Celibate Clergy: The Need for Historical Debate

Abstract

One recurring theme in almost every discussion of Catholic Church’s ministry is a call for a debate on what has been one of the most carefully fostered aspects of the image of the priest: that he is without a wife. This usually has attached a strange historical twist that this discipline is either ‘‘simply canonical’’ with the implication that it can be changed easily; or that it is a most ‘‘ancient tradition’’ — often with a passing reference to the Synod of Elvira of 306 — and the argument’s implicit thrust is that a change is either difficult or wellnigh impossible. Since the first group often see no reason to appeal to history they are not my concern here as an historical theologian. For this group, the argument is simply that a change in discipline can be demonstrated now to be good for the church, its ministry, its task of evangelisation, whatever. If anything assists in these tasks, then that outcome is sufficient justification for change. Others who argue the discipline can, or should, be changed, see the historical commitment to celibacy as posing little difficulties. The argument is that whatever reasons were offered in the past, their impact on a present decision cannot be too serious a matter: there have been, de facto, married priests in the Latin tradition (both in the past and today) who were not inhibited in the usus matrimonii, so what is the problem? For those, however, who support the present canonical discipline of the Latin Church, history appears to be of great moment. Indeed, it is, as witness the work of Cardinal Stickler or his protege Cholij, the bulwark par excellence against change. The assumption is that when the evidence is laid out, then it is ‘‘clear’’ that clerical celibacy has an ancient lineage, is to be seen fundamentally as a discipline