PRIESTS HAVING SEX!!!!

Theirs was the love that actually DID speak its name,

but probably kept quiet fearing some stupid New York Times reporter would so a hack job on their story

Well . . . the married ones are.  At least, I assume they are.

Because it's all about the sex, right?

I saw this article in the New York Times that I found pretty damn funny.  Why?  Well, here we have Sara Ritchey, an assistant professor of medieval European history - you know, Black Death and catapults and shit - giving advice to the wives of priests.  Catholic priests.

WHAT will life be like for the wives of Roman Catholic priests?

On Sunday, the Vatican announced the creation of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter, a special division of the Roman Catholic Church that former Episcopal congregations and priests — including, notably, married priests — can enter together en masse.

My dear Ms. Ritchey, while the creation of the Ordinariate is something new, former Epicopal or Anglican priests and their wives converting to Roman Cathlicism and joining the Church to act as clergy is nothing new.  Been going on for some time now.  Of course, even a cursory attempt at research will have told her this.  In fact, if you would like to read the blog of such a priest, may I direct you to Fr. Dwight?

The Vatican has stressed that the allowance for married priests is merely an exception (like similar dispensations made in the past by the Vatican) and by no means a permanent condition of the priesthood.

Yeah, so, so . . . don't get any thoughts about this sort of thing spreading.

Unless, of course, you are talking about the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church.  Who are they?  They are autonomous churches in full communion with Rome - yep, they accept His Holiness as the leader of Christ's Church on Earth and are truly Catholic, while retaining their tradition of Liturgy.  Indeed, my own Bishop, Richard Stika, has faculties in the Maronite rite (meaning he can say Mass using their form of Liturgy).  And some of these Eastern rites have allowed married priests for centuries.  Making them . . . married Catholic priests. 

The priests in the Latin Rite, the largest and most often associated in the minds of people generally, do take a vow of celibacy, and thus cannot marry.  Mind you, that does not  mean every priest is a virgin at his ordination; as an example, my uncle-in-law, Fr. Paul Gresgraber of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, was once married to actress Barbara Werle.  Okay, I am assuming they had sex during their marriage.  But his marriage did not last and was later annulled, allowing him to enter the seminary and become a priest in his 50's.  The happy ending is that their friendship lasted and she sang beautifully at the party for his ordination.  Shocking!

But in the midst of these debates, we should pause to ponder the environment that the priests’ wives might expect to encounter. After all, the status of the priest’s wife is perhaps even more strange and unsettling than that of her ordained Catholic husband.       

Hmmm . . . I wonder if all those other priests' wives ever talked to this chick?  In what century is she living?

While the early Christian church praised priestly chastity, it did not promulgate decisive legislation mandating priestly celibacy until the reform movement of the 11th century. At that point, the foremost purpose of priestly celibacy was to clearly distinguish and separate the priests from the laity, to elevate the status of the clergy. In this scheme, the mere presence of the priest’s wife confounded that goal, and thus she incurred the suspicion, and quite often the loathing, of parishioners and church reformers. You can’t help wondering what feelings she will inspire today.

Oh . . . the 11th century.  Right . . . You know, if Ms. Ritchey talked to any actual priests in dioceses, they would likely explain to her that we pretty much have a clear separation now between the priests and the laity, you know, here in the 21st century they do stuff like serve on juries together, have a drink in a bar together, and, you know, normal stuff like that.  Last time I checked, the social structure of the Middle Ages has pretty much, well, died out.

By the time of the First Lateran Council, the priest’s wife had become a symbol of wantonness and defilement. The reason was that during this period the nature of the host consecrated at Mass received greater theological scrutiny. Medieval theologians were in the process of determining that bread and wine, at the moment of consecration in the hands of an ordained priest at the altar, truly became the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The priest who handled the body and blood of Christ should therefore be uncontaminated lest he defile the sacred corpus.       

Um . . . has Ms. Ritchey been to a Catholic Mass lately?  Where she could have seen laity acting as Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion and handling the Hosts . . . by placing them often in the hands of the congregants coming forward to receive Communion?  That notion went the way of allowing blacksmiths to do bloodletting for the release of demons in an upset stomach.

The priest’s nuclear family was also seen as a risk to the stability of the church. His children represented a threat to laypersons, who feared that their endowments might be absorbed into the hands of the priest’s offspring to create a rival clerical dynasty. A celibate priest would thus ensure donations from the neighboring landed aristocracy. Furthermore, the priest’s wife was often accused, along with her children, of draining the church’s resources with her extravagance and frivolity.

I think Ms. Ritchey watches just a little too much Masterpiece Theatre.  As for draining the church's resources, may I tell her the story of Fr. MacAuliffe?  We've come a long way, baby . . . and given the salary of priests, I just don;t see Mrs. Priest living the high life.

Given this history, I caution the clerical wife to be on guard as she enters her role as a sacerdotal attaché. Her position is an anomalous one and, as the Vatican has repeatedly insisted, one that will not receive permanent welcome in the church. That said, for the time being, it will be prudent for the Vatican to honor the dignity of the wives and children of its freshly ordained married priests. And here, I suggest, a real conversation about the continuation of priestly celibacy might begin.

Until then, priests’ wives should beware a religious tradition that views them, in the words of Damian, as “the clerics’ charmers, devil’s choice tidbits, expellers from paradise, virus of minds, sword of soul, wolfbane to drinkers, poison to companions, material of sinning, occasion of death ... the female chambers of the ancient enemy, of hoopoes, of screech owls, of night owls, of she-wolves, of blood suckers.”

I wonder if Ms. Ritchey has ever visited a rectory or diocesan offices.  Do you know what you see there?  Women working.  At Mass, girls now play a role as altar servers.  Women act as Lectors and Eucharistic Ministers.  No, we cannot be priests but women have long played a vital role in the life of the Church.

It will be "prudent" for the Church to honor the dignity of the priests' wives and children?  That is showing either an incredible bias or ignorance, tke your pick.  The Church works for the dignity of every person; exceptions are notmade, not even for dumbasses like Ritchey.

And there has been a HUGE change in Church teachings since the time of the 11th-century monk Peter Damian, whom she quotes. 

But . . . maybe she is still stuck in the past.  Because I know where the head of the NYT editor who greenlit this juvenile and patronizing piece is stuck - and firmly so.