Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations

Description

Ch. 1 ("The Development of Clerical Continence and Celibacy in the Latin Church") on the pre-Vatican II history is worth reading.
cf. canonist Ed Peters's "Some theological studies of clerical continence"

Francis has called mandatory priestly celibacy a "gift for the Church," but added "since it is not a dogma, the door is always open" to change. As this Church discipline continues to be debated, it is important for Catholics to delve into the theological and not merely pragmatic reasons behind its continuation. Priestly Celibacy: Theological Foundations , therefore, fills a critical gap in the current theological literature on this important topic of ecclesial ministry and life, and also helps to contribute to the advancement of the rather underdeveloped theology of priestly celibacy.

A review of contemporary literature shows that works abound on the history, sociology, psychology and spirituality of priestly celibacy. However, little has been offered in the way of a theology per se. This book will catch readers up on the theological reflection that has been done, while proposing a Eucharist-based theology of celibacy distinguising priestly celibacy from general theologies of celibacy or virginity.

Fr. Gary Selin presents a systematic theology of priestly celibacy, with a special focus given to the development of the threefold scheme of priestly celibacy, i.e. its christological, ecclesiological, and eschatological dimensions. The volume begins with a summary of the biblical foundations of clerical continence and celibacy, and then reviews the development of the discipline in the Latin Church from the patristic era to the twentieth century, while also tracing the emerging theology that underlies the practice. The focus then switches to the teaching of Vatican II, Paul VI and subsequent magisterial texts, as elaborated through the threefold dimension of celibacy. The final two chapters consists of Selin's original contribution to the discussion, particularly in the form of various proposals for a systematic theology of priestly celibacy, each of which is organized around the Eucharist as the interpretative key. These proposals should stimulate further debate and development in this timely theological area.

**

Selin is a TAC alum (class of '89).

I'd been looking for a book like this since 15 Sep. 2013; cf. this forum thread.

Regarding the ritual purity argument for priestly celibacy (cf. Sacra Virginitas §§23-24), ch. 3 §"Ritual Purity in the Judaic Law" made some interesting points:

tahor (clean, pure) or tame (unclean, impure). … Separation [a topic we've discussed before, e.g., re: the divisus est of 1 Cor. 7] is the concrete, visible expression of the exalted holiness of God, and the ritual purity laws maintained this protective system of separation. … To come into contact with blood was to come into contact with the divine and thus one contracted a ritual impurity, “a holy contamination,” rather than a moral impurity. … In certain rabbinic texts, the liturgical objects themselves were understood to “pollute,” for example, the handling of a sacred scroll would soil the hands of the rabbi, and he was required to wash his hands after reading it. [fn. 103: …Even today, the liturgical vessels used at Mass are said to be purified when elements of the sacred species are removed.]

That last footnote made me think differently, especially about the feast of the B.V.M.'s purification. I'd always considered purification the removal of something evil, but ritual purification really does seem to be more about the necessity of separation/distinction/division for holiness. The common argument (III q. 37 a. 4) for why Mary underwent purification, even though she didn't have to (at least not because she was morally impure), is that she was obedient, but it seems it was really about her desire to exult the holiness of her Divine Son, as though she were saying: "As holy as I am [cf. Lk. 1:48], so much the holier is my Son."; cf. this Ambrosiaster quote (Questiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti , 127, in Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 50, 415), which Selin quotes in the next section, §"Ritual Purity in the Patristic Tradition":

Compared to the stars, the light of a lamp is but fog; while compared to the sun, the stars are obscure; and compared to the radiance of God, the sun is but night. Thus are the things which, in relationship to us, are licit and pure, and are as if illicit and impure with respect to the dignity of God; indeed, no matter how good they are, they are not appropriate to the person of God.

Regarding Lev. 12:2-4, St. Jerome uses the word "separation" (v. 2b): "… juxta dies separationis menstruæ "! What a curious expression. Yes, biologically there is a separation of the uterine lining, but is more meant here? I doubt that's a standard Latin way to describe such a "sanguinis fluxum " (Mt. 9:20).

felix festum in purificatione Beatæ Mariæ Virginis

The טָמֵא/טָהוֹר (tāhôr /tāmē) differentiation governs the whole structure of the Temple, and is tantamount to the differentiation between the ordinary (secular) order of things, and the hidden (sacred) order of things. From it, thestructure of the Temple is further differentiated—the cultically profane courts into “female” (0) and “male” (1) and the sanctuary itself, into “priesthood”/Holy (2) and “high priesthood”/Holy of Holies (3). For reference, Prophetic Figures of the Incarnate Wordfrom a few Christmases ago, discusses the underlying logic of these concomitantly differentiated categories ritually describing thesacred humanity of God Incarnate.

Our Lady’s Purification/טָהֳרָה (tāhârā) is inseparable from the ritual purpose of the Presentation of Our Lord, which is a prophetic consecration of the true Lamb (cf. Lev 12:6), segregatus a peccatoribus(Heb 7:26), sinners whom He sacrificially saves as Living Holocaust/עֹלָה (Lev 12:6b). A lamb,namely the Lamb was thus trulybrought as offering/gift to the Temple (the place of perpetual sacrifice) atthe Presentation of Our Lord, that is, Himself. And this Lamb was set apart/separatedfor the Sacrifice, that of the NewTestament to be sealed in His Precious Blood.

In his use of the word separationis that you underscore, St. Jerome accurately captured one of the meanings of the Hebraic root נדה: “standing far away,” which is tantamount to the cultic state of “separation.” From a general point of view associated with cultic impurity, that would mean being “excluded,” which is the primary meaning of the root נדה, in close semantic connection with “standing far away.”It also stands for an alternative to more frequent uses of the word “gift,” whichalso takes on a related cultic significance (because a gift is to be brought withthe fulfillment of the days of one’s purification). It does finally alsoconcretely mean, “menstrual flow”/נִדָה which, in the religiously-based anthropology of theMosaic revealed regulation, cultically means separation ,as underscored in Lev 12:2b: נִדַּת.

Cor mundum /טָהוֹר (tāhôr) crea in me, Deus… *

And soin verse 9, sung at Mass: /…/ et mundabor /וְאֶטְהָר (veêtēhār*).

The author sent me this article, related to Ex. 19:15 ("Estote parati in diem tertium, et ne appropinquetis uxoribus vestris."):

• Daniel G. Van Slyke, “Abstinence from Conjugal Relations Before Reception of the Body of Christ: A Brief History,” Antiphon 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–72.

cf. Innocent XI's Cum ad aures (February 12, 1679) on frequent communion (DZ 1147):

In coniugatis autem hoc amplius animadvertant, cum beatus Apostolus nolit eos ‘invicem fraudari, nisi forte ex consensu ad tempus, ut vacent orationi’ (cf. l cor 7, 5), eos serio admoneant, tanto magis ob sacratissimae Eucharistiae reverentiam continentiae vacandum purioreque mente ad caelestium epularum communionem esse conveniendum.

[In the case of married persons, however, let them seriously consider this, since the blessed Apostle does not wish them to "defraud one another, except perhaps by consent for a time, that they may give themselves to prayer" [cf. 1 Cor. 7:5], let them advise these seriously that they should give themselves more to continence, because of reverence for the most holy Eucharist, and that they should come together for communion in the heavenly banquet with a purer mind.]

which Pope St. Pius X cited (but did not quote) in his Sacra Tridentina on daily Communion.

Selin 2016 (ref:11.13) quotes this interesting part from

Cardinal William Levada, “Celibacy and Priesthood,” Celibacy and Priesthood , November 21, 2011.

in which he shows that priestly celibacy is not merely a disciplinary issue, but doctrinal:

In my view, it seems right to speak of the reasons that support the congruence or fittingness of priestly celibacy as “doctrinal.” Not every doctrinal development will result in a dogmatic definition, of the type that led to definitions of the Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX in 1854, or of papal primacy and infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. Perhaps a comparison with Catholic teaching about the ordination of women would be helpful here. In both cases there is an appeal to tradition. But in the case of the ordination of women, the tradition can be found from the time of the apostles to the present, and in both East and West; thus Pope John Paul II was able to declare that the exclusion of women from ordination represents a truth of the universal ordinary Magisterium of the Church definitive tenenda , that must be held as infallibly certain. Without raising an expectation of a dogmatic declaration in regard to celibacy, it seems to me that the links of celibacy to the doctrine of priesthood justify the notion of doctrinal development, thus excluding arguments about celibacy as solely a disciplinary matter.