Mazdak and Kavad

During the reign of the Sassanian dynasty's Emperor Kavad I (r. 488–531), Zoroastrianism was the dominant religion. An Iranian priest named Mazdak started preaching a different version that came to be called Mazdakism.

The Zoroastrian clergy were very powerful, wealthy through donations at a time when the empire was having economic problems due to the need to provide tributes to some of their neighbors who had defeated them in some military struggles. The control of the Zoroastrian clergy meant the population was ready to embrace something new, but also meant that something new would not be received well by those in the upper class.

Mazdakism preached a dualistic Manichaeism cosmology, that there was a struggle between a good spiritual world of light, and an evil material world of darkness. Mazdakism also opposed war, consumption of meat, and said greed should be eliminated by eliminating personal property. It also said women should be held in common, which may have been an attempt by Mazdak to promote polygamy.

During a famine, grain was being hoarded by the wealthy nobility. Mazdak urged Kavad to help the people by sharing the grain. Kavad was dealing with an increasingly powerful nobility and Zoroastrian clergy, and saw helping the people as a way to garner more popular support to himself.

Kavad was actually deposed by the nobles for his support of Mazdak. He was imprisoned, and his brother Jamasp was enthroned in 496. Procopius tells the story that Kavad's wife went to the man guarding Kavad, offering herself to the guard for sex in exchange for getting to speak to her husband. While in his cell, Kavad and his wife exchanged clothes. An Iranian officer and friend of Kavad had horses ready nearby, helping him escape.

Kavad returned two years after his imprisonment with an army at his back. Fearing a devastating civil war, Jamasp stepped down with the promise that he would not be harmed. Those who plotted the usurpation were executed, however.

Kavad instituted several reforms that were influenced by Mazdakism: pacifism, anti-clericalism, and aid for the poor.

The Zoroastrian clergy were still powerful, however. When Kavad died, they asserted control over the succession. His elder son, Kawus, who had been a supporter of Mazdak, was considered unsuitable. The youngest, Khosrow, became Emperor Khosrow I. Under Khosrow, Mazdakism (and Mazdak) would come to a grisly end. Yesterday's post promised that today, but we will have to wait until tomorrow for the details.

Clerical Celibacy

The last post talked about attempts by popes to "monasticize" parish priests, preventing them from having families that could be a drain on church resources and potentially lead to sons inheriting or being appointed to benefices for which they were not suited. But was there a Biblical argument for clerical celibacy?

Modern canon law of the Latin Church (a faction that keeps faith with the papacy) states:

Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

There are deacons who never intend to take priestly vows who are not bound by this rule, but if they are married and their spouse dies, they are not allowed to remarry.

The Roman Catholic Church states:

All the ordained ministers of the Latin Church, with the exception of permanent deacons, are normally chosen from among men of faith who live a celibate life and who intend to remain celibate "for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and to "the affairs of the Lord", they give themselves entirely to God and to men. Celibacy is a sign of this new life to the service of which the Church's minister is consecrated; accepted with a joyous heart celibacy radiantly proclaims the Reign of God.

...but acknowledges that this is not the case for everyone:

In the Eastern Churches a different discipline has been in force for many centuries: while bishops are chosen solely from among celibates, married men can be ordained as deacons and priests. ... Moreover, priestly celibacy is held in great honor in the Eastern Churches and many priests have freely chosen it for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Curiously, these rules are not religious dogma; they are understood to be choices imposed by the hierarchy, and therefore are subject to change if authorities pursue that option. Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Protestantism do not require that their ministers be celibate.

The apostles of Jesus were not required to be unmarried. Matthew 8:14-15 tells us "when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his [Peter's] wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." So Peter had a mother-in-law. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c.215 CE) claimed that Peter and Philip had children. Paul the Apostle, on the other hand, contrasts himself with other apostles by pointing out that some had wives while Paul had never been married. Paul clearly thinks his status is "better" when he write in 1 Corinthians 7:5-8:

Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set 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. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind. 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.

So "you can better devote yourself to God if you do not have a woman around" seems to be his attitude. Later in that chapter he expresses that an unmarried man can focus on God, but the married man has to deal with worldly things. The 3rd-century Manichaeans (whose enemy was Augustine) saw sex as corruption, as did the Montanists, whom Pope Innocent I tried to quash.

The first person to declare widely—and who had the power to enforce—that all marriages of priests were null and void and the children of such unions were illegitimate was not a pope, but a married man. Let's see who that was tomorrow.

Augustine of Hippo

Today is the feast day of Augustine of Hippo (354-28 August 430). He was born into a noble family in Thagaste, in what is now Algeria. We know a great deal about Augustine from St. Possidius, who was his disciple, friend and biographer, and from Augustine's own writing. His life was a journey through an early history of pagan and Christian philosophy—philosophy whose later form he shaped significantly.

A stamp commemorating his origin.

According to Augustine's biographical Confessions, while his mother (later, St. Monica) tried to raise him in the Christian faith, his father was an idolater who recognized his son's intelligence and spared no expense to make him a scholar. He praises the providence that helped him to be educated, despite his father's materialistic aims for him.

Before he was baptized a Christian, he dabbled in many other beliefs, such as the neo-Platonism of Plotinus. Before that he was influenced by Manichaeism, a major rival to Christianity for centuries and very popular among soldiers. Discussing the beliefs of Manichees is too complex to do here, but one thing that Augustine objected to when he switched to Christianity: the Manichaeistic view that knowledge was the key to salvation. He realized that knowledge alone did not lead him to fulfillment as a Christian.

His writings ranged over a wide area: he was anti-abortion, but agreed that the loss of an "unformed" fetus mentioned in Exodus 21:22-23 did not qualify as an abortion, since there was no evidence that a soul had entered the fetus yet.* He rejected astrology. He felt that the seven-week Creation in Genesis was not to be taken literally; God created all things at once. He believed in "just wars" instead of total Christian pacifism. He explained Original Sin not as carnal knowledge (which was a Manichaeistic view) but as either sheer foolishness followed by pride and disobedience to God, or as pride first because of their failure to accept God's hierarchy of things in the world. Although some Christian scholars rejected Jewish texts, Augustine pointed out that they were chosen by God as a special people, and should be allowed to co-exist with Christians; the Jews would ultimately be converted.

His numerous letters and sermons formed the basis for the growing religion. Much of his thought has remained the foundation of Christian theology through the present day.

*Note that these verses have been scrutinized carefully in recent times, and in some cases altered in translation to read differently.