Celibacy and the Priesthood

Yesterday I wrote on two commonly-stated solutions to the vocations crisis that’s plaguing the American Catholic Church: ordaining women and allowing married men into the priesthood. In that post I hope I accurately explained Church teaching on why she cannot ordain women. Today, I’d like write why the Church only encourages a celibate priesthood.

First of all, there are situations where a priest is allowed to be married, and that’s usually when the priest in question is a convert from another denomination, such as Anglicanism, and is currently married. Strictly speaking, as illustrated in these rare instances, a celibate clergy is a doctrine, not a dogma. (Again, this whole doctrine/teaching vs. dogma haziness comes into play. What an ideal topic for a sermon at a Sunday mass! Think of the learning opportunity for the average lay Catholic.)

And to state the obvious, the Church does not forbid anyone to marry. If a man wishes to enter the priesthood, he must willingly accept the yoke of celibacy. But it is done of his own free will. Not all are called to be celibate; not all are called to the priesthood.

Similar to women’s ordination, the precedence here is Jesus Christ. Specifically, following Him as closely as possible. It is an imitation, motivated by love, of Jesus, who Himself remained celibate His whole life. In choosing celibacy, the priest responds to Jesus’ basic question, at the end of the gospel of John, “Do you love Me?” The priest responds with total self-giving, staking the most important part of his life on his trust in Our Lord. It’s shows us all, by actions and not just words, that serving Christ is a privilege worth more than the greatest joys earthly life can provide us.

Celibacy, at least our society’s understanding of it, is too often defined by what one is giving up, not what one is gaining. What does the priest (or the religious brother or sister) gain? A spiritual union that could be described as an eternal marriage as opposed to an earthly one. And let’s emphasize, lest anyone throw this out, that the marital act is not considered sinful. Obviously such a belief runs completely counter to Church teaching. But when one is as close to the Holy as one can be, it is right and fitting to be of undivided mind, heart, and soul.

Some Biblical foundations for a celibate priesthood? Okay. Celibacy is the greatest possible acceptance of Jesus’ command to renounce all for the sake of the gospel. In Matthew 19, He states, “Some are incapable of marriage … because they have renounced marriage for the sake of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” And Paul writes to the Romans that we should make our bodies a living sacrifice to God; the celibate priest is the highest example of this.

Ours is a culture that waters down everything; nothing is good or holy, all is relative to everything else. Celibacy provides the highest counterexample to the sexual sin that so permeates our society (and a small percentage of the priesthood). How noble it must appear to incur such wrath! It’s a proof that commitment can be lifelong, something our culture does not believe in one iota. It is sacrificial in nature, another quality our hedonistic culture despises.

Then there’s the tired argument that allowing priests to marry will cure the rare instance of deviant sexual behavioral addiction. Completely and utterly untrue. As one example, how often do we read of teachers, women as well as men, involved with immoral and illegal behavior with minors? Teachers are allowed to marry. So where’s the logic in the argument, then? Statistics alone prove this to be baseless.

If women’s ordination and a married priesthood are not valid answers to the vocation crisis, what else can and should be done?

First of all, I think a whole host of American bishops need to be urged into early retirement. Some have remained upstanding, but too many have not done enough; a couple have even gone out of there way and succumbed to self-interest instead of tending their flocks. Regardless, it is clear they have not done their jobs well. However, I’ve heard convincing arguments both ways, and I’m not stubborn enough to believe I have the answers that the Church doesn’t. I was so thoroughly overwhelmed when Pope Benedict came to the United States this past April that I place my full trust in this man’s wisdom and guidance, as all Catholics should.

Second, and I feel much more strongly about this, American seminaries need a thorough cleaning out and disinfecting. It is simply heartbreaking how these institutions have failed us over the past couple of decades. For all the details of this travesty you can stomach, you can check this book out. What a terrible, terrible shame.

I’ve heard it said that there really isn’t a liberal / conservative dichotomy in the Church. When you use those terms, those politically charged terms, you’re coming at issues from the wrong angle. Instead, there’s only orthodox / heretical. Faithfulness and fidelity to Church teaching is the marker. I think somewhere shortly after Vatican II, sadly influenced by the concurrent sexual revolution of the 60s, the American Church got quite a bit sidetracked. Only a return to orthodox, Catholic teaching, not only for seminarians, priests, and bishops but also for all lay Catholics, is what can cure this.

No man is willing to give up his life for a wishy-washy set of platitudes; but how many over the centuries have given up all for the almost unbearably hard life and simple truth that Christ offers –