverted priests preying on helpless children, sometimes, in certain cases, over a period of years. These awful cases, the papacy declares, should not be discussed on or in the same breath with celibacy because they are totally different entities. Papal wall-eyed vision shows here.

In truth, these problems do coexist and do relate.

Catholic priesthood attracts homosexuals and pedophiles. For centuries, it offered a huge helping of chosen victims delivered up, helpless, to them.

We now know that then and now the bishops made local children say nothing on pain of sin, or in recent history on pain of violation of a confidentiality order within a settlement agreement. Then, as up to now, the bishop put the predators out to prey again.

It was heaven for a pervert.

Sin like crazy. Get caught. Sin again.

Sure it was a small group of lechers.

That is enough.

The fact is, for many priests, children were all right to victimize because the Church protected them. The only bodily contact with other humans that they could obtain was sexual assault.

This was not the place where troubled married people could ever find help, and it was all the more so when the unfortunate Catholic couple was seeking help from a pervert.

Now, unfortunately, all priests carry the taint of the unclean because some of their brothers have fallen. Maybe, just maybe, some good can come of all this. That good could be a sober, lucid discussion of ending celibacy.

The Church has many matters to resolve over the next few years. Homosexuality and pedophilia are ironically two of the relatively easy ones to solve, through better screening, strong administration and clear, definitive policies.

Waiting for a true discussion of an end to priestly celibacy, however, is likely to cover one in dust, but not as thickly as the next question; why have women been excluded from the priesthood?