 |
Posted June 14, 2010
Mandatory celibacy at the heart of what's wrongBy James Carroll[A version of this article appeared in The Boston Globe. James Carroll’s most recent book, Practicing Catholic, just appeared in paperback.] This article is taken from The National Catholic Reporter with the addition of comments by Fr. Gene Hemrick. The discussion of celibacy is never ending! Below we have one take on it and the pro and con reactions to it from readers of the National Catholic Reporter. No doubt the topic of celibacy is complex and is in need of a broader discussion than presently exist. Without sidestepping it, but rather using it as a springboard for a broader discussion on it, may it be suggested that the fraternity of the priesthood and its present lifestyles is part of the equation of celibacy? To be married and have a family is one of the wonders of the world and most wonderful experience in life. To know another deeply in the sense of cognoscere and bond with a significant other is the essence of cooperating with and participating in the life process. When we examine the fraternity of today’s priesthood, is there the perception and feeling of heartfelt bonding together? Is there a family spirit, and especially the drive that comes with the feeling of being on a team mission that is bringing new life to those it touches? How powerful or not powerful is this sense, and if it has waned, what needs to bolster it? For a family to survive, lifestyle is crucial. There must be continuous adjustments to each other’s temperaments, likes and dislikes, a semblance of order, building toward the future and a reverential space among its members to allow them to grow. Recreation, knowing how to relax and taking care of selves must go hand in hand with the labor work demands. When we examine the way priests live, is the lifestyle of today’s priests as wholesome as it should be? Does it contain all the elements that are necessary for keeping a family together and vibrant? Celibacy will always be a challenge and debated ad infinitum. We must wonder if there was a healthier fraternity and lifestyle among priests whether the discussions on celibacy would be more realistic. This is not to suggest that fraternity and lifestyle would solve the question of celibacy. Rather it suggests that the topic of celibacy be expanded to discuss the role fraternity and lifestyle fulfill in today’s overall picture of the priesthood. VIEWPOINTLike 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. 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 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? Submitted by Craig B. McKee, Hong Kong (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. "Not sex, but power was the issue." Some helpful historical background to elaborate on this point: Submitted by Michael Bindner (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. Very good comilation Submitted by thomas1 (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. "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.) Submitted by Brett Adams (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Pete the greek (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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! Submitted by Des (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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.Submitted by Dr. Dale (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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! Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. "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. Submitted by A Nonny Mouse (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. Perfect. Thank you. Submitted by RobertG (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. Yes, but the fact remains that celibacy was NOT mandatory in the early Church. Submitted by Rolando Rodriguez, SFO (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Jean Byrne (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. This is an eminently 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? Submitted by Patricia A. Federowicz (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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. Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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? Submitted by JayB (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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!!! Submitted by Rachel (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. 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!). Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. The author has missed the point of celibacy. His explanations are lacking faith being lived out --- a personal relation with God. He analyzes and rationalizes the decision of the man to be a celibate, the Church's encouragement to be celibate for the glory of God, and dismisses the spiritual benefits of this "chosen" lifestyle. The man has a call from God. The man responds to God. The Church offers priesthood to the man. I am from a Byzyntine Catholic Church where the priests are celibate and married. Those who are celibate have chosen to be because of their discernment that God has called them to this lifestyle for His glory. The fruits of this lifestyle are not understood in the "natural" but only in the spiritual effects. You can only see the spiritual effects with faith, and a true heart of love for God. Sad that he missed the point. He sees celibacy as a "curse". It is a gift. So sad that he is in poverty of faith. Submitted by Michael Bindner (not verified) on Jun. 09, 2010. We are all called to relation with God. Indeed, the strength of the relationship is more thoroughly tested when one has a spouse and children. |