On Understanding Priestly Celibacy: A Suggestion

The Offerings of Melchizedek, James Tissot (1836-1902).

Discussion has recently arisen about priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church. Such discussion is not new. This time the discussion involves a pope, Pope Francis. The discussion springs from an interview with Eugenio Scalfari (published in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica on July 13, 2014). The same day, Fr. Federico Lombardi, S.J., the director of the press office of the Holy See, publicly stated that the precise formulations of the Pope, as found in the article, cannot be attributed with certainty to the Pope.

This discussion about priestly celibacy was the occasion of an article published on July 19, 2014, by Sandro Magister, on his English-language website: www.chiesa.espressonline.it. Magister is an Italian journalist who has covered the Holy See for many years. Magister reported on an article published in the Italian newspaper, Il Foglio, on July 16, 2014. The article was written by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, who has presided over the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences for more than 20 years. In the article, the cardinal gave a brief summary of priestly celibacy in both the Western and Eastern Churches until the Gregorian Reform of the 11th century. The present note will give a brief sketch of Cardinal Brandmüller’s summary in which he states, in regards to the statement by Scalfari, that priestly celibacy in the Church began 900 years after Christ. The note will then venture to make a suggestion about the significance of priestly celibacy in the light of Sacerdotalis caelibatus (On the Practice of Priestly Celibacy), the encyclical of Blessed Pope Paul VI issued on June 24, 1967.

In his summary, Cardinal Brandmüller rehearses the reasons why he believes that the practice of priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church goes back to Jesus himself. Brandmüller quotes Matthew 19:20, Mark 10:29, and Luke 18:29-30, as indications where priestly celibacy is implied. Brandmüller notes that Jesus addressed these words, not to “the masses,” but rather to those whom he “sends out.”

Brandmüller also adduces Luke 8:1-3, where a number of pious women are said to have accompanied Jesus and “the twelve” Apostles. The fact that Jesus allowed these women to accompany himself and “the twelve” would seem to indicate a deliberate break, imposed by Jesus, between the Apostles and their wives. Jesus, when alone, would seem not to normally speak with women (cf. John 4:27). This suggests that the text from Luke implies a fixed usage for the group of disciples when Jesus was with them.

In 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6, Paul says that bishops must have only “one wife.” As subsequent Catholic tradition shows, this is best understood as meaning that they should have been married only once. The context shows that the reason for this is that remarriage (normally after children have been born) would indicate a lack of self-control. Ordination to the priesthood, subsequent to marriage, could take place only if the couple promised to forego marital relations.

The conundrum among Pauline texts is 1 Corinthians 9:4-6, where an “apostle” (such as Paul is himself) has the right to be accompanied by an adelphê gynê, literally, a “sister wife,” as other Apostles did. This Greek phrase is normally translated as “Christian wife” (this is the interpretation favored by Brandmüller) or simply “wife.” But there seems no good reason not to translate it as “sister wife” in the sense that the Apostle lives with his accompanying wife as a sister, i.e., as a celibate. The result, interpreted in the light of subsequent practice with regard to married clergy, would be the same, but the “sister wife” translation is more graphic.

The above interpretations are contested, of course, but taken as a whole, especially in the light of subsequent usage as regards married clergy, they make defensible sense and a good argument, against the introduction of celibacy 900 years after Christ.

The post-apostolic age, as contained in various texts, indicated a modification in this practice of New Testament times as regards married clergy. As Brandmüller puts it: “The original form of celibacy, therefore, allowed the priest or bishop to continue his family life, but not his conjugal life. For this reason, as well, the preference was to ordain men who had reached an advanced age.”

With the Council of Elvira in southern Spain in the early fourth century (Brandmüller puts the date as 305-306), there is the first known law regarding celibacy of the clergy (canon 33). The Council prohibited all clergy from having conjugal relations with their wives. (“At the time, it was therefore thought that conjugal abstinence was compatible with family life,” notes Brandmüller.) With the passage of time, the tendency was to ordain only unmarried men until this became a fixed custom in the Middle Ages. And so, we arrive at the present discipline.

The cardinal notes that “as is the nature of things, the observance of celibacy has seen highs and lows over the course of the centuries” … “There is, for example, the famous and fiery dispute in the 11th century, at the time of what is called the Gregorian reform. At that juncture one witnessed a split that was so stark—especially in the German and French Churches—as to lead the German prelates, who were contrary to celibacy, to forcibly expel from his diocese, Bishop Altmann of Passau. In France, the pope’s emissaries, who were charged with insisting on the discipline of celibacy, were threatened with death.”

But the major example of a rupture with tradition occurred in the East. According to Brandmüller, it was in the East that the practice of “abstinent celibacy” for clerics was held to be most binding. The date was 691, during the Quintisext Council, or Council “in Trullo,” that this rupture occurred. The Council was held in Constantinople. “This Council, influenced to a great extent by the emperor, who wanted new legislation to restore order in relations, was never recognized by the popes,” affirms the cardinal. In the Council, permission was granted for all subdeacons, deacons, and priests to be married without practicing celibacy.

The above outline could be filled in with an immense wealth of detail, most of it in favor of the discipline of celibacy, “abstinent” or not, from apostolic times until the Middle Ages. Subsequent history of celibacy in the East is quite complicated, but the above outline is sufficient for present purposes. This note will now concentrate on the possible meaning of celibacy as practiced from the apostolic age until the present.

Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical contains a wealth of material which is well worth perusing. For example, in §19, he writes:

The Christian priesthood, being of a new order, can be understood only in the light of the newness of Christ, the Supreme Pontiff and eternal Priest, who instituted the priesthood of the ministry as a real participation in his own unique priesthood.

In the context of an encyclical on priestly celibacy, this is an indication that the celibacy of Christ, and hence of his priests, is related to his unique priesthood.

Further on in the encyclical, the pontiff invites further study regarding priestly celibacy and its relation to the priesthood of Christ. In §25, he writes:

This biblical and theological view associates our ministerial priesthood with the priesthood of Christ; the total and exclusive dedication of Christ to his mission of salvation provides reason and example for our assimilation to the form of charity and sacrifice proper to Christ our Savior. This vision seems to Us so profound and rich in truth, both speculative and practical, that We invite you, venerable brothers, and you, eager students of Christian doctrine and masters of the spiritual life, and all you priests who have gained a supernatural insight into your vocation, to persevere in the study of this vision, and to go deeply into the inner recesses and wealth of its reality. In this way, the bond between the priesthood and celibacy will more and more be seen as closely knit—as the mark of a heroic soul and the imperative call to unique and total love for Christ and His Church.

In the light of all of the above—Eugenio Salvari’s published version of his interview with Pope Francis, Cardinal Walter Brandmüller’s remarks (here in abbreviated form) on the history of celibacy in the Church, and in Blessed Paul VI’s encyclical Sacerdotalis caelibatus, his invitation to deepen his remarks on the relation of Christ’s priesthood to his celibacy—the following is not inappropriate.

In §19, the encyclical mentions Christ as “the eternal Priest,” and refers to, among other texts, Hebrews 7:24: “He (Christ) because of remaining forever, has an unchangeable priesthood.” The verse occurs in a chapter of Hebrews dominated by the figure of Melchizedek. Melchizedek first appears in the epistle in Hebrews 5:6, which cites Psalm 110:4, “You are a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek.” In the previous verse, the text cites Psalm 2:7, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you.” In the total context of Hebrews, this means that at the moment of his Resurrection, Christ entered into eternal life, not with a renewed earthly body, as Lazarus had at his resurrection from the dead, but in a heavenly body that had escaped the bonds of time.

In Hebrews 7:3, the figure of Melchizedek is described as he is presented in Genesis 14:1-10, “He is without father or mother or genealogy and has neither a beginning of days nor end of life, but resembling the Son of God, he remains priest forever.”

The real priest Melchizedek doubtless had a father and mother and a genealogy, but the author of Hebrews is viewing him strictly as he is presented in the inspired text. He is viewing Melchizedek, moreover, not from the standpoint of Melchizedek, but from the standpoint of Christ. As priest, Christ has no father nor mother nor genealogy. He just is. Secondarily, this situation provides a contrast with the Israelite priests who had to belong to the tribe of Levi, and, of necessity, had father and mother and genealogy. But, primarily, this situation indicates that Christ the Priest exists in eternity outside of time, i.e., in a heavenly body. Thus, his priesthood and its saving effects, which he gained from the sacrifice of himself in time while he had an earthly body, can be applied to all men and women who ever lived, even before this death in time, and who ever will live. It is this eternal Priest that the earthly priests, who are ordained as his ministers, image forth by their celibacy.

Such celibacy, as is obvious from the teaching of the Church, is not necessary for the validity of the priestly calling. But it is necessary for the fullness of witness of such priests to the Priest who, as Priest, had neither father nor mother nor genealogy, but just is.