|
R e v i e w
|
This Rock
Volume 15, Number 10
 December 2004 
|
|
|
A One-Sided Attack
In the introduction to Clerical Celibacy: The Heritage, William Phipps, a liberal Protestant minister, claims to "frequently quote Catholic spokespersons in church history to represent their positions accurately. Letting both celibacy advocates and critics state their positions in their own words should provide readers with a balanced approach to the subject" (2). Instead, though, only the most partisan reader will fail to see that the book is nothing more than a one-sided attack on this venerable Church practice.
Phipps’s first misstep is characterizing celibacy as a Catholic "doctrine" (1). He then proceeds to argue against celibacy on theological grounds, apparently thinking that he is scoring points against papal infallibility. While there is a theological aspect to priestly celibacy, at no point is Phipps aware that it is a disciplinary practice of the Church that could conceivably change without any reversal of doctrine.
A starting point for discussing celibacy is Jesus’ own sexuality, and Phipps devotes an entire chapter to it. While he does not go so far as to buy into conspiracy theories that Jesus was married (a la The Da Vinci Code), he does claim that the lack of biblical evidence either way leaves the question open to debate. As for Jesus’ sexual orientation, Phipps, to his credit, takes a skeptical view: "Had Jesus been gay in a culture that treated homosexual liaisons as an ‘abomination’ (Lev. 20:13), one would expect to find some allusion to it in the Gospels" (50).
One of the strongest arguments defenders of celibacy have is Jesus’ praise in Matthew 19:12 of those "who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Yet Phipps, citing liberal Bible scholars, uses tortured logic in order to claim that this passage is actually an exhortation to marital fidelity. He first takes the term eunuch in a literal sense as "a term associated with a horrible mutilation" (24). Then, he points out that the context of the passage is a dispute with the Pharisees over divorce. "He recognized that only some have the capacity for patience and striving toward reconciliation that he advocated. The issue here was not the indissolubility of marriage but whether one could live when abandoned and not remarry." The celibacy of the divorced, then, is associated "with a shattering disability, not with a heroic ideal state" (26). This despite the fact that no Church Fathers—not even the disciples of the twelve apostles—interpreted Jesus as saying what Phipps thinks he said.
Phipps characterizes the advocates of celibacy, from St. Paul to the current pontiff, as anti-sex. There is much in early Christian and medieval thought regarding sexuality that needed to be corrected in later centuries, but this is too big a subject to be discussed in the space afforded here. Nonetheless, anyone who reads Pope John Paul’s "theology of the body" and comes away thinking that the pontiff is anti-sex either has not read it carefully enough or is not interested in understanding it. The latter appears to be the case with Phipps, who quotes from the theology of the body but has nothing positive to say about "John Paul’s archaic teachings pertaining to sexuality" (189).
Far from the "balanced approach" he claims to have, Phipps does not even make an attempt to understand the case for celibate clergy. Catholic dissenters such as Richard McBrien and Garry Wills are quoted often, while quotations from the writings of defenders of celibacy are included only for the purpose of refuting them. Rosemary Radford Ruether is referred to as "the outstanding Catholic theologian" (49), and the Jesus Seminar is "composed of scholars devoted to historical analysis" (53). Meanwhile, John Paul II is described as "intransigent" and "reactionary." George Weigel, despite his being "a Vatican apologist" (218), is quoted only once in the book, and that is when he says something that supports Phipps’s position.
Not surprisingly, Phipps attempts to relate the issue of celibacy to the recent priestly sex abuse scandals. He cites study after study that supposedly shows that celibacy has ruined the lives of countless priests and religious, yet no mention is made of the new, younger generation of priests who not only accept celibacy but embrace it.
It’s one thing to argue that celibacy, being a changeable Church practice, is past its time and no longer should be required of Catholic clergy, despite its being a way to holiness for so many past and present saints. If Phipps had taken that approach, his book would merit being taken seriously. Even if he had said explicitly that he intended to argue against celibacy, the reader at least would be on guard. Yet Phipps forfeits all of his credibility by first claiming objectivity and then immediately abandoning the concept entirely.
—James Kidd
Clerical Celibacy: The Heritage
By William Phipps
Continuum
272 pages
$27.95
ISBN: 0826416179
|
