4. On the Validity of a Celibate Priesthood

The homosexual lobby, in response to Christian’s labeling homosexual acts and unions (so-called “marriages”) as unnatural, often fires back with their own claim that the Catholic tradition and discipline of a celibate priesthood is just as “unnatural”—if not more so.  Man, they claim, has sexual organs, and it is Man’s right, his duty, to use them to fulfill their obvious purpose: sex.  It is “unnatural,” in light of this readily present fact, for him to forgo sexual pleasure and fulfillment, these same people say.  It is especially unnatural, they further claim, for males to do this.  Because men are, after all, no more than insatiably red-blooded beasts when confronted with the slightest sexual provocation.  They almost never use their heads (the one perched atop their necks) and prefer to listen to the one between their legs (or at least, the popular media likes to portray them in this way).  I think that this is a disingenuous claim by the homosexual lobby.  The claim devalues the institution of the priesthood, males, and Man himself, all in the name of sodomy legitimization.  Not a very good trade-off in my opinion.

Now, I believe that it is both legitimate and sensible to stake the claim that Man is a composite of the natural and the supernatural.  There is no need to appeal to religious texts, clerics, or divine revelation to see this.  Now, for those who reject this assessment of the anthropology of Man, allow me to offer a few examples that will demonstrate strongly, though not prove outright, this reality.

Man creates music.  There is no animal on this earth that could create the glory of Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven’s symphonies.  Their music is beautiful in every sense of the word and seems to transcend this world and lift us up to something more.

Man creates art.  The beauty of the masterpieces of Michelangelo, Raphael, Donatello, da Vinci, Picasso, van Gogh, and many others is utterly astounding: show me an animal that can come even remotely close to producing anything so awe-inspiring and stir in us such powerful emotions!

Man can reason.  I have yet to encounter an animal which could deduce the laws of mathematics or logic.  Could a mere animal look up into the night sky in all its beauty and even wish to understand it, let alone devise an entirely new branch of mathematics to do so?  (Sir Isaac Newton invented calculus to do just that… then he turned 23.)

Man has a powerful intellect.  This intellect is similar in kind, though not in degree, to certain animals in the world.  Show me a single species of animal which can create an airplane, set-up a modern civilization, economy, or land on the moon: let alone all of these—and much, much more!

Lastly, and most importantly, Man can will.  Man can choose to love or to hate.  A man may remain in his anger, his addictions, his optimism, simply because he wills it.  He can choose to do that-which-is-detrimental-to-himself.  He can choose to starve himself, forgo meat, go without sleep, hold his breath indefinitely, or hop on one leg in the middle of a grocery store simply because, well, “why not?”

Another example is in order: no animal chooses to rock climb simply because it relishes a challenge.  With animals, as evolutionary biology tells us, there is always a concrete and immediate purpose in performing an action.  Animals go out to hunt because they want food; they compete for mates in order to reproduce; they sleep because they are tired.  No animal abstracts a meaning onto its hunting trip.  The purpose is food, plain and simple.  The over-arching purpose to which all of these actions lead is for one purpose and one purpose alone: the transmission of advantageous traits based in an organism’s genetic code.  Man, on the other hand, can choose to climb that same mound for no other reason than because the climb in and of itself is valuable to him.  The climb—during which he might die or become grievously injured—is its own reward!

It cannot then be argued that since animals can do these things to some extent, Man is suddenly not special.  Nonsense!  Of course animals can do some of the things that Man does to a lesser degree: I never claimed that Man was a completely supernatural creature; I said that he was a unique fusion of the natural and supernatural, the material and immaterial.  We too must eat, sleep, exercise, and keep hydrated.  Man is a part of the natural world.  It would be exceedingly odd, given this obvious scientific fact, if Man did not share certain qualities and characteristics with animals. But that’s the point: Man merely shares a portion and degree of these qualities with the animal kingdom.  His dominion over the animals in his possession of these qualities is not a simple 10x10 increase; it is more akin to a quantum leap: a 10¹⁰ increase in ability is more accurate.

In light of this assessment, I think it reasonable to state two things.  One, that Man is indeed a fusion of body and soul in psychosomatic (soul-body) union.  And two, that a Catholic priest is well within his rights to forgo sexual pleasure for a deeper union with and conformity to Christ, the first High Priest: He who was both priest and sacrifice upon the Cross.  The Catholic priest forsakes a wife and natural fatherhood for the privilege of wedding the Bride of Christ, the Church, and of being a spiritual father.  He has no earthly children to care for and devote his energies to so as to more readily nurture the spiritual children entrusted to him and to spend his days building up the Kingdom of God.

I think that it is quite safe to say that the homosexual lobby’s vicious assaults on the “perverse” nature of a celibate priesthood are unfounded and should not be heeded in light of this complete (though brief) anthropology of Man as a combination of spirit and matter.

And thank God for that.

Follow @DeionKathawa