The recent report of widespread sexual abuse by priests in Pennsylvania has fueled increasing turmoil within the leadership of the Catholic Church. In July this year, Cardinal Theodore

McCarrick, the former archbishop of Washington, resigned following allegations against him. Opponents of Pope Francis are urging him to resign in light of allegations that he knew about

McCarrick’s behavior. At a moment when a culture of secrecy, and what appear to be systematic cover-ups are leading to a crisis of faith, some people are asking whether priestly celibacy is

at the root of these scandals. The fact is for a long time the Catholic Church struggled with its interpretation of Scriptures on priestly celibacy. It wasn’t until the 12th century that

Apparently, the members of the church had written to Paul what appears to be a simple and specific argument in favor of celibacy: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman,” they write. We

do not know who wrote these words to Paul or why they made this claim. But Paul’s response to their claims provides a basis for later Christian views on marriage and celibacy, sex and

self-control, and ethics and immorality. He writes, > “Because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his > own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should 

give to > his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. > … Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set > of time, to devote yourselves to

 prayer, and then come together > again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of > self-control. This I say by way of concession, not of command.” For Paul, marriage

was a concession: He appears to view it reluctantly as merely an acceptable choice for those who cannot control themselves. He goes on to say, “I wish that all were as I myself am,” implying

at the very least that he is not married. And he confirms this in the passage that follows, > “To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to > remain unmarried as 

I am. But if they are not practicing > self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to > be aflame with passion.” Marriage, in Paul’s view, is the lesser choice. It

is for those who cannot control themselves. Although difficult, remaining unmarried and choosing celibacy, seems to be the higher ideal. INTERPRETATIONS OF PAUL As a a scholar of early

Christianity, I know that Scriptural interpretations are always dynamic; Scripture is read and understood by different Christians in different time periods and places. So, it is not

surprising that a short time later, Paul’s writings found new meaning as asceticism – the practices of self-control that included fasting, celibacy, and solitude –began to spread within

Christianity. A second-century expansion on the story of Paul, The Acts of Paul and Thecla, a largely fictional story about Paul’s missionary efforts in what is now modern Turkey, casts Paul

primarily as a preacher of self-control and celibacy. In this story, Paul blesses “those who have wives as if they have them not.” Such a phrase may sound strange to modern readers. But as

monasticism grew within Christianity, some married Christian couples were faced with a problem: They did not want to divorce their spouses, because Scripture spoke against divorce. And yet

they wanted to choose the life of celibacy. So these Christians chose to “live as brother and sister,” or “to have wives as if they had them not.” At the same time, stories of failures to

keep vows of celibacy abounded: stories of monks and nuns who lived together and bore children, stories of monks who took mistresses, and stories about behaviors that today would be

considered sexual abuse. These stories emphasized that temptation was always a problem for those who chose celibacy. CELIBACY AND CRISIS In the Middle Ages, the celibacy of the priesthood

became a source of conflict between Christians. By the 11th century, it contributed to the formal schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. But the issues were far from

resolved. Divergent views on mandatory celibacy for priests contributed to the reform movements in the 16th century. Martin Luther, a leader of the Protestant Reformation, argued that

allowing priests to marry would prevent cases of sexual immorality. He drew upon Paul’s letters for support of his views. On the other hand, leaders of the Catholic Church’s

“Counter-Reformation,” a reform and renewal movement that had begun before Martin Luther, did not advocate marriage, but sought to address corrupt practices among the clergy. Desiderius

Erasmus, for example, a 16th century Catholic scholar, wrote a powerful critique of corruption in the Catholic Church. His views may well have been shaped by the fact that he himself was the

illegitimate son of a Catholic priest. One of the most important developments in this period was the creation of the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits, which sought to reform the

priesthood in the face of accusations of sexual relations and corruption by, in part, improving the education of priests. In the founding rules of the Jesuit order, emphasis was placed on

the importance of celibacy, training and preparation for missionary work, and serving the directives of the pope. Pope Francis too is a Jesuit and has a long church history and tradition

that he could draw from. The question is, at a time when the church is facing a crisis, will he show the way towards renewal and reform?