Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and Cardinal Sarah weigh in on Priestly Celibacy

And in doing so they are taking an extraordinary step in counseling the current Pope, Pope Francis.

Its obvious no secret by this point that many "conservative" Catholic leaders are unhappy with many things regarding the current Pope and for that matter a lot of "conservative" Catholic laymen are as well.  This varies enormously by individual, but early on most conservative Catholics, which is a very wide definition that includes traditionalist but which isn't limited to them, were willing to give Pope Francis a break on most things but that has worn pretty thin by this point in many quarters for a variety of reasons.

This seems to be one of them, but grasping it is a bit difficult from a long historical view.

Many conservative Catholics are distressed by what seem to be a move towards married priests to some degree, maybe only regionally in South America.  Pope Benedict and Cardinal Sarah, both of whom I deeply respect, are obviously in this camp.  They've apparently written in a new book that they are both authors of (since I wrote this its been announced that Pope Benedict's name will be removed as an author) urging that the celibacy rules for priests not be changed.

I am pretty conservative myself, and frankly I've been distressed by some of the murkiness in Pope Francis' statements here and there and I feel that Pope Francis really needs to get the German church in line.  But having said that, its important to note that priestly celibacy only applies in the first place to Latin Rite Catholics. Eastern Rite Catholics don't have that rule and it must be a bit upsetting to them to have Latin Rite Catholics arguing its an absolute must.  Likewise, the Orthodox also do not have that rule and while its continually rumored that we're closer to ending the schism between the East and West at any point since the 1490s, this debate must be at least off putting to some of them.

Additionally, there are married Latin Rite Catholic priests, almost always priests who were previously Episcopal or Lutheran clerics before converting to Catholicism.  Ironically, they're often quite vocal in support of the existing rule, but they're also quite conservative.  The point is here that those priests are regarded as good and loyal priest and they provide an example of married priests in the Latin Rite as well as an opinion we should listen to on what to do and not to do in changing the rule.

The rule on priestly celibacy has a long and complicated history.  St. Paul addressed the topic in urging early Christians who could abstain from sex to avoid marrying for the sake of Christ, but he didn't require it and St. Peter, who was the first Pope and who at least had been married and may still have been when he was martyred, did not require it either.  Be that as it may, efforts at requiring it were being made as early as the 4th Century.  A proposal was made at the Council of Nicea to require priests to be unmarried but the Council rejected it.

By the 1130s it was a formal rule of the Latin Rite and had come in as the Church was concerned about the development of an European priestly class which was starting to look as if the offices would be inherited. The Church stepped in at that point and created the rule, therefore, which operated to stop that from developing but it took some time before it was fully complied with. The Church reaffirmed the rule at the Council of Trent, at which time the separating Protestant denominations were rapidly abandoning it.

It has served the Latin Rite well since then.  A sort of noble priestly class was avoided and, moreover, in the prior eras in which resources were tight it both attracted men who were hard working and intelligent but who wanted to avoid the burdens of married life, which were greater in numerous ways, and it kept the situation from developing in which married priests were essentially beholding to benefactors.  A good example of the latter is the situation that developed in the Church of England where that very much occurred and where the priesthood became one of the occupations of minor nobility, a situation that long term has contributed to the decline in that church.

So why change it now?

Well, traditionalist and conservatives can give that answer, but whatever it is, and there are real arguments for not changing it, it must be remembered that the conditions that it originally addressed are no longer there.  There's no risk of an inherited priestly class coming into existence now and, indeed, the situation in which sons may follow fathers into the priesthood, which does exist in the Eastern Rite and the Orthodox churches, would frankly be a welcome one now.

And that's because the distractions of careers, money and sex are now much greater in a richer and more disoriented society.  Lots of people can't quite hear the call, I suspect, over the yells that they should seek wealth and career, etc.  They do later, but by then, if they are married, the call comes usually too late.  We see some of those men entering the priesthood late in life as widows, and a few others switching to the Byzantine Rite, but there would obviously be many more if the rule wasn't there.

Which means some thought should be given to it.

The same process lead to the restoration of the Permanent Deaconate in the Latin Rite which had otherwise fallen into disuse in that rite.  Originally thought of as a way to address Priest shortages i Latin America, it's become a way for deeply religious men, mostly married men, to serve the Church without being Priests.  Indeed, as Deacons may not marry if their spouse dies they are as a rule almost all married at the time of their ordination.  The restoration of Deacons was new and even felt odd when it occurred but now they are highly included in the Church and the result has certainly not been a disaster.

There would have to be some restrictive rules on this, I'm sure. But they may already exist in the Eastern Rites. The Eastern Rites are doing well and we would do well to learn by them.