Part of the background to a puff piece on the ordination of a married Anglican convert for the Archdiocese of Los Angeles:
In the 12th century, when the Catholic Church adopted a celibacy requirement, it was as much about protecting property as it was committing priestly intimacy to God, said the Rev. Thomas Rausch, a Jesuit professor of theology at Loyola Marymount University. "The church was worried about church property going to the descendents of priests," he said.
Historically accurate? Somehow I doubt it's the whole story.
Note the topspin on the shot: the insinuation that the spiritual reasons for celibacy are a pious myth and the real explanation (for those not afraid to look at the facts) is to be sought in economics. This is the sort of reductivist account our parents might have heard from a Marxist professor of history; we get it from the senior clergy.
A young man whose father tells him that monogamy is, at bottom, a ruse concocted by women to get their housekeeping expenses paid will surmise that his father's own experience of marriage was not especially gratifying, and that, to the extent his father was a faithful husband to his mother, this fidelity was motivated less by love than fear. By the same token, when Catholics hear from celibate priests that celibacy, at bottom, concerns property control, they are unlikely to believe that such priests find the "religious side" of their lives fulfilling. We can imagine a man taken in by a scam in his gullible youth who later come to see through the hoax; but once the fraud was exposed, who would continue to play the dupe except a profound cynic or a weakling?
Some of us, perhaps, are old enough to feel residual shock at the profane apathy of the conciliar generation of clergy who, like Waugh's Dr. Beamish, are "much embittered by the fulfillment of their early hopes," and who console themselves with animal comforts or politics. Younger Catholics, I find, either accept the world-view of the 1970s liberals (in which case they drop the institutional-religion-thing altogether) or else they reject the programmatic cynicism and -- by employing a severe ex opere operato theology -- make use of "massing priests" to confect the sacraments (for lack of an alternative) while directing their spiritual attention elsewhere. Jody Bottum's article in last October's First Things touches on the same subject:
A few years ago, I was out in Southern California, visiting a school in Orange County. I can't remember the name of the parish to which the students took me for Mass, but what has stayed with me ever since is the conversation as they drove me back to the hotel. Talk about the homily's content didn't interest them; even talk about the homily's lack of content didn't interest them. "I just kind of tune it out," the driver said, and the others all agreed. "I just go to church for confession, to pray, and to take Communion," added the young woman in the back. "At least the priests can do that."
"You remember how, you know, the old hippie types used to say, 'Never trust anyone over thirty'? Well, they were right. Only it was their own generation they were talking about," the thin, quiet one in the back announced as we pulled up to the hotel. "You can see it clearly out here in California. That whole generation of Catholics in America, basically everybody formed before 1978, is screwed up. Left, Right, whatever. ...The best of them were failures, and the worst of them were monsters."
Is this dismissiveness an instance of the impatience that every emergent generation displays towards the failings (real or perceived) of its predecessor? In part. But as Bottum points out, "These were serious Catholic kids -- daily communicants, pro-life marchers, soup-kitchen volunteers, members of perpetual-adoration societies." In the 1950s, a young Catholic could purchase esteem by partaking of these activities; to be recognized as a participant would gratify almost everyone whom it was important to gratify. But today such allegiances come at a cost. They put the Catholic at odds with profs, with fellow students, with prospective employers, sometimes with parents and pastors as well; they teach him what it's like to be an outsider -- at least an outsider to those on the make, to those who are "upwardly mobile."
In view of this, I don't think the priestly disparagement of celibacy will do much damage in the long term. It's patronizing. And young people hate to be patronized. Those who have paid a price, however modest, for a stronger-than-required religious fidelity are simply not interested in the worldlings' boredom with spiritual realities -- or, indeed, in their opinion on anything else.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach seven million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our year-end goal ($161,549 to go):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Mar. 20, 2007 11:59 PM ET USA
Three reasons why I have hope: 1) This year I have my first student named "John Paul." 2) I just wrote to the chaplain of another school who is named "John Paul." 3) My students who went to the pro-life march in DC came back saying, "Fr., we're going to win this; almost everyone there was between 19 and 30." Some of my students refer to themselves as the John Paul generation. Time and the Holy Spirit are on their side---thanks to the unsung heroes of the faith: Parents!
Posted by: -
Mar. 19, 2007 3:08 PM ET USA
If Diogenes is ever Canonized (we'll pray for it), this will be included in his "best of: collections" book.
Posted by: -
Mar. 19, 2007 11:49 AM ET USA
Our senior clergy went to those same history classes and that is the problem. Don't you find it funny that the same people who; in the 60's; called for us to be "counter culture" now call on everyone to conform? "...formed before 1978" Anyone know why is that a watershead year?
Posted by: -
Mar. 19, 2007 10:45 AM ET USA
"These were serious Catholic kids -- daily communicants, pro-life marchers, soup-kitchen volunteers, members of perpetual-adoration societies." These are my children, born 1967-1979. They know they are to love the Faith and Christ's church, but they come away on Sunday scratching their heads, wondering what the "h*ll they've just experienced. One is trying to bring a friend into the church; she is scared to death to connect him to a RCIA program that is baised on feelings and mush. Lord have mer
Posted by: -
Mar. 19, 2007 8:13 AM ET USA
SpecOps, there are more priests who are like you than you may realize.
Posted by: -
Mar. 19, 2007 5:44 AM ET USA
"the best of them were failures": well, not quite -- I believe there are three Catholics among the fourteen jailed prolifers.
Posted by: -
Mar. 18, 2007 12:22 PM ET USA
You are right on, as usual, Diogenes. At the same time that it saddens me to hear the Roman Catholic Church's devout young people talk this way about my brother priests (& even some bishops & cardinals), it also gives me great hope that they can actually see who these traitors are within the Church, that they realize who is leading them away from Jesus & His Church & His Vicar on earth &, I pray, that they also realize there are some of us leading them, gluing them to Christ & His Church, AMDG.