Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

 

                                                                     Introduction: 

It is commonplace for Roman Catholic apologists to conflict with the historical record when the historical record doesn't benefit the teachings of Rome. This is the case, for example, in how many Catholic apologists present the Catholic Church as an unchanging church since ancient times. 

During the ninth and tenth centuries, the Medieval western church went through many changes and reforms. Belief in the sacrifice of the mass became widely accepted during this time, as I was learning from Anthony E. Gilles's The People of the Faith. This book, which is about the history of Christianity during the Middle Ages, also has other invaluable histories of other aspects of historical theology within it. 

One of the most striking aspects of Gilles's book that I have learned is the complicated history of clerical celibacy in the early Middle Ages. While the Byzantine Empire had long had married priests, the west followed a pattern by the early Middle Ages that was more restricting (though, as shall soon be shown, clerical celibacy did not receive automatic universal support). 

Clerical celibacy had been first proposed in fourth-century Spain. The idea never gained much acceptance in the east and struggled to gain universal approval even in the west. Even during the eleventh century, Pope Gregory VII, a major reforming pope, came into conflict with married priests throughout western Christendom. He went so far as to mandate clerical celibacy as to separate married men who were already priests from their wives and children. 

With clerical celibacy being such a controversial issue, it makes us ask why? Why did the issue matter so much? In the east, the issue had never been a major one to the church. How did it become a major issue for the western church? 

This post shall address two points concerning clerical celibacy. The first shall demonstrate the lack of Biblical support for the mandating of clerical celibacy. The second shall show how and why it developed to as widely accepted in the medieval west. 

                                             1. Scripture and Clerical Celibacy

Peter the Apostle had been married (Matthew 8: 14). At least several of the apostles were married (1 Corinthians (9: 5). While some have suggested that Peter was a widower before he became pope, I believe that this is a forced interpretation of scripture----something certainly never mentioned in the New Testament. Exegesis aside, however, even if Peter had been pope after his wife passed, it's quite clear that many of the apostles were prominent leaders in the New Testament Church (Acts 15) and were clearly not living celibate lives. 

Scripture is clear that there were church leaders who were married. Some, though see 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7 as evidence that Paul set a new example for the church. Because of this, many have suggested that Paul believed celibacy was now ideal for church clergy. A major problem with the Roman Catholic view of 1 Corinthians 7: 1-7, however, is that Paul never mandated any such thing. He respected both celibacy and marriage as beneficial to the church. 

In conclusion on this first point, scripture simply does not teach the Roman Catholic concept of a celibate priesthood. Since Catholics believed that their bishops are successors of the apostles, it seems unreasonable to believe that celibacy was required more for those who didn't walk with Christ than for those who had had a direct fellowship with Him. Paul exhorted celibacy and encouraged the church in that direction, but never called for any sort of mandate on those God called to ministry, in terms of them being withheld from marriage. 

So if scripture lacks support for clerical celibacy, how did it become so common in the west? What were the reasons for the Catholic Church in promoting it?

                                        2. Papal Supremacy and Medieval Celibacy

Several ancient bishops of Rome had been married. As mentioned earlier, clerical celibacy did not receive much support until centuries after Christ. Clerical celibacy did not receive universal recognition until at least the eleventh century (even then, it took another hundred years before an ecumenical western church council taught this as official teaching). 

The acceptance of clerical celibacy came at a time when much was drastically changing for western Christianity. The Carolingian Empire was exercising by this point an influence over church matters that had only once been shared by the Byzantines. The issue of the Filioque was also dividing Christians between the west and the east from each other. 

To make matters even more complicated, the papacy took on roles in the early Middle Ages that it had generally not done before. Popes came to see themselves gradually as having the right to institute kings into power. Gradually, there became a great rivalry between the Carolingian Emperors and those of the Byzantines. Likewise, the papacy and the Carolingians shared a different type of rivalry than between one king and another. Both the pope and the Carologian family saw themselves as the head of western Christianity. In the case of the papacy, much of this was attributed to its supposed authority from Emperor Constantine. This view had been elaborated within a work called The Donation of Constantine, which scholars later recognized as a forgery. Despite having been a forgery, however, the document showcased the view that Emperor Constantine gave his authority over Christendom to the bishop of Rome---a claim that the popes benefited from for centuries long after Constantine's reign. 

Much was changing in the ninth century. It was during this time (and slightly before) that the papacy became more central to the political affairs of Christendom. Despite no pope having been present at the first seven ecumenical councils of the Christian Church, the bishop of Rome was growing in influence upon the western church. These matters affected the church into the early eleventh century and beyond. 

With papal supremacy on the rise in the ninth century, it makes sense that this would change not just how people viewed the current pope, but also, how the doctrine of papal supremacy would affect other changes in the church. 

Emperor Henry II and Pope Benedict VIII were two key figures in the church's turn to clerical celibacy. These men lived during the early eleventh century. Much of my information on their relationship to this topic I've drawn from Anthony E. Gilles's book, The People of the Faith. 

Henry was quite authoritative over the church in his lands. He made sure to handpick all the bishops throughout his territory; saw their jurisdictions as his lands. Pope Benedict, a slick politician, managed to convince the emperor to give the pope complete independence from Italian rule. As a result, the pope ended up in a position of war against his fellow Italian states while attempting to assert his papal supremacy over the prominent Italian families. 

Both emperor and pope met at Pavia in 1022. They agreed to summon a council that would reinstate clerical celibacy throughout the Holy Roman Empire. Neither Henry nor Benedict sought clerical celibacy for any theological or moral reason---it was simply a way to grant the more power. In the case of Benedict, clerical celibacy benefited papal supremacy. 

The reason that clerical celibacy was important to Henry and Benedict must be understood because of the power that it would give each. During the eleventh century, one's heritage was important and sons often were the successors of their fathers. By promoting and mandating celibacy throughout the western church, it ensured that priests would have no successors to inherit church lands. For Benedict, this was important, as he wanted all church lands under his supremacy rather than in the hands of the local family. Likewise, the emperor benefited from church authorities who had no direct successors in their bloodline to challenge him for control of their claimed lands. 

While a universal reform for the church did not come about until after Benedict's death, the council of Pavia paved the way for the western church to accept clerical celibacy. Benedict had succeeded. The council mandated clerical celibacy for all those holding church offices. This accepted not only his power in the church but for all popes ever since. 

Although clerical celibacy became officially mandated in the church in the twelfth century, Pope Benedict had laid good reasons for its practice beforehand. Clerical celibacy was not about a scriptural or historical practice---it was simply to further papal supremacy as accepted teaching throughout the west. 

                                                              Conclusion:

It's truly ironic that many traditionalist Catholics see an end to clerical celibacy as a potential moral and theological failure for the church. To many of them, this is a liberal idea even though they are actually the ones embracing the liberal position. For most of Christian history, there were married priests in both the west and the east. 

As a final point, I do find it strange how so many people will hold onto ideas without questioning their origins. This is especially the case for many who believe in clerical celibacy being a rightful mandate from the church. Learning about how it evolved mostly from the desires of the pope and emperor for more power, shows me why more Christians should question its legitimacy. Certainly, I believe that the Protestant Reformation had good reason to bring the mandate of clerical celibacy into question. Likewise, the Church of England at the time of the English Reformation was not breaking from traditional western practice on this issue (as some medieval priests were married) but from papal supremacy itself. 

Further Sources: 

Anthony, E. Gilles. The People of the Faith. (1986). Messenger Press. 

A Review of The Bright Ages

 

Today, I would like to discuss a recent work on Medieval history that I read. It challenges the concept of the ''Dark Ages.'' The book was written by medievalists David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele. 

I recently finished The Bright Ages. In general, I have mixed feelings about the book. For example, one of the areas where I disagree with the book is it makes a political point from cover to cover against white supremacy. Unfortunately, I feel that the authors see more people than Neo-Nazis as white supremacists. Frequently, far more so than its condemning of the far left, it condemns those that it considers being far right. The authors hardly fell short of showing their opposition to Trump's wall at the southern border, of making a constant point against the notion of western civilization, and constantly reminding the reader that not all people were white. 

I'm grateful for new research unveiling aspects of the past that we have not yet heard from our textbooks. However, I felt that the authors were politically motivated in their writing of a book that had more on its agenda than disproving ''Dark Ages'' myths. 

I have no problem with challenging previously held thoughts by some in the nineteenth century who wrongly believed that all Medieval Europeans were white. As The Bright Ages shows, there was a much greater complexity of race in Medieval history than many have properly understood. Whites and blacks both interacted throughout the Mediterranean, for instance. LIkewsie, I think that the book does a fine job of showing the complexity of religious groups in Medieval Times. Muslims, Christians, and Jews were not always enemies. Indeed, many of them interacted and worked together through trade and scholarship. The idea that the Crusades were the interaction between Christians and Muslims in Medieval Times is quite false. 

But while appreciating the authors demonstrating through historical evidence the over simplicity that many have perceived the Middle Ages as being, I disagree with their attempt to move away from other traditional views concerning the Middle Ages. For example, I see nothing that is white supremacist about America's roots in Europe or that most Europeans were historically white people. I also disagree with the book in that I think that the authors are being selective in their study of history. While discussing the complex relationship of Muslims and Christians in the Mediterranean, the authors seem to either forget or avoid the strong conservative orthodoxy of the Medieval Catholic Church. They avoid discussions of how Catholicism always saw unbelievers headed to the eternal fires. They also avoid writing about how much the far left of today prevents those with views akin to Medieval Catholicism as hatred and bigotry. 

There are some good aspects of The Bright Ages that I appreciated, however. For example, the authors did a fine job of showing that the traditional view of Rome falling in the fifth century is not the entire truth. Long after Rome was sacked in 410 AD, many of the medievals saw themselves as still within Roman history. To many of them, either Charlemagne or the Byzantines were the continuation of the old empire. Because of this, the medievals did not see a clear breach in time between the gradual decline of Rome in the fifth century and their own. 

Another aspect of The Bright Ages that I appreciate, is how much the book dispels common ''Dark Ages'' myths. The authors were well-versed in their knowledge of Medieval Times and were defined by far more than torture, plagues, and wars. This was the era in which Christian science was born; the time during which cathedrals were built, and the time that gave birth to great works of literature such as those by Dante and Petrarch. The book closes on Petrarch's understanding of the ''Dark Ages'' before him, making the argument that there never had been a dark age at all. 

The Bright Ages, however, does not discuss some views of the Middle Ages espoused by Fundamentalist Christians, who typically lack any formal education in either medieval history or medieval literature. For those wishing to hear common myths about the gospel supposedly being lost during Medieval Times, I recommend the following works (over The Bright Ages): 

Long Before Luther by Nathan Busenitz. 

The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature by C. S. Lewis

The Allegory of Love by C. S. Lewis

Positively Medieval: The Surirpsrins Dynamic Heroic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser. 

While The Discarded Image and The Allegory of Love are more about Medieval literature than medieval theology, the latter directly deals with the myth that peasants were ignorant of the scriptures. The former, however, explains the literary knowledge in general that even many illiterate medieval people had. 

Blosser's book does an excellent job of showing the many great saints and heroes of the faith in the Middle Ages. In general, his book defends common misconceptions of the medieval church. A conservative Eastern Rite Catholic,  Blosser's book enlightens the reader about some of the great medieval minds such as Thomas Aquinas. 

Businitiz's book does not address the ''Dark Ages'' myths in general. However, as a graduate Ph.D. student from the Master's Seminary, the author did a very good job at showing that many Medieval Christians actually held to justification by faith alone. 

Finally, for those who wish to hear a more evangelical take on the Middle Ages, there is a great article from Houston Christian University (formerly, Houston Baptist) that defends Medieval Christianity as the authentic root of the Protestant Reformation. I am very grateful for this article. Specifically, it shows that the reformers were not so far off from medieval theology (even from the medievals who did not hold to Sola fide).  You can check it out here: 

https://hc.edu/news-and-events/2018/05/22/rethinking-the-reformation-reliance-upon-the-middle-ages/

In conclusion, I have mixed feelings about The Bright Ages. There are certainly better titles that I would recommend on medieval history.