What Do Italian Priests' Mistresses Want You To Know?

National Catholic Register ^ | 5/29/2010 | Jimmy Akin

[markomalley]

A group of 40 or so mistresses of Italian priests, including Stefania Solomone (pictured), want you—and especially Pope Benedict—to know that they don’t like priestly celibacy.

That’s why they’ve written the Pope a letter (Italian original) on the subject.

The occasion was Pope Benedict’s statement that

“The horizon of the ontological belonging to God also constitutes the proper framework for understanding and reaffirming, in our day too, the value of sacred celibacy which in the Latin Church is a charism required for Sacred Orders and is held in very great consideration in the Eastern Churches . . .

“It is an authentic prophecy of the Kingdom, a sign of consecration with undivided heart to the Lord and to “the affairs of the Lord”, the expression of their gift of self to God and to others. The priest’s vocation is thus most exalted and remains a great mystery, even to us who have received it as a gift. Our limitations and weaknesses must prompt us to live out and preserve with deep faith this precious gift with which Christ has configured us to him, making us sharers in his saving Mission.”

The mistresses particularly objected to the phrase “sacred celibacy,” who seem to have determined to write their letter “from the moment we heard the reaffirmation of the sacredness of what is not sacred in the least.”

This episode just fills me with sadness.

The discipline of celibacy (i.e., remaining unmarried, which implies continence, or abstaining from sexual relations as its corollary in Christian morality) for the service of the Kingdom has been part of Christian patrimony since the time of the apostles. Jesus himself recommended it in the Gospels, though he noted that it was not a gift given to everyone.

How that discipline is applied in particular ages and in particular spheres of the Church is something that has changed over time.

There is no reason in principle why the Church could not change its discipline regarding clerical celibacy in the future. The question is whether it would be prudent to do so, and what form of revision—if any—would be beneficial.

A Catholic can thus legitimately hold the opinion that the Church should modify or even abolish the discipline of clerical celibacy.

There was a period after Vatican II where there was a great expectation that a change in the discipline would be coming in the near future, which created unrealistic hopes in many. It also, no doubt, helped alienate many priests when these unrealistic expectations were not fulfilled, leading many of them into sexual sin (with adult women; wanting permission to marry a woman doesn’t correlate with desires to have sex with children) or out of the priesthood entirely.

The pressure was so great that John Paul II judged it prudent to take the subject off the table, even though it is a matter of Church discipline rather than dogma, and so he and others at the Vatican repeatedly stressed that the subject was not up for discussion.

Pope Benedict has taken a somewhat different tack. In the 2007 Synod of Bishops on the Eucharist, he allowed the subject to be discussed among the participants. As one might expect, reports at the time indicated that some of the Eastern bishops, who deal with the practical difficulties of a married clergy, were the most vocal in stressing that the Latin Church should not abolish its discipline on this point. So the topic was discussed, and that bishops recommended that it not be pursued further (at least at this time). That’s right there in the propositions that the bishops delivered to the pope as recommendations (see Proposition 11).

So on the one hand, my heart goes out to Pope Benedict, who has been singularly unafraid of dialog on points where the Church could change its discipline, including dialog on this point in particular. Yet as this story gains traction in the world press, he stands to be shoved into the media mold of “mean old celibate pope”—when in reality he has been willing to have the subject of revising the Latin Church’s celibacy discipline be seriously discussed!

My heart also goes out to the mistresses, because they have a human desire to marry those to whom they are romantically attached and are genuinely pained at the situation in which they find themselves.

That’s the position in which mistresses commonly find themselves.

But the thing is . . . they’re mistresses.

They are living a life that is objectively sinful.

They are violating very basic and well-known elements of Christian morality. It’s hard to claim innocent ignorance in this case.

The same thing goes—even moreso—for the priests with whom they are involved.

One can feel for the emotional distress over the situation in which they find themselves, and one can understand their petition for a change in Church law that would allow them to regularize their situations, but at the same time there is a tragic dimension to their situation that remains unacknowledged in their letter: They are, in fact, living in sin.

And it’s a big one, overlaid with sacrilege because priests are involved—a factor that weighs even more heavily on the priest in the relationship than one the mistress, because the priest is responsible for his consecrated person in a way that others are not.

It is a tragedy that these people attached romantic feelings to each other—something that they knew from the beginning was wrong.

So reading the letter is a mixed experience.

In certain passages they make insightful points (particularly regarding the psychological dynamics of their situation). In other passages they articulate positions that a Catholic may legitimately hold.

But then they get into stuff that is flat-out rationalization.

They play the victim card repeatedly, and there is an element of truth to the idea that they are victims—but not as much victims of the law of celibacy (as they would maintain) but rather victims of the men who have been playing with their affections to fulfill their own psychological and sexual impulses.

I’m sorry, but there are lots of people in the world who are romantically off limits to every single one of us. These people include all children, all members of our own sex, all married members of the opposite sex except our spouse, and—if we are married—every other person on the planet except our spouse.

To become romantically or sexually involved with any one of these people is a sin, and anybody with even a basic education in Christian morality knows that.

Not being able to marry or to become romantically involved with someone is not something surprising. It is the norm for every single human being with respect to almost every single other human being.

If you want to marry someone, great. Go out and look for someone you legitimately could marry, but you are not a victim because a particular person you’d like to marry has already taken a vow (or made a promise) of celibacy any more than you are a victim if the person you’d like to marry has already taken marriage vows to someone and is thus one among the billions of people not romantically available to you.

This is just life.

And I’m not sure that’s something the authors of the letter get. At times reading it, describing the struggles that they and their paramours experience, one hears echoes of what ordinary people face and fear. Do priests get lonely? Sure. So do lots of non-priests, including lots of married people. Do they get depressed? Of course. So do lots of people of every age and every condition.

We all experience unpleasant things in life, we all have struggles and pain, and we all encounter situations that would be different in a more perfect world. But the ability to claim victimhood is limited when one has become involved with a person who is not lawfully available to you and with whom you are conducting an objectively sinful affair.

It’s one thing to advocate a change in the Latin Church’s discipline of clerical celibacy (or the Eastern Churches’, for that matter, because they have a version of it, too). It’s another thing to portray oneself as the victim because you are engaging in a relationship that is objectively sinful from the beginning and which you knew to be objectively sinful when you entered it.

If you want to advocate a change, fine. But don’t do so portraying yourself and your paramour as victims and ignoring the real and objectively sinful character of your relationship. You are in control of your actions and your choices. Don’t pretend that you’re not.

As St. Paul, who knew a thing or two about celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, wrote: “No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your strength, but with the temptation will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it” (1 Cor. 10:13).

What are your thoughts?

[markomalley]

My thoughts?

I think that Jimmy puts this whole sordid thing in the proper context.

[Beowulf9]

Well, since they are carrying on a lie and have encouraged a man in a position of representing God to lie and to commit fornication I hardly see where they consider celibacy the problem.

[TheWriterTX]

This was an excellent article.

As for the mistresses, grow a spine, B! He's not available, won't be available, and I have NO sympathy for you. Find someone who is!

[highpockets]

Celibacy is not the problem.

Adhering to the practice of celibacy is the issue.

Choosing a profession that has mandates one has no desire to uphold is no reason to change the profession.

Barrack Obama wants to be president without the responsibility.

In his case should we change the mandate or the man?

[2aberro]

40 or so mistresses of Italian priests,

Well,, if they can cheat,, must not be much of a sin,,, thanks for the inspiration priests!

[cmj328]

A couple of facts:

1. The woman in the picture, Stefania Salomone, is a 42-year-old office manager from Rome.
2. Quote: "Salomone's priest never went beyond hugging her, she said, and when he finally admitted that there was something “real” between the two of them, he said it was over."

[humblegunner]

But the thing is . . . they’re mistresses.

Shocking! I expected boys.

[count-your-change]

These women may be fooling themselves as much as anything. Let Benedict tell the priests involved they are free to marry and see how many run to marry their mistresses.

[daniel1212]

While the sacrificial unmarried life is certainly Biblical, it is distinctly stated to be a gift, (1Cor. 7:7) and is not even inferred elsewhere that all pastors were required be celibate, including in the ordination instructions. (1Tim. 3) What may be open to interpretation is whether the requirement that a bishop “be the husband of one wife” can allow normal pastors (versus traveling evangelists as Paul) to be single/celibate, which i think it does. Celibate Paul and Barnabas were exceptions in contrast to the other apostles, including Peter, and the brethren of the Lord. (1Cor. 9:5)’

Regardless of the degree of efficacy of being single - and Paul’s words in 7:26-31 may additionally be seen as preparing them for the coming 70 A.D. destruction and persecutions - to actually require that almost all head pastors have the gift of celibacy is unwarranted.. While pastoral celibacy is “only” a church law, it is still law, and is another example of doctrine that lacks Scriptural warrant, and i see this one also running contrary to it.

[A.A. Cunningham]

What is the source for your “facts”?

[LadyDoc]

celibacy is not church doctrine: it is church discipline.

So it could be changed. Indeed, Eastern Catholic churches allow married men to become priests.

But there are reasons to suggest not marrying will allow a person to dedicate themselves purely to God’s work (Pauls’ dictum). And this is scriptural...

Orthodox churches ordain married men but do not allow their priest to marry, but many good Orthodox priests decide to remain single, so they can pray more and serve the Lord without the burden of caring for a family.

There are pros and cons, but ironically, although married men being ordained doesn’t bother me a bit, I do wonder about those pushing for priests to marry: Often they are the same ones who want gay marriage and womenpriests and dispute the holiness of the sacraments.

[RichInOC]

Be nice, Rich…

[cmj328]

Here

[chris_bdba]

What foolish women. Do they really think these men would marry them? These ladies are no better than anyone who would sleep with a married man.

[A.A. Cunningham]

the requirement that a bishop “be the husband of one wife” can allow normal pastors (versus traveling evangelists as Paul) to be single/celibate, which i think it does.

Not a requirement at all. Paul counseled Timothy that if he were to choose a married man as a Bishop that said man could have been married only once not that he must be married.

"It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2

"Of one wife. The meaning is not that every bishop should have a wife (for St. Paul himself had none) but that no one should be admitted to the holy orders of bishop, priest, or deacon, who had been married more than once." St. Jerome commentary on 1 Timothy 3:2

Celibate Paul and Barnabas were exceptions in contrast to the other apostles, including Peter, and the brethren of the Lord. (1Cor. 9:5)

You're making an assumption; we only know for certain from Scripture that Peter had at one time been married, and relying on a corrupted text in an attempt to make your argument only yields a corrupted argument.

"Have we not power to carry about a woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Corinthians 9:5

"A woman, a sister. Some erroneous translators have corrupted this text by rendering it a sister, a wife: whereas it is certain that St. Paul had no wife (chap. 7, ver 7, 8) and that he only speaks of such devout women as, according to the custom of the Jewish nation, waited upon the preachers of the gospel and supplied them with necessaries." St.Jerome commentary on 1 Corinthians 9:5

While pastoral celibacy is “only” a church law, it is still law, and is another example of doctrine that lacks Scriptural warrant, and i see this one also running contrary to it.

Celibacy is a discipline not a law or doctrine and it is indeed based on Scripture, despite your claim to the contrary.

"Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take, let him take it." Matthew 19:11-12

"Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man shall sit on the seat of His majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first." Matthew 19:27-30

"Then Peter said: Behold, we have left all things, and have followed thee. Who said to them: Amen, I say to you, there is no man that hath left house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake, Who shall not receive much more in this present time, and in the world to come life everlasting." Luke 18:28-30

"But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your profit: not to cast a snare upon you; but for that which is decent, and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment." 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

The question you should be pondering is not why Priests in the Latin Rite voluntary embrace the discipline of celibacy by vow in following the example set by Christ, the Apostles and St. Paul but why don't other "Bible believing" pastors do the same.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Those are assertions from a women with an admitted agenda not facts.

[Bigg Red]

As for the mistresses, grow a spine, B! He's not available, won't be available, and I have NO sympathy for you. Find someone who is!

&&&
I agree, but I would like to add that for strumpets such as these, there is often the thrill of getting away with something wrong. Therefore, they are not interested in finding an eligible man.

[cmj328]

Right, which is why I didn't post it until you asked, and the assertions from the founder of the group are prima facie silly.

Not that there's nothing wrong with hugging. Women should never hug a priest.

It's just that it's so common, they do it in public, with ten women at a time. Even laymen get hugged--by the woman usher, or at the sign of peace, or after Communion if you're sick in hospital, or if you say you need to see a priest, or...really, there's no getting around it.

[daniel1212]

Despite my use of the "requirement," i allow that 1 Tim. 3:2 was not requiring all pastors to be married, but much less can it support a requirement, or discipline if you will, that all bishops/elders (same office: Tts. 1:3-5, and not a separate class called priests) with rare exceptions, must be single.

As for 1Cor. 9:5, this interpretation is the least warranted. Despite Jerome's (and Challoner's) assertion that a scribe rendered it "a sister, a wife" (gunē: women or wife), and which latter word the NAB uses, basing his objection upon the fact that Paul had no wife, that is exactly the point Paul is making, that of contrasting himself with the other apostles. It makes no sense otherwise, as Paul himself received the kind of aid your have these women giving simply as sisters, (Rm. 16:2; Phil. 4:3) and "leading about (or surrounding) a sister/women" is far more descriptive of a wife.

As for leaving all, that is true that they did, at least for a time, as singleness was very rare in the world then, and it is hardly tenable to suppose that Jesus was requiring His married disciples to permanently leave wives and children.

Thus you would have to have single apostles, or married ones who left wives and most most likely children, but never went back to them, or they divorced themselves or died, all of which are the most unwarranted. Rather, 1Cor. 9:5 contrasts Paul and Barnabas as being unlike the apostles who led about a believing women, a wife, while Jesus, (Lk. 8:1-3) Paul and the apostles all had women who followed them as fellow helpers to the truth.

In addition, the Jews sometimes called their wives "sisters", (Song. 4:9) and according to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter had children, and he relates the tradition that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). See also Eusebius (Church History III.31) Philip the Evangelist also had four daughters, Act_21:8.

This warranted interpretation answers your last question, but it is not meant to slight the viability of celibacy. Also. those who literally do "leave all" are and will be indeed specially blessed if they believe and follow Christ, and it does indeed have its virtues, as sacrificing anything does. But this is not required of all to be used mightily of God, and when Lk. 14:33 requires forsaking this to be a disciple, that is best understood as being of the heart, and then if it be God' will, resulting in literally all, as many disciples had homes, etc.

[kosta50]

What "practical difficulties of a married clergy" are the Eastern Bishops dealing with? Married clergy hardly presents a practical difficulty in the Eastern Churches.

Of course, they must be married before they are ordained, and if they become widowed they cannot remarry. And in order to become a Bishop in the East, one must be celibate, but by that age the passions begin to weaken, and most of the bishops come from monastic ranks anyway.

Latin priests who have mistresses are fooling around after they received their holy orders, which means they are in grave danger spiritually, but they do it because they are human and have no other outlet, except even greater abomination, and because the temptation in the society today is even greater than at any time before.

Some Latin priests and bishops have been fornicating in the past, as they do today and, no doubt will do tomorrow. Pope Alexander VI not only had children of his own, but even claimed them! One of his sons was made a cardinal under his papacy.

Monastics practice celibacy. They have renounced wordily things and taken even a new name, and devoted their lives to God and prayer. That's where celibacy fits in better, although I am sure there are exceptions as well. But, separated from wordily temptations, and mixed company, at least it is mroe ocnducive than living in a parish and facing congregations in which immodest dress is not uncommon.

That's why Orthodox monasteries require that all women entering the compound wear long skirts, long sleeves, and head cover. Mount Athos (Holy Mountain) in Greece, an autonomous monastic republic under Echumneical Patriarch's care, will not allow female visitors. It is felt that the mere discernment of female voices would cause great temptations to the monastics.

Oridnary parish priests are not so privileged. They have to interact with the community, and are subjected to temptations on a daily basis, which some naturally find difficult to resist.

The Church always praised and valued celibacy over marriage. But the Eastern Churches at least recognize that "practical difficulties" of married clergy are by far more humane and incomparably less damning than what the Latin parish priests are subjected to.

Celibacy never worked for all, not even the popes. It should be a consideration but it should be something an individual priest decides for himself. The presence of convert priests who are married and allowed to remain married doesn't help the situation of priest shortage either, but only aggravates the issue with double standards.