We Catholics tend to have unrealistic expectations about our priests. We want every one of them to deliver brilliant, engaging homilies just like Venerable Fulton Sheen, possess the spiritual depth of Saint Thomas Aquinas, be as friendly and charming as Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, and play soccer during their free time like the young Saint John Paul II.
Also, we want them to balance the parish budget without ever asking us for money.
In the real world, priests possess the same fallen nature as those of sitting in the pews. The priest celebrated by the Church on December 29th, Saint Thomas Becket (1118-1170), is a perfect example of that truth.
Most people know the outlines of his life story. Thomas started as a clerk, rose to the rank of chancellor of England, and then became archbishop of Canterbury. As archbishop, he opposed the unjust policies of his king, who angrily ordered (or at least strongly suggested that) some of his knights get rid of Thomas. The knights brutally killed Thomas inside his own church, and his death was quickly recognized as a martyrdom. Many details of this story are reminiscent of the martyrdom of another Thomas, Saint Thomas More, at the hands of King Henry VIII, except that King Henry II publicly repented of his role in the murder.
While Thomas Becket was known for his personal honesty, intelligence, and diplomatic skills, he was not a gentle, charming priest in the style of Bing Crosby.
By the time Thomas was proposed as a nominee for archbishop, he had become accustomed to the power and prestige associated with his role as chancellor. From that important position, he lived among and entertained rich, powerful leaders. When he was sent to negotiate a political marriage in France, for example, he brought along 200 men with him, a retinue fit for a king. Thomas, who was in minor orders at the time, did not apparently fall into any serious sexual sins, but he did experience the temptations of a life of luxury and influence. He was proud—a bit too proud—of his accomplishments, his position, and his honor, and his tendency toward arrogance was noticed by both his friends and his enemies.
As a man, Thomas Becket was politically astute and a good conversationalist, but he was also quick to lose his temper. Thomas spent the last several years of his life in a public disagreement with the English monarch. He was certainly justified in refusing to give in to the king’s demands; the king wanted the Church in England—including the clergy and its money—to be under his control. The conflict between the two men escalated until Thomas simply refused to obey the king and had to escape to France for his own safety. Henry retaliated by confiscating the goods of Thomas’ friends and banishing them from England. From exile in France, Thomas wrote angry letters back to England, threatening those English bishops who had capitulated to Henry’s demands and even excommunicating some of them. While Thomas was right to oppose the king, his impulsive decisions—rapidly alternating between kind words and threats—only made the conflict worse. The pope himself had to countermand some of Thomas’ orders.
Thomas’ proud, irascible behavior is certainly not a mark of holiness. But there are many signs that he recognized those faults in himself and tried to change.
For example, when King Henry first proposed to make Thomas an archbishop, Thomas resisted. He recognized that as archbishop, his primary responsibility would be to serve God’s best interests, not necessarily his king’s. Perhaps Thomas could think of past decisions as a chancellor, where he had been more politically astute than Christlike. But the papal legate agreed with King Henry’s proposal to make him an archbishop, and Thomas gave in.
After ordination, Thomas developed a new rule of life for himself, one more suitable for a priest. He got up early each morning to read the Bible. He celebrated or attended Mass daily, which was unusual at the time for worldly men like himself who were appointed to Church offices. He ate more temperately than he had before and gave more generously to the poor. He wore a hair shirt under his clothing. He was aware of his own personal weaknesses, so he gave permission to a couple of trustworthy friends to correct him in his faults, even though he was their superior.
Saint Thomas Becket is certainly not the first priest to have a bad disposition and yet become a saint. The fifth-century bishop of Alexandria, Saint Cyril, was brilliant enough to be named a Doctor of the Church, but he was also a proud man known for his autocratic decisions, which led to violence and controversies that dog his reputation to this day. The early Church father Saint Jerome of Stridon was one of the most brilliant scholars the Church has ever produced, but he was also overly sensitive to criticism. When a Catholic named Helvidius questioned the perpetual virginity of Mary, Jerome wrote a strong rebuttal in which he called Helvidius “an ignorant boor” and other names. Padre Pio, now known as Saint Pio of Pietrelcina, was famous as a twentieth-century priest and stigmatist but was also sometimes accused of being cranky, a fault which is not too hard to forgive in someone who lived with the physical wounds of Christ for decades.
When a priest is ordained, he is signed with a special character by the Holy Spirit and is configured to Jesus Christ in a unique way (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1563). But that ordination does not magically change his personality or cure him of his faults and vices. Each priest has to work out on his salvation by cooperating with God’s grace, just like the rest of us.
Nevertheless, despite all his weaknesses, Thomas Becket deserves the title of saint. He was humble enough to recognize his personal faults, ask for God’s help to change, and take concrete steps to try to correct those faults. He lived a virtuous life, even while surrounded by wealth and power. And when he was asked to choose between siding with his sheep or the wolves, he consciously chose the sheep, though he knew it would cost him his life. Saint Thomas Becket was a true shepherd, just an imperfect and sometimes grumpy one.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
I’ll take a grumpy Saint Thomas over a (no doubt falsely-portrayed) saccharine Saint Francis any day!
P.S. When did he cease being Thomas a Becket?
I was blessed to make a pilgrimage to Canterbury back in September & from what I saw it’s still properly “a Becket”.
Whether it was actually left there from his martyrdom or caused by some other means, there’s a reddish stain on the stone floor close to the place where he died.
There’s a fascinating book by John A. Butler: The Quest for Becket’s Bones. It was published in 1995 by Yale University Press.
There’s an article from 2016 that gives a little update here: https://clasmerdin.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-mystery-of-beckets-bones.html
And here’s someone discussing “Becket” versus “a Becket:” https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2023/research/thomas-a-becket-study/
Thank you so much for sharing those links Leslie. That was very interesting.
So the take-away is that since we are all sinful and some even with deeply-seated psychological and personality flaws, screening of candidates for the priesthood should end. As for potential candidates for the episcopacy, their temperament and lust for money and power should be of no matter?
Yes, Dawn, I do understand your thesis that people can and do change as did Becket. But some do not and the Church needlessly suffers because of it. All we need to to remind ourselves of this is to look around.
Dear Dawn Beutner, thank you for a lovely and helpful essay.
I’d like to say that many of us are happy to be ministered to by priests and bishops marred by many ugly characteristics provided they faithfully live & clearly teach the truth of The New Testament & of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Some of the “grouchiest” people I have worked with in the church or in the finance world are often the most honest I’ve dealt with.
You’ve certainly heard of or read about very friendly people who steal millions or worse things than money.
Saving souls is tough work!
Deacon Backwardist above – You’re sounding a little grumpy there. Just
sayin’.
You’re spot on. Grumpiness is not a sin and, in fact, it could be considered a virtue if it’s an authentic reaction to violations of truth that one perceives.
Grumpiness might get a bad rap here. One might say that when Christ was suffering his agony in the garden and asked his closest friends to stay awake with him and they in turn fell asleep, that his castigating them for letting him down was a sign of grumpiness. In fact, he was deeply disappointed in them.
Yes, thanks Leslie. I read the second article. I’ll probably stick with Thomas a Becket (old dogs, new tricks and all that). I like the rhythm and also the French sound of it.
I also went to Mass (doubtless an Anglican one, oops) in Canterbury Cathedral and was struck by how traditional (Catholic?) it seemed in comparison to what we were getting at home at the time (Canada, 1974).
They offered Anglican Confessions at Canterbury when we were there. It’s an incredibly beautiful place.
I like a’Becket too. The place where poor pilgrims could seek shelter was called the Hospital of St.Thomas the Martyr. It’s functioned as an almshouse for the past 400 years.
Thanks for an accurate account of Thomas a Becket, who I mistakenly believed was Saxon, that according to the movie script Edward Anhalt based on Becket
by Jean Anouilh.
Beket, his Norman name parents born in Normandy. Researchers at Wikipedia say he was honored in Sicily [Marsala cathedral and Monreale] then ruled by the Norman de Hautevilles. And your realist account of grumpy priest saints is excellent, what I’ve always believed.