Posts

The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy

The old joke is still funny: Why did Peter deny Jesus? Peter was still mad that Jesus healed his mother-in-law. All kidding aside, many non-Catholics look at the indisputable fact that Peter had a mother-in-law (who was indeed healed by Jesus in Mark 1:30-31), and therefore must have had a wife, and consider the Catholic practice of clerical celibacy  – well, a bad joke. They ask, “How can the Catholic Church require priestly celibacy when it’s clear that at least Peter – and possibly other Apostles – were married?”

Today’s Gospel sheds light on both the Catholic practice in general, and Peter’s particulars. This is good evidence that Jesus himself required his apostles to share his way of life:

Peter began to say to Jesus,
‘We have given up everything and followed you.”
Jesus said, “Amen, I say to you,
there is no one who has given up house or brothers or sisters
or mother or father or children or lands
for my sake and for the sake of the Gospel
who will not receive a hundred times more now in this present age:
houses and brothers and sisters
and mothers and children and lands,
with persecutions, and eternal life in the age to come.
But many that are first will be last, and the last will be first.”

– Mark 10:28-31

The fact of the matter is that many clerics were ordained as married men in the early Church, but here’s the thing: they were required to be continent (abstain from marital relations) after ordination. There’s plenty of evidence that this practice dates to the Apostolic age and continued in both East and West. Strong documentation is found in Christian Cochini’s The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, and Stefan Heid’s Celibacy in the Early Church, both published by Ignatius Press. Wives of potential clerics had to agree to such a change, or the ordination could not be carried out.

Peter, as Jesus indicated, left his wife and family home behind to follow Jesus more closely, as the Apostolic band roamed the countryside of Galilee. But this did not in any way indicate that he cruelly abandoned his bride, if she was indeed still living at the time. The extended family unit was paramount in Eastern cultures of the time, as it still is in many cases today. Many family members would often live under the same roof, and Mark notes that the healing of Peter’s mother-in-law occurred at Peter’s home in Capernaum. Peter’s wife would have been cared for. It is hardly imaginable that Jesus, who so despised divorce (which left women in a very precarious economic predicament in those days), would have advocated a cold dismissal of one’s spouse in order to be an Apostle.

Recently, the prominent canon lawyer Edward Peters has argued that the Church should return to her historical roots and that all clerics in higher orders, including permanent deacons (who currently are not required to do this), should observe the ancient practice of clerical continence. You can read his take here.

/2 Comments/by

The Biblical Basis for Infant Baptism

I cringed inside when I saw the YouTube video. A friend of mine was getting baptized – for a second time. Why would he do that, you ask? He would explain during the video. The clip was from a testimony he gave just before getting rebaptized in a non-Catholic congregation. He spoke of how his original baptism in the Catholic Church had occurred when he was a mere infant. He had obviously had no choice in that matter – and what’s more, he called infant baptism “unbiblical”. But this second baptism would be of his own volition, and would prove his own personal commitment to Christ.

I cringed because this second baptism, unbeknownst to him, was ineffectual. Baptism is an unrepeatable sacrament. But I also had to laugh, because I had made the same mistake. Like my friend, I had grown up Catholic, but was poorly catechized. I, too, had left the Catholic Church at approximately the same age as this friend – in my early 20s. And I, too, had been rebaptized in a non-Catholic setting, affirming that “believer’s baptism”, as it is known, was the correct praxis. I, too, had made the same speech about how unbiblical infant baptism was. But little did I know.

In today’s Gospel reading at Mass, we have one of the scriptural proofs for infant baptism:

People were bringing children to Jesus that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them. When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the Kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Amen, I say to you, whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it.” Then he embraced the children and blessed them, placing his hands on them.

– Mark 10:13-16

Infant baptism is done in the Catholic Church because we refuse to prevent children from coming to Christ. This is for many reasons, but I will highlight only two, lest this blog post become a small book:

1. The Covenant includes children, and

2. They need it.

1. The Covenant includes children. In the Old Covenant, children were included in God’s family, Israel. All male children entered the Covenant by means of circumcision. The New Covenant people of God are incorporated into his family by means of baptism, which replaces circumcision. This is why Saint Peter preaches at Pentecost, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children…” (Acts 2:38-39, emphasis mine). Entire households were baptized in the early Church as a matter of course (cf. Acts 16:15, 33; 18:8; 1 Cor 1:16).

2. They need it.

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called. The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth.

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1250

/1 Comment/by

The Authority of the Pope in the Early Church

Today is the feast of the Chair of Peter, celebrating the enduring office of the Papacy that Jesus entrusted to the Church in Matthew 16, John 21, and elsewhere. Non-Catholics often question the Church’s interpretation of these Scriptures, but there’s no denying the reality of papal primacy in how the early Church actually operated in history. The praxis of the early Church from the beginning is eloquent testimony that the Catholic interpretation of the Petrine ministry is the original one.

A great example of this is an incident that arose during the reign of Pope Victor I, circa 198 AD. Some bishops in the Eastern wing of the Catholic Church had been celebrating Easter on a different date than what had been the norm in the West. Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate these prelates from Asia Minor, unless they fell back in line with the Roman celebration of Easter.

Some questioned aspects of Pope Victor’s decision – the great Saint Irenaeus, author of the apologetic masterwork, Against Heresies, for one. But no one questioned his authority to do such a thing – not even the Eastern bishops themselves. The fact that they didn’t is damaging to the non-Catholic view that the Church’s bishops have no leader among themselves. Just as surely as Peter was the captain of the Apostolic band, his successor, the Pope, has always been the leader of his fellow bishops.

As Irenaeus himself so eloquently put it,

Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions (the apostolic succession of bishops) of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; (we do this) by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also (by indicating) the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (Rome) on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere…

– Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2

/1 Comment/by

Sacramental Healing

Jesus healing a blind manToday’s Gospel reading at Mass cites a unique incident from Jesus’ career: a two-stage healing.

When Jesus and his disciples arrived at Bethsaida,
people brought to him a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him.
He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village.
Putting spittle on his eyes he laid his hands on the man and asked,
“Do you see anything?”
Looking up the man replied, “I see people looking like trees and walking.”
Then he laid hands on the man’s eyes a second time and he saw clearly;
his sight was restored and he could see everything distinctly.
Then he sent him home and said, “Do not even go into the village” (Mark 8:22-26).

There are two things we can learn from this:

1. This is more historical proof of Jesus as a wonderworker. No Christian is going to make up an account about Jesus’ healing not quite “working” the first time, especially when so many of Jesus’ miraculous deeds (healings, exorcisms, nature miracles) happen instantaneously, at his word, even from a distance. This smacks of authenticity and eyewitness detail. Furthermore, this is more evidence that the evangelists didn’t feel free to “invent” incidents from the life of Christ, or feel free to “edit” accounts of Jesus’ life that were passed on by tradents and collected into the Gospels. If that were the case, this account would have almost certainly been “cleaned up” by the evangelist, with the healing working at once.

2. This is a “sacramental” healing. Jesus didn’t need to take spittle and use that to heal the man’s vision. But the fact that he did shows that God can use matter to communicate his grace – that is, his very life. This should be obvious when considering the Incarnation itself. The body of Christ communicated, and was the very vehicle, of the life of God on earth. And Christ continues to communicate his healing powers through the sacraments of the Catholic Church. The sacraments each take ordinary, physical materials – water, bread, wine, oil – and, in the case of marriage, the very bodies of the spouses themselves – to communicate the life-giving power of God. The Eucharist, of course, is the greatest of all sacraments, because, as Saint Thomas aquinas once said, in all the other sacraments, the power of Christ is present; in the Eucharist, Christ himself is present – Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.

The sacraments of the Church bring the power to see life and eternity – all of reality – in ever clearer and sharper focus. Like the blind man, we don’t always see this clearly at first, even after receiving the sacraments. We have to go “outside the village” and never go back in, like Christ led out the blind man – we must leave our old ways behind. And, as Saint Jerome taught, the “spittle” of Christ, which represents his word, his teaching, must be applied to our lives – that is, obeyed – for the healing of our lives to be complete.

/2 Comments/by