The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionMandatory celibacy at the heart of what's wrong
Jun. 09, 2010
VIEWPOINT
Like all Catholics, I gratefully depend on the faithful ministry of the many good priests who serve the church. Yet I offer a broad critique of something central to their lives and identities -- the rule of celibacy. Many priests will recognize the truth of what I describe. I write from inside the question, having lived as a celibate seminarian and priest for more than a decade when I was young. In the Bing Crosby glory days, celibacy was essential to the mystique that set priests apart from other clergy, the Roman collar an “Open sesame!” to respect and status. From a secular perspective, the celibate man or, in the case of nuns, woman made an impression simply by sexual unavailability. But from a religious perspective, the impact came from celibacy’s character as an all-or-nothing bet on the existence of God. The Catholic clergy lived in absolutism, which carried a magnetic pull.
The magnet is dead. Celibacy cuts to the heart of what is wrong in the church today. Despite denials from Rome, there will be no halting, much less recovering from, the mass destruction caused by the priest sex abuse scandal without reforms centered on the abandonment of celibacy as a near-universal prerequisite for ordination to the Latin-rite priesthood.
No, celibacy does not “cause” the sex abuse of minors, and yes, abusers of children come from many walks of life. Indeed, most abuse occurs within families or circles of close acquaintance. But the ongoing Catholic scandal has laid bare an essential pathology that is unique to the culture of clericalism, and mandatory celibacy is essential to it. A special problem arises when, on the one hand, homosexuality is demonized as a matter of doctrine, while, on the other, the banishment of women leaves the priest living in a homophilic world. In some men, both straight and gay, the stresses of such contradictions lead to irrepressible urges that can be indulged only by exploitation of the vulnerable and available, objects of desire who in many cases are boys, whether prepubescent or adolescent. Now we know.
Celibacy began in the early church as an ascetic discipline, rooted partly in a neo-Platonic contempt for the physical world that had nothing to do with the Gospel. The renunciation of sexual expression by men fit nicely with a patriarchal denigration of women. Nonvirginal women, typified by Eve as the temptress of Adam, were seen as a source of sin.
But it was not until the Middle Ages, at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, that celibacy was made mandatory for all Roman Catholic clergy -- a reform bracing clerical laxity and eliminating inheritance issues from church property. But because the requirement of celibacy is so extreme, it had to be mystified as sacrificial -- “a more perfect way” to God. Monastic orders of both males and females had indeed discovered in such sexual sublimation a mode of holiness, but that presumed its being both freely chosen and lived out in a nurturing community. (Religious orders continue to this day with the vows of poverty, chastity and obedience as a proven structure of service and contemplation. The vows of such orders are a separate question.) But when the monastic discipline of “chastity” was imposed on all priests as “celibacy,” something went awry. The system broke down during the Renaissance and the Reformation, with the Counter-Reformation hierarchy more attached to it than ever.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
Not sex, but power was the issue. The imposition of sexual abstinence was a mode of control over the interior lives of clergy, since submission in radical abstinence required an extraordinary abandonment of the will. In theory, the abandonment was to God; in practice, it was to the “superior.” The stakes were infinite, since sexual desire marked the threshold of hell. The normally human was, for priests, the occasion of bad faith.
Obsessive sexual moralism, along with that bad faith, spilled out of pulpits. The confessional booth became a cockpit for screening “mortal sins,” with birth control emerging as the key control mechanism over the laity. If they were willing to abide by this intrusion and its burdens, it was only because the celibate priest could be seen to have made an even greater sacrifice. They were subject to an even greater control.
As is suggested by the contemporary hierarchy’s apparent equanimity about the exodus of tens of thousands of priests, and the crisis of ministry it has caused, church authorities will pay any price to maintain a vestige of that control. That is why bishops have exchanged their once ample influence on matters of social justice for a strident single-issue obsession with abortion, a last-ditch effort to control the intimate sexual decisions of laypeople. When it comes to their clergy, the single-issue obsession remains celibacy.
This nearly changed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65), when the bishops prepared to reconsider both birth control and celibacy. Until then, an insufficiently historically minded church had regarded such contingent questions as God-given absolutes. What was the point of even discussing them, since change was out of the question? But change was suddenly in the air. What? St. Peter was married? Even before the council acted, the myth that these disciplines were eternally willed by God was broken.
The conservative wing of the hierarchy panicked. Pope Paul VI astonished the council fathers, and the Catholic world, by making two extraordinary interventions that violated the letter and the spirit of the council. In late 1964, just as the fathers were about to debate the question of “responsible parenthood,” the pope ordered them not to take up the question of “artificial contraception.” Snap! Birth control was “removed from the competence of the council.”
But there was every sign that the council fathers, when they inevitably took up the subject of the priesthood, were still going to discuss celibacy, as if change were possible there. Yet it was politically unthinkable that the church could maintain the prohibition of birth control, the burden belonging to the laity, while letting clergy off the sexual hook by lifting the celibacy rule. Therefore, in late 1965, Paul VI made his second extraordinary intervention to forbid any discussion of priestly celibacy. A council had initiated the discipline, but a council was now not qualified even to discuss it. The power play was so blatant as to lay bare power itself as the issue. And just like that, Catholics had reason to suspect that celibacy was being maintained as a requirement of the priesthood because of internal church politics, not because of any spiritual motive. God was not the issue; the pope was. The abrupt elimination of the mystical dimension of vowed sexual abstinence left it an intolerable and inhuman way to live, which sent men streaming out of the priesthood, and stirred in many who remained a profound, and still unresolved, crisis of identity. Paul VI sought to settle the celibacy question with his 1967 encyclical Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which proved to be a classic instance of the disease calling itself the cure.
The celibacy encyclical, maintaining the weight of “sacrifice” on clergy, prepared the way for the laity-crushing Humanae Vitae in 1968, with its re-condemnation of birth control. In response to the pope’s initial removal of birth control from the “competence” of the council, one of its leading figures, Cardinal Leon-Joseph Suenens of Belgium, rose immediately with a warning; “I beg you, my brother bishops, let us avoid a new ‘Galileo affair.’ One is enough for the church.” Galileo was famously forced to renounce what he had seen through his telescope, an imposition of dishonesty. (“And yet it moves,” he was reported to have muttered under his breath.) Paul VI’s twin re-impositions of the contraception and celibacy rules plunged the whole church into a culture of dishonesty. Catholic laypeople ignore the birth control mandate. Catholic priests find ways around the celibacy rule, some in meaningful relationships with secret lovers, some in exploitive relationships with the vulnerable, and some in criminal acts with minors. If a majority of priests are able to observe the letter of their vow, how many do so at savage personal cost? Well-adjusted priests may live happily as celibates, but how many regard the broad discipline as healthy? Insisting that celibacy is the church’s “brilliant jewel,” in Paul VI’s phrase, defines the deceit that has corrupted the Catholic soul.
But the most damaging consequence of mandatory celibacy lies in its character as the pulse of clericalism. The repressively psychotic nature of this inbred culture of power has shown itself in the still festering abuse scandal. Lies, denial, arrogance, selfishness and cowardice -- such are the notes of the structure within which Catholic priests now live, however individually virtuous many of them nevertheless remain. Celibacy is that structure’s central pillar and must be removed. The Catholic people see this clearly. It is time for us to say so.
[A version of this article appeared in The Boston Globe. James Carroll’s most recent book, Practicing Catholic, just appeared in paperback.]
Catholic priests find ways
Catholic priests find ways around the celibacy rule, some in meaningful relationships with secret lovers, some in exploitive relationships with the vulnerable, and some in criminal acts with minors
...
How does celibacy lead to same sex abuse of minors? Oh, I can not marry so I'll abuse boys?
AnonymousSacrantonian, I
AnonymousSacrantonian, I would like to put forth some thoughts for consideration.
I think what celibacy sometimes can do is to put a lid on the development of one´s psycho/sexual development. And this lid is often placed on when the celibate is him/herself a child or adolescent. Since sex is a drive, when that drive forces itself to the surface, the celibate is often still a sexual child, trapped at the age when celibacy was accepted or imposed. In many cases it may be that, as a result, their sexual development has not been able to develop past that age to a more normal and adult sexuality. So, they remain trapped acting out their sexuality based on their age of when it stopped developing.
Peace and prayers, John David
It certainly is safe to
It certainly is safe to suggest "what celibacy sometimes can do...", but it is a grand leap from there to the conclusion that celibacy is the cause of sexual abuse. Especially considering that the rates of sexual abuse among celibates have been shown to be very nearly an exact mirror of the rates of sexual abuse among non-celibates. So what's your point?
Lovely idea, to bad it is
Lovely idea, to bad it is flawed. The key word in your comment is that celibacy “can sometimes” put a lid on ones psycho-sexual development. How often it actually does and why, is a different question, which you do not address. Given the huge number of people suffering from a variety of psycho-sexual dysfunction, deviancy and obsession, there is absolutely no evidence that celibacy as such is more often the cause of these dysfunctions than a sexually active lifestyle.
In general, people, who had problems with celibate life, will have to face and deal with the same problems in non-celibate life. In a similar way, those who had problems with non-celibate life will have to face the same problems and deal with them in celibate life. Changing the context of ones life will not change the root-causes of ones inner problems.
The fact is that you can have to exact same people in the exact same situation (celibate or non-celibate) and they will handle their sexual drive very differently.
Actually "...how often it
Actually "...how often it actually does and why" is not a different question, it is an extension of the question and one that has to be addressed with an openess. To suggest that since a hugh number of people suffer from "a variety of psycho-sexual dysfunction, deviancy and obsession" does not really support that there is no evidence that celibacy is unrelated to this sex abuse crise.
I don´t have the answers and, I suspect that they are complex and varied (that is why, I very intentionally used the words "sometimes can". But I think it would be wrong to dismiss any possibilities that there is a connection before examing it. And I don´t think a proper, objective examnation has been done.
I believe that changing the context of ones life can, indeed, address the root cause. I think those who have problems in a celibate life will have an opportunity to deal with those issuse of sexual development in a non-celibate life in a way that they obviously can´t in a celibate life.
I put forward some thoughts because I see this as a very serious issue for all involved. I would just warn against thinking that there is one cause and if one criticism does not address all of the situations, it has no value.
Peace and prayers for all struggling to understand this situation.
John David
John David, thank-you for
John David, thank-you for your comments. You clearly hit a nerve. I think that there is too much of an attachment to celibacy from some who support it and any suggestion that it is not of benefit will be met with a Knee- jerk response; any possibility of pointing to a contradiction will be used, whether it is solid or not.
I also think to suggest that there may be a connection between what celibacy may be doing to some of these men is worth exploring. I understand why you chose the words "sometimes can", which I think is appropriate and clearly does not diminish the argument, as some have suggested. Little will be consistant with human behavior, especially sexuality. So, to look for an answer that fits all situations and people will never be found. But to be open to some identifying some of the threads of problems is a begining to dealing with this situation. This is what I believe you are suggesting and I am gratful for your insight.
You say: “Actually "...how
You say: “Actually "...how often it actually does and why" is not a different question, it is an extension of the question and one that has to be addressed with openness.”
I have to disagree: The very fact that celibacy ‘can sometimes’ put a lid on psycho-sexual development (and not always) implies that there is no direct cause-effect relationship between celibacy and psycho-sexual underdevelopment. I believe that the issue is not whether one is celibate or sexually active. In both lifestyles there are plenty of psycho-sexually underdeveloped personalities. The question is whether one is able to sufficiently integrate the mental, emotional, intellectual, ethical and esthetic aspects of his or her personality.
I agree that this is a complex issue, and for that reason alone, it would be too easy to simply attribute psycho-sexual underdevelopment to celibacy.
I believe that there is another issue that has much more to do with this problem: a basic self-pitying, self-centering and narcissistic attitude with which people approach their sexuality, whether they are celibate or sexually active.
Among priests, when it happens, this becomes obvious in their constantly bemoaning (privately or publicly) with great sense of self-pity the great thing they had to give up for priesthood: sexually active lifestyle. In doing so, they assume a ‘woe is me,’ narcissistic attitude, which also fuels an attitude of overblown sell-importance and sense of superiority. However, the problem here is not with celibacy as such, but with the attitude with which it is approached.
When priests start to dwell on the belief that their celibacy is an ‘extraordinary sacrifice,’ they forget the significant percentage of the general population (in total, a much larger number than the number of priests) who by choice or because of circumstance (for example health issues) actually live the celibate life (as singles or in marriage), without assuming a prim donna attitude and managing to have a well-integrated personality.
In my opinion, this self-centering attitude is behind any psycho-sexual underdevelopment if and when it occurs. But, as I suggested earlier, such attitude is not the privilege of celibate life. It can just as easily develop in any other lifestyle.
You bring up some interesting
You bring up some interesting points worth considering. But you say that "the fact that celiacy can sometimes put a lid on psycho-sexual development (but not always)implies that there is not direct cause-effect retionship..." This is a very confusing sentence, as the second part contradicts the first (for some it will be a "direct" relationship).
As one of those who have commented mentioned, there is too much looking for one reason that fits all situations. And if it doesn't fit all situations, it is dismissed as "proven" to be invalid. I think that is a serious mistake. Most of what I have read by those who insist that there is no relation to celibacy and arrested sexual development is a searching for anything that can be used to support their attachment to a celibate clery. I just don't believe that I have read any clear arguments.
I believe celibacy is a valid lifestyle for one who can live it and a very distructive one for one who can't. I am grateful for the celibate witness in the church and would not want to see it disappear. Yet, I think to expect that there can be an an army of healthy celibate men and women is unrealistic and very, very damaging.
JohnDavid celibacy sometimes
JohnDavid celibacy sometimes can do is to put a lid on the development of one´s psycho/sexual development. And this lid is often placed on when the celibate is him/herself a child or adolescent
....
Clearly, if this 'lid' is put on as a child, it hs nothing to do w/ adult, priestly celibacy.
Again, my criticism of the article stands: celibacy does not turn a heterosexual to homosexual acts
You are correct in one sense
You are correct in one sense of your comment. I would clarify it further, with this addition: "...celibacy does not turn a hetersexual ORIENTATION to homosexual ORIENTATION." There is a distinct and well-studied difference between orientation and behavior. Witness what takes place in prisons, same-sex reform or boarding schools, and so on. For any priset - hetero- or homosexual - who abused minors or adult parishoners, the issue is the same. I do not at all think that Mr. Carroll actually equated abuse with celibacy: he was in fact calling attention to how mandatory celibacy has been part of a seriously flawed, even pathological, and "forced" way of living that has a number of dire consequences. For some, this would include the abuse of others.
Yes, they do find ways round
Yes, they do find ways round celebacy, and particularly in Third World countries where there are so many priests. They don't want to be married as they have to find the 'bride wealth' as well!
"So many priests???" You have
"So many priests???"
You have not, it seems, read the information - some of it published in these very blogs/essays - that the West is stealing priests from developing countries (where most new vocations are taking place) when, in fact, those coutries have even LESS priests for their number of Catholics than the US and Europe. Finding "ways around celibacy" is, as you point out, more common throughout Catholocism than one might think. It knows no national or international boundaries.
How easy to ascribe James
How easy to ascribe James Carroll's well-researched and carefully thought out words to bitterness at not "getting his way". How demeaning to ascribe purely crass motives to the men who would "drag" with them wives and bairns to race through the Vatican Museum raping its treasures! These families would be the rock solid foundation upon which the Church of my dreams would be built... I regret only that I shall not be alive to see it!
You are missing the forest
You are missing the forest for the trees. The point of the essay was that keeping celibacy in place was about controling the Church and its clergy from the Curia. The Curia can only live in the middle ages for so long, however.
When I was in Catholic college in the early 80s, my friends in minor seminary were actually told to date to make sure their vocation was to celibacy. This was to weed out the emotional children.
Half Right. The fuller answer
Half Right. The fuller answer to what has caused the sex abuse crisis is clericalism. Celibacy is only the support system for clericalism. It reinforces clericalism. Celibacy is the golden calf that has replaced the priesthood. Jesus called married men to the priesthood. Married men were priests during the time the Deposit of Faith was set. It is TRADITION that we have a married priesthood. The church had no right to change that Tradition and sinned grieviously in doing so. The problem will not be solved until priests are free to marry again.
Marriage offers a normal sexual outlet for a healthy man or woman. Without a normal sexual outlet, problems will arise such as the abuse of minors by those priests who are abusive of power and authority.
Clericalism teaches this abusive power and authority.
I attended and participated in the End of the Year of the Priest Celebrations in the Vatican. It was a cult festival for our celibate priests who are the modern day Vestal Virgins.
Celibacy is a tool of the institutional church to preserve the high status of the hierarchy. They are never going to give it up until the people demand married priests as it was in the beginning of the Church when Jesus called his first priests.
The Church has not appologized for selling the wives and children of married priests into slavery when celibacy was mandated. Some mother this church.
(Married Priests USA)
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/married-priests-now/
Not only does celibacy invite
Not only does celibacy invite a life of abusing little boys, but the entire sacerdotal caste system whereby young men are plucked out of their families at a tender age, trained in an atmosphere of court priests inculcating them with the ideas these Levites-to-be are superior to mere mortals, and endowed with gifts not possessed by the "royal priesthood" in the pews . Perhaps, a world resembling a tent of eunuchs would be a more accurate comparison.
Chosen in their early teens in many cases, following a life of religious and sexual abuse at home; a domineering mother (in some cases a father or other family member) who selects the future priests from amongst the boys, and the future nuns from amongst the girls. Upon arrival at the seminary, the youths start to be molded by a permanent class of in-residence clerical perverts. Who have themselves lived in one very large closet through most of their Levitical career.
If that isn't a sanctuary for mischief and mayhem with disastrous consequences for priests and children, not to mention the children's parents, I don't know what is.
The entire Catholic culture of setting aside those intended for the Lord's vineyard has resulted in the establishment of dens of iniquity. The building of an atmosphere inviting debauchery and sin either in the seminary or religious house itself.
Urges suppressed by preparation for a life of celibacy may very well go into remission, but those urges usually manifest themselves later. As the veneer of religiousity and piety starts to tarnish and wear very thin.
The time has come for the universal church to come out of denial and completely revamp it's personnel system from the top on down. End the requirement for celibacy now.
Those court judgments and legal action trying to ward off bankruptcy are going to get real costly. The move to eliminate the tax free status the Catholic Church and other religious organizations have enjoyed continues to build steam too.
Perhaps priests not only take
Perhaps priests not only take a vow of celibacy but undergo surgical castration at the completion of those vows....
"Not sex, but power was the
"Not sex, but power was the issue."
Some helpful historical background to elaborate on this point:
http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm
Very good comilation
Very good comilation
It is not "the magnet" that
It is not "the magnet" that is dead - if the reasoning of this article is true, it is faith that is dead. A priest is called to the cross - but the forces toward a different call are powerful indeed, in this impoverished and sterile culture.
Children of this culture want it all - but the all that they want is the all of this world, and those priests who can really serve the children of this culture must be different. It is not a priesthood "just like us" that is needed, even though many think that such a priesthood is just fine. No, the children of this culture do not need a sprinkling of holy water. We need conversion, radical repentance, foundational reorientation toward God.
Faith is not dead; the reasoning of this article is not true; We need true priests now, more than ever.
Wishing, exhorting, and yes,
Wishing, exhorting, and yes, praying is not making it so. Too many men, and women who could be "true priests" are blocked at the door by the archaic thinking that Mr. Carroll describes.
Absolutely right. Too many
Absolutely right. Too many men hiding in seminaries with more men, and so many closet gays as well to put off some of the best out there.
I agree with your premises,
I agree with your premises, we need good priests, however, so few families maintain an openness to such a vocation that it is no wonder that seminaries are running with a few students from a large number of dioceses, and since a large number of priests are close to retirement, it will get much worse rather soon. I know of a very busy priest (former classmate of mine) who really got upset when his bishop changed retirement from 70 to 75 just as this priest was about to be 70 and was very tired after all these years. Our bishop made an interesting change, from now on the priests of each deanery decide how they will cover the parishes in the deanery with the manpower they have. And this new bishop (promoted from the ranks) is a realist, he knows that he must close parishes or the remaining priests will be worn out running back and forth and this is a rural diocese covering the entire top of New York State. I was in the seminary for four years and I left because I wanted to get married and have a family, not necessarily because I did not want to be a priest. I hope that some day we can ordain several people within each parish to take care of the sacramental needs of the community, and of course I see no reason why women should not be included in this. Sex should never have been an impediment to ministry.
"As is suggested by the
"As is suggested by the contemporary hierarchy’s apparent equanimity about the exodus of tens of thousands of priests, and the crisis of ministry it has caused, church authorities will pay any price to maintain a vestige of that control. That is why bishops have exchanged their once ample influence on matters of social justice for a strident single-issue obsession with abortion, a last-ditch effort to control the intimate sexual decisions of laypeople. When it comes to their clergy, the single-issue obsession remains celibacy."
---------
A perfect summary of what has happened to the Church, once something to be proud of, now something to be ashamed of. Once beautiful, now creepy. Ruled by men in dresses who hate and fear women.
(I enjoyed Practicing Catholic very much, including the explanation of the Feeney situation.)
This article is full of
This article is full of problems. You state yourself that celibacy doesn't cause the sexual abuse of minors... and then you basically say it does. Celibacy has nothing to do with the sexual abuse of minors. You cited SOME of the proof yourself when you talked about abuse happening even by married men and women. Why, then, did you turn around and talk about how celibacy is a cause of abuse?
Furthermore, you have your history right in regards to celibacy, but your theology totally wrong. In Heaven, we will not be married, mother, father, brother, sister; instead, we will all be "married" to G-d. Celibacy is a foreshadowing of what is to come for us all. Instead of waiting until they get to Heaven to become celebate, many people (not just priests and religious) choose to embrace it now, as a sign to others.
I want to make one last point. G.K. Chesterton made a wonderful statement about tradition (I am talking about tradition with a lower case t): "Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."
Celibacy is a tradition with a lower case t, and so it can be changed (unlike dogma). However, one should think long and hard before just doing away with a tradition. There are many reasons AGAINST having married priests. Be careful what you ask for.
Brett, you state "you cited
Brett, you state "you cited some of the proof yourself when you talked about abuse happening even by married men and women". You are mixing "evidence" with "proof" (I hear and read this all of the time). A large body of evidence can eventually lead to a somewhat safe assumption of proof, but it takes much more than what you are willing to look at. This is a complex subject and, I believe, it is folly to dismiss the possibility of a connection based on this one piece of evidence.
Peace and prayers,
John David
John David, I think you are
John David,
I think you are correct it is the celibate culture promoting a powerful all male clergy that contributes to the sexual scandal, but it is the sinful clerical culture that looked the other way and enabled it. This is the sign of the extremely poor leadership that depends on one moral issue in spite of obvious ethical contradictions and failings. They seem to only believe in the right to life of the fetus and certainly have little to say about the innocence of the child, the poor or the rights of women. Bishops be damned your ethical decisions seem to put you in an anti christian camp. Are Catholic Bishops supposed to be also Christians? Seems they are not at all Christians but believe in the God of Reward and Punishment of the Old Testament and other moral laws of a day long past. Shame on the Bishops!
May we as Catholics and Christians, as the People of God, priest and laity, gain grace through not loosing the denial of our Bishops and behaving simply more like Christ.
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Dennis Porch stated that "the
Dennis Porch stated that "the sinful clerical culture [that] looked the other way and enabled it [i.e., the sexual abuse of children].
While the hierarchs and far too many priests were the "first enablers," the truth of the matter is that all Catholics must share in the enabling blame.
We all have a part in the enabling of these clerics. We are so pliant, so deferential, so obsequious, when it comes to these men - and have been for decades, if not centuries.
There is an insidious narcissism that we fostered and cultivated in our priests that gave permission to priests to act out horribly with children and vulnerable men and women. They were God's chosen.
The rape and sodomy of children was financed and underwritten with our money which we gave blindly, and STILL DO, for the exclusive discretionary use of the clerics. Every Sunday we encourage our children to drop dollar bills and coins into the collection basket.
Although some precautions in some diocese have been put in place since the advent of the abuse scandal, Catholics have essentially allowed priests and bishops to operate without accountability, with impunity.
The result is now playing itself out on the world's media with a legacy of compromise, complicity and corruption that reaches all the way to the pope.
If we want to end the enabling of the clerics and hierarchs, we have to take efforts at reform and renewal into our own hands and not wait for some "deus ex machina" prelate or event to do the hard work of restoration of our church.
The place to BEGIN is wresting control of the money and finances from the hands of the clerics and hierarchs. You will be surprised at the spiritual epiphany they will experience. Finally there will be room for reform.
We can't rely on "Father" to do it. The bishops, cardinals and popes are incapable of this task. The Spirit is calling us.
oh come on. Get real.
oh come on. Get real.
Well, I can see James Carroll
Well, I can see James Carroll is still angry and hurting deeply over breaking his vows and losing the priesthood. So much rage in one man... it's very sad.
I'll keep praying for him.
Pete the greek on Jun. 09,
Pete the greek on Jun. 09, 2010.
You stated:
"Well, I can see James Carroll is still angry and hurting deeply over breaking his vows and losing the priesthood. So much rage in one man... it's very sad.
I'll keep praying for him.:
--------------------------------------------------
What makes you think that James Carroll is angry? Just because a person examines an issue that is being discussed in the Church (and not discussing it in the way that you want it discussed , Pete), this person is perceived by you as angry and full of rage. There are members of the hierarchy, that are saying the very same things as James Carroll.
Carroll is much better able to discuss the training that was in the seminary, than someone who has never had that experience. Rather than try to dismiss Carroll's discussion as that of an angry, raging man---better ask yourself---why are you so ANGRY when this issue is discussed.
"What makes you think that
"What makes you think that James Carroll is angry?"
- Because I've read other stuff he's written.
"why are you so ANGRY when this issue is discussed."
- Angry? Hardly. If anything at all I'd say I'm bored with it as nothing really new has been said by Carrol and his types for years on this issue.
Pete the greek on Jun. 10,
Pete the greek on Jun. 10, 2010.
You stated:
'"What makes you think that James Carroll is angry?"
- Because I've read other stuff he's written.
"why are you so ANGRY when this issue is discussed."
- Angry? Hardly. If anything at all I'd say I'm bored with it as nothing really new has been said by Carrol and his types for years on this issue.'
-------------------------------------------------
If you are so bored----how about helping out at a local soup kitchen, or at a homeless shelter? You won't be bored, you'll be fullfilling a Corporal Work of Mercy ('Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters, you do to me). And you'll stop boring us with your complaints against just about every essayist on NCR. Finally, if you are bored---turn on EWTN and listen to Fr. Corapi.
I find your assumptions
I find your assumptions interesting: I don't care for what James Carrol has to say, therefore I don't do charitable works or care for the poor. A rather silly, incoherent (and wrong) thought process on your part.
If Carroll actually said something that wasn't just a rehash of the drivel that progressives have stuttered out on this issue for the last 30 years, I would actually read with interest and consideration. As it is, he is like the 7th Day Adventist preacher on the radio who's entire argument is the old and discredited rant that the pope is supposed to be a new Christ to put against Jesus Himself.
Or like hearing a seven year old cry for the umpteenth time about why he shouldn't have to go to bed before 10pm.
Pete the Greek on Jun. 13,
Pete the Greek on Jun. 13, 2010.
You stated:
"I find your assumptions interesting: I don't care for what James Carrol has to say, therefore I don't do charitable works or care for the poor. A rather silly, incoherent (and wrong) thought process on your part.
If Carroll actually said something that wasn't just a rehash of the drivel that progressives have stuttered out on this issue for the last 30 years, I would actually read with interest and consideration. As it is, he is like the 7th Day Adventist preacher on the radio who's entire argument is the old and discredited rant that the pope is supposed to be a new Christ to put against Jesus Himself."
---------------------------------------------------------
(Yawn....) you find just about everything that most editors write on this site to be "drivel." So why do you bother reading?
As far as my suggestion goes----if you are bored, you're idle. Idle hands are the Devil's Workshop. "Do good, and sin not."
Or like hearing a seven year old cry for the umpteenth time about why he shouldn't have to go to bed before 10pm.
Actually, I don't find all of
Actually, I don't find all of them boring
"So why do you bother reading?"
- Well, because a lot of the writers and posters here are like the villains of the old Batman TV show: Sure they're silly and ridiculous, but they still need to be countered, lest they try to do actual, SERIOUS damage. :-)
I also scan the pages once in a while in the hope that something original might get posted. Occasionally, that actually happens!
Oh, and Good Heavens, you
Oh, and Good Heavens, you have it all wrong!
Idle hands are the Devil's PLAYTHINGS! It's the idle MIND that's the Devil's workshop! Who taught you your religious sayings? :-)
I am honestly relieved, though, that you DO accept the fact that the Adversary actually exists. That's not something a lot of Progressives can say, unfortunately. I've heard him referred to as mere 'myth' on this website more times than I can count.
See? There's one of little nuggets I comb these pages for right there!
Amen, amen and amen. Are we
Amen, amen and amen. Are we or are we not the People of God? Are we or are we not The Church? This Iron Curtain will fall as soon as the laity, whose church this is in Christ, demand a healthy governance and ministry. This can and will happen - IF we can and will act. Life is short!
ooh I like the Iron Curtain
ooh I like the Iron Curtain analogy. Let's start an Ecumenicaly funded liberal internet radio station called "Radio Free Catholicism."
How sad that something so
How sad that something so obvious should be regarded simply as a threat by those dedicated to the church of pomp and patriarchalism. As James Carroll says, this institution id dying, mostly because the faithful are no longer going to pay for it, and a real return to the Christ of the the Gospel is under weigh. PERHAPS THE PEDOPHILE SCANDAL IS THE FELIX CULPA and the changes necessary will move on apace.
Meanwhile, let us rejoice and be peaceful,
Des
Oh Oh James, expect lots of
Oh Oh James, expect lots of criticism (from those who themselves are NOT celibate, don't walk the talk) but you're correct.
It's simple, optional celibacy.
St. Paul states in Corinthians 9:5 are we not allowed to take along a believing WIFE as do THE REST OF THE APOSTLES AND CEPHAS (PETER).
You know, we are taught God never changes. If he called married men as apostles then he does so now. What is wrong is the church has cramped His work and barred men whom He has called.
Funny, it's when we stray from scripture that we get in the most trouble and boy are we in trouble now!
There is simply no question
There is simply no question in my mind that this subject needs to be at the center of a new church council. For God's sake, no for our sake, let's make celibacy a distinctive, freely chosen, communally lived, response to the gospel and the grace of God.
Actually, the subject of
Actually, the subject of celibacy does need to be at the centre of a new Church Council. Unless, that is, a Pope has the intestinal fortitude to make celibacy 'freely chosen' as suggested by many and adopted by many faiths. The central issue is control of priests and the laity by the heirarchy and until the heirarchy (men)in the form and authority of a Church Council find the courage to do what is right in the sight of God, they will have to answer for their sin eventually and we, the laity will have to answer for our sin of omitting to challenge them in every way possible to do what we know is right in the sight of God, even if they don't.
David Mapstone
Australia
"In some men, both straight
"In some men, both straight and gay, the stresses of such contradictions lead to irrepressible urges that can be indulged only by exploitation of the vulnerable and available, objects of desire who in many cases are boys, whether prepubescent or adolescent."
The above referenced quote as I understand it has no basis in fact. If we are going to discuss celibacy and its merits in today's Church, then we need to get the facts straight. Being either heterosexual or homosexual is not a reason for abuse of children, and to use that premise just muddy's the waters and inflames the already confused laity and clergy alike.
Having worked in a prison, I
Having worked in a prison, I have noted that some straight men on the outside engage in homosexual behavior inside prison. I am not surprised that some priests engage in various sexual behaviors including sex with youth.
The celibate priesthood carries too much liability to continue. We have lived in a Bing Crosby delusion.
Maybe those priests who left to get married were the better men. The laity are in a state of denial. We can withhold our donations. The more daring thing to do is find an independent prayer community. They do exist. At the very least we should refuse to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist with such priests and bishops.
What priests and bishops
What priests and bishops should be refuse to participate in the celebration of the Eucharist with, Charlesfld?
Celebate priests and bishops?
Closeted homosexual priests and bishops?
Hebephilic and Ephebophilic priests and bishops?
Catholic priests and bishops?
Perfect. Thank you.
Perfect. Thank you.
Please be careful when you
Please be careful when you discuss the history of celibacy.
"Celibacy began in the early church as an ascetic discipline, rooted partly in a neo-Platonic contempt for the physical world that had nothing to do with the Gospel. The renunciation of sexual expression by men fit nicely with a patriarchal denigration of women. Nonvirginal women, typified by Eve as the temptress of Adam, were seen as a source of sin."
I'm not a fan of mandatory celibacy, but I don't think poor research is the way to bring about change. Celibacy began in the early church in response to Jesus' call to die to one's self and be reborn. Plotinus, widely considered the founder of neo-platonism, was not born till the early third century, long after the gospels, Paul, and subapostolic Fathers had written at length about the virtues of celibate life. Any fair study would point out that Christianity did not consider neoplatonism an ally and formulated its creeds and practices outside neoplatonic categories.
Yes, but the fact remains
Yes, but the fact remains that celibacy was NOT mandatory in the early Church.
Dear robertG: I think you
Dear robertG:
I think you should check you "facts" with some good Church history. Suggest reading "Chistianity" by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
The first comment God made
The first comment God made about the man he had shaped from the soil of the ground and gave life to by blowing the breath oif life into his nostrils was, "It is not rightthat the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper."(Genesis 2:18) Maybe God had second thoughts.
This is an eminnently
This is an eminnently reasonable approach to a long-standing problem. All we have to do is to look at married Orthodox clerics and at our "first cousins", Anglican priests, to see that marriage has not corrupted or weakened them. Why not let our priests freely choose to have all seven sacraments, or, or if they prefer, only six.
Or is the celibacy question really based on misogeny (defined by Webster as a hatred of women? If that is the case, where does Mary the Mother of God, fit in their rationale, lower than all males?
Look at Anglican Priests as
Look at Anglican Priests as our examples?!? Are you serious? You mean like the ones who divorced their wife to live with their gay lover and is now a bishop? Or how about the one in my hometown who left her husband to run off with a parishioner's husbad, and is still, by the way, a priestess in good standing. Yeah, married clergy serves them really well.
And ALL Anglican priests fall
And ALL Anglican priests fall into this category? Too broad a brush me thinks. How about the celibate Roman Catholic priests who molested children and then were transferred out by celibate Roman Catholic bishops. Yeah, celibate clergy served those children well.
Are all Anglican clergy
Are all Anglican clergy divorced or living with gay lovers Michael?
Such a broad swipe.
No different than saying that all Catholic clergy are pedophiles.
At least let's give Anglican and Episcopal clergy some credit.
When they are gay they are honest about it and out of the closet.
Catholic clergy lie about it. Forty plus percent are gay, they are closeted are dishonest and lie about it.
Honesty vs deceit.
Telling inaccuracies only
Telling inaccuracies only weakens your argument. +Gene did not divorce his wife to live with his gay lover. He divorced after realizing his sexuality, remains friends with his ex-wife to this day, and cares for his children as any father. He is now in a committed same-sex relationship that is probably more stable than many state-recognized heterosexual relationships.
From your account of events, it sounds like +Gene and his "gay lover" are heathen homewreckers, though they are far from it. I would prefer Gene's pastoral care as an Episcopal bishop any day of the week rather than Roman Catholic bishops who have systematically covered up clerical sex abuse. I am proud that in consecrating him (as well as +Mary Glasspool) to the episcopate our church has openly affirmed equality for LGBT people with God and in the church.
I know Anglican priests who
I know Anglican priests who are married and live exemplary lives that the laity can relate to. You paint with a big brush. Read James Carroll's article on Celibacy. Peace.
Dear Jean,
Dear Jean,
“Or is the celibacy question really based on misogyny (defined by Webster as a hatred of women)? If that is the case, where does Mary the Mother of God, fit in their rationale, lower than all males?”
I think we can look at what an all male hierarchy has done to the Blessed Mother before they could ‘honor’ her without 'contaminating' themselves. The mother of our Lord was a real human woman, yet she has been airbrushed into an adolescent male fantasy of “perfect” womanhood… not the least of which is to be “de-sexed” and removed from “Eve’s sin” by every possible tactic. How strange that in the hierarchical view of things, the God who became incarnate to save a sinful world would not “lower” himself to be born of an ordinary woman!
A few ‘choice’ offerings from Church fathers on their view of women:
"Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood." — Pope Gregory I (540-604)
"[Woman] was made only to assist with procreation." — Thomas Aquinas (1225-74)
“As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. “ — Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century
"What is the difference whether it is in a wife or a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any woman... I fail to see what use woman can be to man, if one excludes the function of bearing children." — Augustine of Hippo, Church Father, Bishop of Hippo Regius, 354 – 430
"In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell." — Tertullian, 2nd-3rd century Church father
Chrysostom said, “A woman’s beauty is the greatest sin against God. Keep away from her as you keep away from fire.” Later on he states that the “temptations of a woman will drag a man’s soul to hell”. (Guess that means men are absolved of any responsibility for their own lust?) Some of the Church fathers debated in their writings over whether sexual relations with an "ugly" woman were less sinful for the man than sexual relations with a "beautiful" woman. That's the bizarre mindset — a kind of mathematical equation between pleasure and sin, and all of it the fault of women.
We honor Mary because she was an ordinary woman who participated in something extraordinary, not as a man-made and "sanitized" caricature of womanhood. Unfortunately, the old guard leadership find it convenient to drop the sins of the world on women in general — it’s a handy vehicle for dominance and avoidance of accountability. It also explains, at least in part, their obsession with anything related to sexuality... including an (ostensibly) celibate clergy.
What a wonderful addition to
What a wonderful addition to the discussion. Obviously, you have reserch the issue well and provide us with a keen, if unfortunate, look at how women have been not only viewed by an al-male heirarchy, but also how it has been woven into the fabric of the Church throughout the centuries, and that the Church has been no different than other social institutions in it's prejudices, oppression, and bigotry. This is the human side of the Church - making it all so difficult to see where the "divine" influences are. I am, sadly, thinking that the present pope and curia cannot and will not ever see all of these sexuality issues in being a major part of Catholics departing and/or not entering the priesthood, religious life, or even the faith itself.
Women are the devil’s gateway
Women are the devil’s gateway - Tertullian
______________________________
It seems the above referenced idea presented by Tertullian,
concretized for centuries in church practice and policy, refers to the saying, "The gates of hell" will not prevail against the church.
It seems Tertullian's malevolent intent is to make sure women will not prevail in the church because they are the "gates of hell."
If in fact THE GATES OF HELL IS CODE FOR WOMEN women should abandon the church for the good of all women and men until it purges itself of all the bad will it has on the books about manditory celibacy and the exclusion of women from ordination.
Like singers and songs,
when church law-makers are gone
their corruption goes on.
Unless and until the above referenced CHURCH-FATHER-TRASH, from which misogynist canon law is derived, is permanantly struck down the antithesis of why Jesus came will remain entrenched.
No longer can we allow the establishment of dysfunction and ill-health to continue exploiting and reeking havoc on the People of God, to wit those women and celibate men it wishes to subjugate.
I thank God for, and
I thank God for, and thoroughly agree with this article! I do not state this lightly because I am well aware of the suffering these two issues have caused me as well as my family. I was shocked when Paul VI did what he did both to the Commmission of Lay Persons he appointed to study the birth control issue and then rejected their suggestions! I rejoiced in Vatican Council II when it happened noting it was long overdue. Today I think we need a Vatican Council III that focuses on some badly needed restructuring. WE need married lay persons to have decision making power because the celibates do not live the life we live. The Holy Spirit speaks to all, not just the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, etc. The Holy Spirit also speaks to anyone willing to listen and that includes married and single persons. As far as I'm concerned, I think celibacy should be optional, and birth control should be left up to the informed consciences of the couple who has to live with the Lord and their own decisions. Too many people forget that the Lord is in the relationship with the couple, 3 (the Trinity) and 2 (the couple) equals one loving relationship. Lets get rid of "power"&"control", seeing them as the false idols they are.
Once the powers that be get
Once the powers that be get done dismantling Vat II (which they have been doing for the past 40 some years), then maybe Vat III will be considered.
Amen! A Courageous and
Amen! A Courageous and articulate article on a difficult subject for many to engage in. Our Roman Catholic faith teaches we were made in the likeness of God, Baptised priest, prophet and king and yet asks our leaders to disown an essential part of their humanity. How can we ever expect to have whole and healthy leadership when it is not allowed to live a fully human life? I am a prayerful person who lives a Catholic life and firmly believe the practise of celibacy is asking far too much for a whole and healthy man or woman. It is my deepest hope that someday (in my lifetime) celibacy will be a CHOSEN way of life, not manditory for leaders of faith. Why can't we let God be God, not doctrines be the rule. I am sure there are many priests and laity who would support this change if they only dared to speak up.
IF what you write were true,
IF what you write were true, we would not find pedophilia committed by MARRIED
clergymen or married men and women. Yet, we do. Pedophilia is a sin and a
crime perpetrated by celibate and non-celibate people alike.
Yes, and priests living with
Yes, and priests living with with their housekeepers of old, or their curates! A cover up in the name of celebacy.
anonymous on Jun. 09, 2010.
anonymous on Jun. 09, 2010.
You stated:
"IF what you write were true, we would not find pedophilia committed by MARRIED
clergymen or married men and women. Yet, we do. Pedophilia is a sin and a
crime perpetrated by celibate and non-celibate people alike."
--------------------------------------------
Ah, yes! We've heard this argument before. First of all, if a celibate commits pedophilia---he is no longer a "Celibate." He is a fornicator---preying upon a youth/child.
Secondly, no bishop/superintendant of a Protestant Church would hide and then move a sexually abusing cleric around from church to church. THAT is the unique perrogative of the Catholic Church. And it wasn't just done in one or two places------it was done in just about every diocese in America----and in dioceses in other parts of the world.
thank you. all the other
thank you. all the other comments for the most part miss what your simple statement makes clear.
Still bitter that you were
Still bitter that you were told "the Church would change to suit you" when you were in the seminary by some liberal profs and it never came true?
We have been saying so, James
We have been saying so, James Carroll, and you say it so beautifully in this thoughtful and insightful piece. It is the obstinate Vatican Curia that refuses to hear the Holy Spirit, much to its own peril. The Holy Spirit will not be silenced by the hard of heart. Rome is burning, and yet they fiddle on!!!
One has to wonder at how the
One has to wonder at how the Church arrived at thinking the gift of priesthood meant the same person always had the "gift" of celibacy? Even the first priests (AKA "Apostles") were married noncelibates (Orthodox Jews know that the Sabbath duty is quite sacred!).
Post new comment