16 January 2020, The Tablet
Another veiled attack on Francis?
Are the opponents of Pope Francis
trying to open a second front in their war against his reforming
papacy? According to some interpretations, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI
has sent a warning to his successor not to allow the ordination into the
priesthood of a small number of married men, in order to relieve the
severe shortage of priests in the Amazon region. This was one of the
proposals that emerged from last year’s Amazon Synod in Rome, to which
Pope Francis is still considering his response. Such an interpretation
appeals to that vociferous ultra-conservative minority in the Catholic
Church which regards Francis with deep suspicion and not a little
antagonism. It suits them to maximise any impression of a split between
the two, Benedict being cast as a trenchant critic of the Franciscan
papacy – which, in fact, he is not.
In his contribution to a book arguing in support of a celibate clergy, an essay apparently written before the meeting of the bishops of the Amazon, Benedict does not write anything opposing the known views of Francis on this topic. However, a stronger stand is taken by Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who wrote the rest of the book in which Benedict’s essay appears. Sharing a book with someone whose opinions are more stringent than one’s own is bound to be seen as a kind of endorsement of them, even though he has withdrawn his name from the introduction and conclusion to the book, which were originally issued in both their names.
Having an active pope living alongside a retired one in the Vatican, which is the domestic arrangement settled on after Benedict’s startling resignation in 2013, was always going to be less than ideal. Benedict will be criticised for failing to honour the promise of silence that he gave – this is not his first intervention in a controversial church debate – but there is something more unsettling about his words. They imply that a celibate priest is able to surrender his life completely to the service of God in a way a married person cannot. So the two vocations are incompatible, and, furthermore, celibacy is the superior state.
The Church is certainly enriched by the many celibate priests who live sacrificially for the good of others. But many parents do so too. Why cannot marriage also be regarded as a complete surrender to the service of God? Is it because marriage involves sex, and Catholic thinking is still haunted by the notion that sex is impure? Is humanity still seen as divided between an animal nature and a spiritual nature, and sexuality belongs with the former?
This anthropological dualism is a deeply damaging mistake the Church is still struggling to free itself from. It is harmful to both priests and married lay people. The implication that Jesus’ exhortation in Matthew, “Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”, does not apply to married people is a more serious heresy than anything Francis has been accused of by his critics.
It cannot be said too often that marriage can be just as much a school of sanctity as the celibate priesthood.
In his contribution to a book arguing in support of a celibate clergy, an essay apparently written before the meeting of the bishops of the Amazon, Benedict does not write anything opposing the known views of Francis on this topic. However, a stronger stand is taken by Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, who wrote the rest of the book in which Benedict’s essay appears. Sharing a book with someone whose opinions are more stringent than one’s own is bound to be seen as a kind of endorsement of them, even though he has withdrawn his name from the introduction and conclusion to the book, which were originally issued in both their names.
Having an active pope living alongside a retired one in the Vatican, which is the domestic arrangement settled on after Benedict’s startling resignation in 2013, was always going to be less than ideal. Benedict will be criticised for failing to honour the promise of silence that he gave – this is not his first intervention in a controversial church debate – but there is something more unsettling about his words. They imply that a celibate priest is able to surrender his life completely to the service of God in a way a married person cannot. So the two vocations are incompatible, and, furthermore, celibacy is the superior state.
The Church is certainly enriched by the many celibate priests who live sacrificially for the good of others. But many parents do so too. Why cannot marriage also be regarded as a complete surrender to the service of God? Is it because marriage involves sex, and Catholic thinking is still haunted by the notion that sex is impure? Is humanity still seen as divided between an animal nature and a spiritual nature, and sexuality belongs with the former?
This anthropological dualism is a deeply damaging mistake the Church is still struggling to free itself from. It is harmful to both priests and married lay people. The implication that Jesus’ exhortation in Matthew, “Be ye perfect as your father in heaven is perfect”, does not apply to married people is a more serious heresy than anything Francis has been accused of by his critics.
It cannot be said too often that marriage can be just as much a school of sanctity as the celibate priesthood.
Having been under both sacraments (ordained for 25 yrs., and married for over 14 1.2), a healthier view of celibacy was put forth years ago by Marriage Encounter. Yes, married couples ARE celibate, because their love is exclusive to their spouse. And that view also extends to clergy, who are (or should be) exclusive in their love for the Church.
ReplyDeleteRobert Marzullo
Shoreline WA