Ecclesiastical news item:
The pope goes pro forma... this is news?
Frankly, they need to address the fundamentals and dissect the problem which, not to be too simplistic, is misogyny and plain old incontinence - not celibacy per se. These pathologies combined with a contrived and convoluted repressive self-hatred manifesting often enough in criminal behavior, the foibles otherwise problematic.
Tangentially, some of my Evangelical freinds find the worship of Mary odd and unscriptural. Mariology, as the bit of a stretch theologians put it. (Theology... the study of God. Impertinent?) A matter of shunting libidinal energy? The good Sisters of old were inviegled of being the brides of Christ. Now there's an anthropolgical study, eh?
The unscriptual notion of celibacy as practiced by the Vatican cohort derives of many factors, three of which I'll assert. As I am not an academic, I don't feel constrained by having to pony up to references and such. Just the gleanings of keeping an eye on things.
*Philosophical template. The Greco-Roman classical tradition of Platonism through to Stoicism. The 'official' church after the apostolic period came to be dominated by a learned cadre steeped in Greek intellectual culture and Roman law. They 'interpreted' Scripture as it applied to themselves and their civil masters; not the other way around where Scripture informed an inferior Jewish culture.
They more or less coopted Yahweh as they segued from a mystically sophisticated idea of a Supreme Being, the old gods foolishness for peasants - translates pagans, and the caesars decidedly not divine. The powers that were, such as Constantine, who thought 'Sol Invictus' was supreme and analogous to this Hebrew God's Christ, incorporated with the intellectuals in the interest of conformity, uniformity and civil peace. All well and good seeing Jesus as that mystical philosopher king, the quasi-divine emperor his co-regent, but not Kosher.
The Greek way was misogynist, women incapable of reason and not worth consulting. The duality of Platonism held the highest good in pure thought, not actual nitty-gritty. Sex was carnal; it could be idealized with a protoge, however - that was their sense of beauty. The Stoics couldn't be bothered and virtue was seen in avoiding irrational involvement with women.
The Romans, more practical and virile, held women in higher esteem but all were dominated by the genius of the 'pater familius' by custom and law.
*Legal tangles. OK, leaving aside the Pauline instructions about form, polity and church leadership, churchmen did marry without qualm until the monastic movement of the Ninth Century through to a council in 1149 where celibacy was officially instituted. The rationale? Eunuchs for God? Virginity the apotheosis of purity modeled on Jesus Himself?
Consider the legal problems prior. The priest dies. Ought the Church take responsibility for his wife and children? (Modern Evangelical churches I've been with usually pay the pastor's life insurance policy.) The priest fathers bastards... same question.
The priest's tenure is constituent with a feudal holding, a living, some livings more lucrative than others. The better the living, the more his family will thrive. Then the bishop changes his tenure to somewhere the living not so good. He contests and his congregants don't want him to leave. He doesn't vacate, the congregants deluded into thinking they own the property. Trouble.
Get the picture? Married life for clerics complicated the business of the hierarchial 'universal' Church. "Be done with it." said the hierarchs (who've got their mistresses and whatever, homosexuality being more convenient and without progeny) who, by law, owned all and had the last word.
As an aside, the Church was a huge land lord. They'd convince proto-aristocratic legators to leave their property to it, the legacy buying masses purchasing admission into heaven. After expenses of said living and paying for costuming and decor deducted, they'd pass on a pittance to 'the poor'. Quite the racket, no?
*Efficiency. Orthodox priests generally marry. But some vow celibacy and only they can be candidates for episcopacy. Simple time-management issue. The man who's not tied up with family obligations has more time to devote to his more extensive duties.
It's a fair reason not to be married if you want to focus on the pastoral job without distraction. (How many times has a married pastor been humiliated by family relations' behaviors?) A very practical one.
Revisiting the monastic paradigm, that's how the medieval church got so highly organized, centralizing operations with military discipline. No doubt a great phenomenon with regard to building, land use, farming and animal husbandry... making beer, wine and brandy, all of which progressed along with what we'd call vertical integration. It was, in our vernacular, a Blue Chip organization. Temporal power ensued. Prosperity built the cathedrals.
My intuition (having made no study of it) tells me that, however many bright boys were taken in to be educated for a church career, many of the monastic residents were older men, peasants and artisans, who had raised a family. If not a widower, they'd put the wife in a nunnery and take up the rule as they prayed for men's souls. It was their skill sets advantaged. Celibacy just made things easier and, really, is there a problem here?
I once had a conversation with an RC priest who said these medieval (a loaded, relative word) times were the greatest years in that church and he looked forward to their return. (Huh... run that by Hans Küng?) Yeah, they just might be stuck there, Christendom and all that.
A wee writing exercise.
I mean, like, who's got the time?
No comments:
Post a Comment