Pride as a State of Being I

The Roman Catholic Church is in a fix but does not seem able to recognise its condition. Perhaps it is the difficulties of the boundary between the secular and the religious which is at the heart of the problem; secularists and the religious cannot penetrate each others' bubble of being.

So to use religious terminology, senior churchmen, the hierarchy of the Roman Church,  are guilty of the sin of Pride. Pride is by tradition the greatest of all sins, manifested in its purest form by Satan who was so sure of himself that he rose against God in revolt. Pride is a state of being that acknowledges no criticism and holds critics in contempt.  Pride is a double edged accusation as it is frequently used by the Church against those who robustly criticise it as well as by critics of an overweening and unquestioning authority. Furthermore are not those who make an accusation of spiritual pride always liable to the accusation that they are guilty of it themselves? Let us leave that questions aside for later.

The Church shows its pride when it denies its failure to manage the *concupiscence of its priests and denies the legitimacy of those who claim to have been damaged by the consequences of  that concupiscence (e.g. Cardinal Angelo Sodano, Dean of the College of Cardinals called such claims "petty gossip" on Easter Day 2010). The hierarchy fails to acknowledge the consequences of the  concupiscence of particular priests, and where it is not in question, it has failed to manage the guilty so that the damaging acts  caused by their concupiscence continues to recur. This is a serious matter for the church because it assumes moral authority over its flock through the priestly hierarchy. If concupiscence is manifest in that hierarchy then the moral authority of the chruch is undermined. These horrid facts seem to elude the hierarchy.

The prohibition on marriage in the priesthood denies the sexual desire of priests its natural outlet and so energises concupiscence. Twenty years ago our French neighbour said of a local priest "the Church should allow its priests to marry then they would keep their hands of other peoples wives" and in these days she might have added "and children". Remember Paul's saying "it is better to marry than to burn"? If the church allowed marriage it would solve a number of problems:

- it would reduce a priest's impetus to concupiscence;

- it would give every priest an effective policewoman called a "wife". As we know "hell has no fury like a women scorned" so we would not even have to pray for supernatural help for wives to carry out their guardian duties (perhaps there would at a later date be policemen too, but we get ahead of ourselves...):

- it would help recruit priests to the Church. In France, as in many other countries, many parishes are without priests and centenarians are called upon to carry our marriages and funerals because of this lack. Meanwhile the Lutherans  in the west of France, who encourage priests to be married, have an excess of applications for the priesthood. Nowadays idealistic young men know that the energy of dedicating their life to God in the Roman church may in reality be substantially  devoted to warding of concupiscence.  Those who wish to maintain celibacy still have the lively alternative of the monastery where their concupiscence would be subject to the particular discipline of their chosen order.

- it would improve the quality of recruits to the priesthood by increasing the pool of applicants thereby further helping to avoid scandal;

- the experience of marriage would increase a priest's understanding of his flock and the day to day problems of the laity to whom they minister.

Having so recently admitted Anglican married clergy to the Roman church to allow them to escape the "horrors" of women priests, it is only a short step to allowing all their priests to marry. On the other hand, looking at their past record there must be doubt that the hierarchy can set aside their pride and admit 871 years of celibacy was a mistake. (Assuming that the Second Lateran Council of 1139 is the key date, rather than the final prohibition of marriage in the 1917 Code of Canon Law). But then perhaps they only have to admit it a mistake at the start of the 21st century.

So will a proud Roman Church collapse like the Soviet Union? Or perhaps the Anglican Church might execute a speedy and relatively bloodless coup d'etat? Or perhaps the Roman Catholic Church, stripped naked of its moral authority,  may take a long time dieing and gradually be replaced, or perhaps one should say, overwhelmed, by its more outward looking and energetic reformed brothers and sisters? Such could be the price of Pride...


Peace upon you reader..

References:
*Concupiscence: Best known from Augustine of Hippo who spent much of his life coming to terms with his desires,  but beautifully  set out by Paul in Romans in the broader sense. Later incorporated into the Catechism of the Catholic Church - for both see below.

From the Letters of  Paul: Romans 7:
⁴We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. ¹⁵I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. ¹⁶And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. ¹⁷As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. ¹⁸I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.^[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. ¹⁹For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing
The Bible, New International Version.






As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence"). Catechism of the Catholic Church, 416-418