Can we please put an end to stereotyping celibate men and women? Can we stop lumping them all together as hateful and mean-spirited? Can we stop assuming that they are all the same?
No, apparently we cannot.
Here is James Carroll, a former priest and the author of Constantine's Sword, who was afforded an entire page in Sunday's Boston Globe, pontificating on how horrible celibacy is. Note the odd leap of logic in the following paragraph. Celibacy does not cause sex abuse. Celibacy does cause sex abuse.
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 Catholic scandal has laid bare an essential pathology that is unique to the culture of clericalism, and mandatory celibacy is essential to it. Immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality — such all-too-common characteristics of today’s Catholic clergy are directly tied to the inhuman asexuality that is put before them as an ideal.
Immature, narcissistic, misogynistic, incapable of intimacy, and having illusions about sexual morality? This is what is "all too common" of today's clergy? Thanks, Mr. Carroll, for stereotyping me, and all the other good celibates I know, with those terrible terms. I eagerly await The Boston Globe publishing his description of other traits that are "all too common" in women, Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays and lesbians, and, well, fill in your own ethnic group or social minority or religious denomination. Carroll goes on:
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 is able to observe the letter of their vow, how many do so at savage personal cost?
Frankly, I'm sick of this crap. It's one thing to address the clerical culture that has given rise to the sex abuse crisis. It's one thing to take aim at an all-male clergy that has prevented women from entering into roles of leadership (and married men, too). It's one thing to investigate how celibacy contributed to a hermetically sealed world in which married men and women were seen as "less than," and therefore whose cries were not heard by bishops and religious superiors during when it came to sexual abuse. It's one thing to wonder how much a celibate world provided a refuge for men with sick sexual impulses. And, to be fair, some of his piece does try to do this, and Carroll, an intelligent commentator, makes some salient points.
But it's quite another thing to malign an entire group of people who live their promises of celibacy with integrity and their vows of chastity with love. And why, pray, has Carroll left out celibate women? Where are the evil Catholic sisters in his opinion piece? Are they immature, narcissistic, misogynistic (misanthropic?) incapable of intimacy and deluded about sexual morality, too? They live celibately, in case he hadn't noticed. Oh, but wait, Carroll likes nuns. "The nuns acted as if the reforms of Vatican II were real," he wrote approvingly, a few weeks ago. But how could they do that if they were celibate, and therefore immature, narcissistic, incapable of intimacy and deluded about sexual morality?
By the way, the vast majority of us priests don't "find ways around the celibacy rule," and if we did enter into "relationships" how "meaningful" would they be if they included living a double life?
Overall, the notion that a celibate lifestyle can be healthy seems to have escaped Carroll. For some examples to disprove his stereotypes, Carroll might look to people like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux or, better yet, his great hero, Pope John XXIII. "I have spent my life trying to understand why John XXIII had such an impact on me," he writes in his book Practicing Catholic. "Even non-Catholics took to retelling the anecdotes that demonstrated his warmth and humanity."
Guess what, Mr. Carroll? Your hero, full of "warmth and humanity," was celibate.
Look, I don't think the all-celibate clergy will be around forever. (The recent entrance into the church of married Anglican priests is one indication of this.) But that doesn't mean that celibate men are evil. Some of them are the most loving, most generous and most caring men I've ever met.
No matter how dire the crisis we're in, stereotyping of any sort is wrong. One would have thought that the author of Constantine's Sword, a book on the church's persecution of the Jewish people would recognize the dangers of stereotyping.
Ruddy - you use Greeley's own words about the 80 dioceses? Where is the documentation? Sorry, you and I will have to disagree on the value of a sociological critique of Sipe, etc. using Greeley's methodology.....his own colleagues question his approach at times. I would also say that whatever his results of 6-8 years ago were - the whole area has dramatically changed...his results are dated.
Carroll - not defending Carroll or the Boston Globe. Merely stating that it is a waste of time to moan and groan and point fingers. If you are so offended, do a positive article on celibacy and present to the Globe - but, please, make sure that you address the inconsistencies of current Vatican policy on this issue; include the experience of the Eastern half of our church; include the results of studies by Sipe, Kennedy, etc.; and do a fair job of capturing all recent survey results about the catholic in the pews and the percentage who find the discipline of celibacy something that needs to change - this has even come from priests, dioceses who have called for discussion on an organized level; the recent statements by the Austrian hierarchy. Let's be honest - the sex abuse crisis has dramatically colored the way most see celibacy (you can argue but perception is mighty powerful); statements such as JPII trying to close down discussion -say that celibacy is all but a dogma, etc. have only reinforced the notion that the Vatican is hypocritical on this issue. To be honest - the current discipline of celibacy in the Western Church is impacting millions in terms of access to the Eucharist - how about focusing on some real issues. Good luck!
Still, I have to agree with those who say that Fr. Martin seems to be overreacting to Carroll's piece. That is just so curious for me that Fr. Martin who usually analyzes and sorts out different issues in a razor blade sharp way can't seem to get that what Carroll (and other voices like Carroll's) is clearly criticizing is not celibacy itself, nor those who live celibacy joyfully, but the fact that this gift (which -if we are to follow the logic of "gift"- should be freely chosen) has been been mandatory for all priests of the Latin rite. The constraining of celibacy goes directly against a dominical order: "Let anyone accept this WHO CAN" (Mt 19:12).
Isn't there a bit too much defensiveness in your reaction, Fr. Martin? I know how dear it is in your heart to spread the message that celibacy freely chosen and joyfully lived can make a life full. Thank God for that. But if the numbers of those who have left the priesthood or religious life in order to find fullness in a meaningful relationship in a non-celibate way (not to mention those who live out their frustration in dishonest, sick and criminal ways while purporting to be celibate) are any indication, there DOES SEEM TO BE a significant number of priests and religious (of both sexes) who can corroborate the idea that forced celibacy (AGAIN, NOT CELIBACY IN ITSELF) can result in "immaturity, narcissism, misogyny, incapacity for intimacy, illusions about sexual morality." And yes, I say this because I've unfortunately known too many "brother priests" and "sister religious" who are burdened with those factors.
Mandatory Celibacy in a system is radically different from a state in which celibacy is a TRULY free choice. I believe that those who can remain celibate forever are the small minority of any given group. When a state of life that only a miniscule portion of humans can accept forever is made an inflexible requirement of ministry and when this state is de facto the requirement for all those who assume leadership positions in the community, what you have is nothing less than disastrous.
I hate to sound condescending but I'll say it all the same because I think this needs to be heard. You're quite young, Fr. Martin. I pray that you will experience a time when you'll be on the brink of saying, "I can't go on with this celibacy business anymore..." Then, maybe you'll be less defensive and understand the struggle and difficult decisions that many of us have gone through, yes, and gone through while all the time maintaining that celibacy is a wonderful and essential charism ... but, not for the many, and, in many cases, not forever.
- sorry to have chimed in on a message directed to you, Fr. Martin.
The apparent failure of a significant number of men (and women?) to observe the chastity aspects (that is what we are really talking about) of celibacy is more than enough argument that the virtues of mandatory celibacy are in the minds and eyes of the imposers, not those upon whom it has been imposed.
He has described my non-celibate husband and his non-celibate brothers and cousins. Also, he has described many of my non-celibate friends not to mention the non-celibate stars of today's television shows.
He needs to get his head out of the sand, get rid of his bias and look around at the men in his world.
I like you both but I don't like it when you fight.
Frs Martin and Carroll, opposite ends of the same issue and both guilty of the same sort of criticisms they label each other.
Look, the reason we don't know if celibacy is really the culprit is because the church has put a muzzle on this discussion.
As always, when something is muzzled and forbidden to be discussed, (particularly when that institution is a feudal monarchy that claims to be not afraid of the truth) then we won't have the answers. The information we get is based on opinion from one side or the other. In other words whoever puts the better spin on it.
Want to really know if celibacy is the culprit in sexual abuse?
Do a statistical study on sexual abuse comparing celibate Latin rite Catholic priests with married Eastern rite Catholic priests. And yes, it can be done despite the cultural differences.
Until we get a scientific study it's all speculative opinion from both Frs Martin and Carroll.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
Celibacy in itself doesn't cause sex abuse, forced celibacy and the failure of individuals does contribute to abuse in the same way that marriage doesn't cause divorce, but forced marriage and failure of the parties to uphold their marriage promises causes divorce.
Does the priesthood of believers require marriage? No it doesn't. I believe that the clerical priesthood doesn't require celibacy either.
You mentioned Mt 19:12. St. Paul also gives advice about remaining celibate but states this is only advice and is not binding. Corinthians 9:5 states that the apostles took along believing wives ''including Cephas'' (Peter). Paul is clear when he states celibacy isn't mandated.
My point is not to argue about celibacy today but to point out that some can live out this charism, especially those in religious communities where they have support, whereas others cannot.
James Carroll is correct that celibacy is no more the cause of the sexual abuse of children than marriage is the cause of incest. He generalizes, however, perhaps from his own experience of knowing men who struggled with celibacy, that yes, celibacy is the cause for the sexual abuse of children. Unfortunately, he cannot have his cake and eat it too.
Four percent of American priests have abused children. Ninety-four percent have not. All are celibate. Some would say that these men were affected by the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. If that were true, we would have had more than 4% abusing innocent children.
There are valid reasons why the discipline of celibacy should be changed. I do not believe those reasons have anything to do with the sexual abuse of children. As a Jesuit, I lived with wonderful men, dedicated to helping others, living faithfully their vow of chastity. It would never have entered their minds to abuse children. In all the years that I lived in the Society, I never saw nor heard anything which would have indicated that men were abusing children. Were there problems? Certainly. But none involved children.
Celibacy is a gift. Not all men are given to that gift. Some are called to the ministerial priesthood as a celibate. There are others, called too, to priesthood as a married man or women. So often, we forget that celibacy, as Carroll points out, is a discipline, not a dogma. It changed in the early 12the century, not for the best of reasons. In the 21st century, it may also change. Paul VI took celibacy off the table; perhaps, a pope in the not too distant future will put it back on the table for open discussion. If it does, that pope will come from South American.
Celibacy did not cause the sexual abuse of children; the clerical culture did. How a bishop could coldly abandon a child raped and violated by a priest is beyond comprehension. The priest could do no wrong. The church could do no wrong. Therefore, protect the priest and the church. That is what the clerical culture is about; that is not what the priesthood is about!
Our church is both divine and human. Diarmuid Martin, archbishop of Dublin, Ireland, said it so well: “The sexual abuse of children is, was, and will always be a sin and a criminal act.” Our bishops need to stop saying they made “mistakes.” We are losing so many Catholics because the bishops will not face up to the truth. At the same time, people need to stop blaming celibacy.
P.S. Father Martin, there is no such entity as a former priest. Even if a priest is laicized, he is still a priest. I think that the correct term is a resigned priest. If I can still absolve a dying person, then I am still a priest.
In several of the above posts, several people have commented on ''forced celibacy''. No one forces a man to be ordained a priest nor is a woman becoming a nun forced to take vows. One person above even commented that the problems in marriage may be due to ''forced marriages''. Choice is a part of entering into any vocation, be it the religious life or marriage. Every man who enters the priesthood knows that it requires celibacy. Perhaps the solution is not doing away with celibacy, but coming up with a better process of dicerning ones ability to live a celibate life. Another solution is making sure that priests have many possitive friendships and activities. Finally, we are all called to grow in maturity and wisdom as we learn about ourselves and as we grow in relationship with other people.
I agree with the discipline of celibacy in the church - key word: discipline. We live in a society that lacks discipline. You want something, go out and buy it. Doesn't matter if you go bankrupt. You want sex: go get it - no matter if you objectify another person. You like a food: eat it, even if you become obese. Discipline gives us the power to become free in other ways, including celibacy.
I also feel that if we are truly going to bring the discussion of celibacy to the table, let us truly look at all sides of the debate. What about the married protestant ministers who are unfaithful or divorced?(I know several). What about the married minister whose wife divorced him because he spent too much time with his congregation and not enough time with her and the kids? Are we looking at the issue of celibacy as a simply a rule that stops us from satisfying a physical craving, or as a discipline that allows us to focus on serving God more?
I agree with Father Jim.
I don't know who or what gives de Haas the need or the right to demand to know the "whole story" about someone's heart or life, but I do know he slanders those whom he accuses of infidelity without having any proof that infidelity occurred. And I hope he knows people can be close and good friends, deeply affective friends, and choose to not express their love and affection in genital, sexual activity. I hope he has friends, both male and female, with whom he is not sexually active. Why does he doubt Rahner and de Chardin could do the same?
The vow of chastity in religious life and the promise of celibacy for diocesan priests does not mean one cannot have such friendships. I would argue that persons who have such friendships are better developed on the psycho-sexual levels of their being. Models abound: St Francis and St Clare; Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin; John Paul II and Mother Teresa.
Hence, this is very sacred territory, for both those who are celibate and those who are married. Chastity, or the decision to live ones life without sexual relations with another human being must be lived with the utmost of care NOT to interrupt (or corrupt or block) this energy, but to "ride" it (surrender to it) in such a way as to bond oneself intimately with others.
I agree with Fr. Jim that chastity is a gift, but I also agree with others that it is a way of living that must be freely chosen and accepted, and can never be mandated. I also tend to agree with Merton, that a person must be at a certain level of sexual maturity - that is, fully knowing that sex is not about getting something as much as it is about giving and surrendering to another - before chastity should be considered.
Sexual energy is a very powerful force, frought with danger - look how many people really screw things up when they fall under its spell - but also capable of bringing us to an amazing level of awareness and "aliveness". Very, very risky. My guess is that the person aspiring to celibacy must use this energy as carefully as the person who is married. And both are just a liable to fall short of the ideal.
As a doctor I sometimes chuckle when I read that we can't have married priests because they may be on call and it will ruin the marriage and so forth. What about physicians? I will dare say we are on call a lot more. We take care that our marriage remains strong. My wife nor children do not suffer. We have married deacons and the sky hasn't fallen in yet. The bishop would deal with a priest divorce the same way they deal with a deacons divorce.
I know that we have a priest shortage, but I am not sure if celibacy is the real issue. Deep down, too many people see celibacy it as ''unnatural'' and think that no one is capable of this. Truth is, everyone does not have the same sexual drive and there are probably many people capable of this discipline.
I honestly believe that there are young men out there who may be thinking about the priesthood, but are scared to consider it because others would ridicule them and make them feel less than who they are because we may say ''oh man, how can you live without sex?''. I have talked to a few seminarians and their fear was not of never having sex, but what their family and friends thought of their decision. Mr. Caroll's comments add to the clamor. Do we encourage young men to listen to that small voice in their hearts? Or are we caught up in the culture of hypersexuality?
Adieu
I think that we spend too much time thinking about the sexuality and sexual desires/drives when we have mandatory celibacy. I don't know of any other profession where the persons' sexuality is an issue, even those who work with children like teachers! It's a hot issue and we Catholics are always involved in sexuality or involved in what is going on in the bedroom whether it's celibacy, birth control, and on and on ad nauseatum.
If we had optional celibacy there would be less focus on this aspect. Yes, there are many who can live this life and they should be encouraged but not all can and as St. Paul stated, if they cannot then let them marry.
We have seen the diaconate grow 1000% since it's reinstitution and 95% of all deacons are married. Furthermore, there doesn't seem to be a shortage in the Eastern Catholic Rite nor is there much talk about sex abuse (yet).
Mandatory celibacy is only a discipline and I think it's time to reconsider optional celibacy (and female deacons like Phoebe, but that's another discussion for another day!).
Many ''bedroom'' topics are brought into the political arena by evangelical Christians and not so much by Catholics and making celibacy optional will not affect that.
We have both been looking at many of the practical aspects of celibacy. But one thing stands out - that this discipline of celibacy produces a great spiritual freedom. I am going to use a simplistic example. I have not always been as careful about what I eat and I didn't always excercise. I thought it was insane to give up the foods I loved. But when I developed the discipline of eating fresh, raw foods and exercising daily, I began to look good, and, more importantly, I felt energetic and my health improved.
I also began to realize that I had self imposed limits on myself and some of my beliefs about what I couldn't do were untrue. My discipline in one area translated to personal freedom and a new realization that I could do a lot more in and with my life.
In the same way, and on a greater scale - the discipline of celibacy creates a spiritual freedom and the ability to focus solely on serving God and loving others in an agape way. This dicipline mirrors the life of Christ and is a great gift of the church and a counterbalance to a society that is selfish and hedonistic. Instead of giving in to what man thinks is reasonable, celibacy is a countercultaral call to freedom and to bring a little of the Kingdom into the world.
Those who can accept this call go on to the priesthood. Those who don't have this particular gift go on to the sacrament of marriage.
Peace
[His] disciples said to him, ''If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.'' He answered, ''Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.''
And St. Paul, although he could have taken a wife, stated in 1 Cor. 7:
I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction.
Seems like support for priestly celibacy to me.
Peace
Katie
No where is celibacy mandated, not one word.
There is support for it but nowhere is it mandated.
St. Paul may have preferred celibacy but it appears the other apostles did not. St. Paul can't speak for all of them.
Also, to copy from what you've written above:
''not to impose a restraint upon you,''
That's the rub NOT to impose a restraint upon you. That is exactly what the church is doing.
Also, Cor 9:5 is clear, who had wives? '' the rest of the apostles and Cephas (Peter)''.
In my opinion optional celibacy is the way to go.
"It is certainly true that man is most human, and proves his humanity, by the quality of his relationship with woman. (This, in Marx, surprised me.) How much more true that I realized in the past! Here in the monastery with our chastity, we are ideally supposed to go further still, in his dimension of humanism and love. This is one of the keys to our problems: how can one go further than that to which one has not yet arrived?
"Not that virginity cannot be deeply and purely human. But it has to be spiritual and positive. And this spiritual character of chastity and virginity is NOT found in alienation. It is NOT found in sentimentality, in a "thought" of pure love for Jesus."
[Here Merton deletes a passage of two lines.]
That it is integral to our commitment to Christ as religious and priests apparently is not possible. That it frees us to have deep, intimate and loving relationships with people without breaking our vows seems unimaginable. For many, I think the whole idea of it is an offense. But why?
Maybe what it comes down to is this: "If I can't live a celibate life, then how could anyone else possibly do it?" If you're looking for narcissism-or at the very least, self-centeredness-here it is!
We all stereotype. We couldn't get through the day if we didn't. We make assumptions about things (yes we stereotype objects) and people. If a door doesn't open in a certain direction we get a little peeved. We expect things to behave in a certain fashion and it makes our decision process easier when we employ this behavior. We expect people to say ''Thank you'' after we help them in some way. But we also learn and we re-evaluate everything and develop a new image of things and people. We notice that some people never say ''Thank you'' and maybe we then think they are rude, or their culture is the cause or they were not brought up properly. But we have an impression or image of that person and it is then a stereotype. We all do it.
Most of the authors on this site constantly stereotype people or try to implant or create a stereotype within the minds of its readers. One author on this site is especially egregious but most are guilty. I could point out specific examples and I occasionally do in comments I make. I find it common in the opinion pieces here and especially in many of the comments.
Now for my stereotype. Mr. Carroll is a disgruntled man who is really very anti Catholic but must hide behind some semblance of rationality in order to express his anti Catholicism and thus convert others to his position. I haven't read anything by him in a few years but this was my stereotype from what he wrote a few years ago and his present piece just reinforces my stereotype.
Carroll and others miss the fact that many celibate Catholic priests are happy and well adjusted, even more so than our peers in other professions and walks of life. There is joy and a sense of mission like no other inherent in preaching and scaramental ministry. The several dozen married Roman Catholic priests in the United States today (usually former Protestant clergy) will provide interesting data surrounding the questions Carroll raises. Will they be noticably better adjusted people than their celibate counterparts? What of married Catholic Deacons? And is there any definitive evidence that those priests who have left are any better adjusted or happier than those who stayed?
Just because many married people get divorced is not a reason to condemn marriage. Just because some find celibacy a path they choose to follow no longer, because they fall in love and marry (a choice Carroll himself made), is not to say celibacy itself is deficient. Allow people the freedom to be human and walk their path to God as they choose. Who is Carroll, or anyone else, to judge the motive and qualities of someone's heart?
He should reread his own excellent book An American Requiem. There he himself ruminates on the mysteries of human relationships, especially his own with his father.
“What paralyses life is the failure to believe and the failure to dare. What is difficult is not solving problems, but formulating them; as we see it now, harnessing passion to make it serve the spirit must -on biological evidence- be a condition of progress. Therefore, sooner or later, despite our incredulity, the world will take that step. For everything that is more true does come about, and everything that is better is finally achieved. Some day, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides, and gravity we shall harness -for God- the energies of love. And then, for the second time in history, man (sic) will have discovered fire." (Teilhard de Chardin, S.J., La évolution de la chasteté, 1943 in Cuénot 1958:29)
This is just another leftist attack on Catholicism.
Some time later the other monk expressed how upset he was that his brother monk had touched a woman. To which, the first monk replied, "Are you still carrying that woman around? I put her down at the river's edge and have let her go."
Carroll's anger will always get the better of him. Pity, he is clearly a smart man; just one that cannot and will not let go of what needs to be let go of.
And of what needs to be respected.
Jim Martin is right - stereotyping is wrong and too many of my fellow reformists and leftists in their anger and disillusion are allowing these other issues to creep into their thinking- often myself included...But it is necessary for him and others in some sphres of power to sperak out more about reform of this imposed discipline.
Optional celibacy and women clergy will be no panacea, but I am likewise tired of the lack of courage of so many clergy who profess to be for these reforms who will not speak openly and "to power."
There is a cost to speaking your mind and opening the discussion. We remeber what happened to Thomas Reese...
At that time, if I could have continued as a priest and been married, I would have jumped at it. However,as I have reallized, I could no longer make that choice even though I am extremely active in my own parish and in various "ministries," if I had to maintain the birth control is wrong, that divorced and remarried persons are not welcome to to the Eucharist, that the Eucharistic table is closed, and that women could not likewise be called to ordination. So, right now, if I had to affirm those tenets, I could not be "married priest" even though I continue to think of myself much in that light.
I'm sorry to say it but I feel that you might have overreacted. As a celibate woman, I agree that healthy celibacy is a rich, full, diverse life that God intends to fill with the freedom to love and serve. Unfortunately, it is not always lived with integrity and there are many examples of those who live as James Carroll describes. Again, I believe that Mr. Carroll is speaking from his experience of mandatory celibacy as a requirement for priesthood. Obviously this was not his call.
Celibacy is a mystery and as such is open to much misunderstanding and rejection. This is part of the call. I know that I don't expect to be understood, accepted and certainly not applauded for a mystery that I can't even begin to fully understand. Try to be at peace with the fact that many will be turned off by your call and get on with living the rich, full life that you describe-always the best witness! :-)
Mr. Carroll regularly pontificates in the Boston Globe as their voice on Catholic matters. His usual cathedra is the Monday issue. It was something of a surprise, then, to see his article as an "Opinion Extra" feature taking up a full page in Sunday's Globe. Holding the page at a distance and admiring its being so boldly featured, I could not but think: now that's power! It also makes one wonder at the Globe's stake in this.
Would they publish a piece celebrating celibacy? Jim Martin, it's worth a try!
Would suggest, Fr. Martin, that you and MSW have read way too much into this. There are significant numbers of qualified and experienced folks who have written and are writing about the impact of celibacy on the church. It is a charism that should never have been forced upon the church's priesthood. It is a gift - when forced, it loses its power, it is no longer in a context of gratitude; it becomes a legality that loses its soul.
Let's not get into arguments about married priests vs. celibate priests. Folks choose to leave for both good and bad reasons; folks choose to remain in the priesthood for both good and bad reasons - we all know priests and former priests who fall into both categories.
I find it interesting that researchers such as Sipe, Kennedy, retired bishop Robinson, retired archbishop Quinn, recent writings by Donald Cozzens all address the issue of celibacy; O'Malley's insights into Vatican II and Paul VI's decision to pull celibacy from discussion. They all make salient points including facts that an estimated 50% of all priests are not living their vow of celibacy at any point in time (you also exaggerate on this retort).
Celibacy is a human decision and not a dogma. Why are we afraid to discuss this issue in an above board and transparent way? What are some afraid of?
Fr. Imbelli - you have oft expressed your disdain for Carroll - you continue that pattern. The Boston Globe may have given him a ''power'' forum but your response is beneath your dignity. Fr. Malloy - a couple of comments.....deChardin - do you really want to quote and hold him up as a responsible, celibate model given his relationships (yes, which the SJs keep hidden)? Quoting from Greeley - those comments and survey by Greeley on priests and their happiness are more than 10 years old and came from a survey of the LA archdiocese....given the est. $700 mil settlement and the fact that 71% of all LA parishes had a pedophile priest since 1960, do you really think that survey is pertinent; valid; or can really give us solid documented evidence? What do you think that survey in Ireland, Austria, Germany, Holland would say to you today? Rather than take pot shots at Carroll, would love to have one of you SJs address celibacy in Alaska and the NW United States as lived out by SJ priests and bishops?
Greeley's findings on the happiness of (celibate) priests, mentioned by Rick Malloy, are seconded by sociologists Stephen Rossetti and the late Dean Hoge. Greeley himself has criticized the work of some of the writers mentioned by Mr. DeHaas for their lack of methodological rigor.
Greeley's 2004 book, ''Priests: A Calling in Crisis'' takes up both the LA Times survey and his criticism of other commentators on priestly celibacy.
It is also difficult to see how Robert Imbelli's comment is ''beneath his dignity.'' He simply mentions the positive rationale undergirding celibacy and asks that the Boston Globe give space to a proponent of celibacy. There doesn't seem to be a problem, unless one believes that Jesus's own celibacy rendered him inhuman or subhuman.
When you can answer that, you'll be able to defend mandated celibacy. Otherwise it just becomes a tap dance in defending a discipline that may be right for one person, but not for another.
To be honest, things aren't much better for Catholic couples who try to live as God and the Church intended. Try telling a co-working that you don't use birth control if you ever want to see what a boggled mind looks like. Celibacy, especially for non-Catholic women, often seems to make more sense than NFP. At least we don't have to walk around worrying who out there see us and thinks "pedophile" or "oppressor" or something like that.
But take heart. We didn't join up because we wanted to get into all the cool clubs. As the recent readings at Mass remind us, the Church didn't start with the ubermensch, but with a bunch of failed witnesses and martyrs.
I respect the work of Dean Hoge and yes, he had published some remarkable studies about the well-being and satisfaction of priests. But, I think his conclusions and analysis were much more nuanced than the simple conclusions of Greeley.
Greeley does criticique some of the same researchers that I mention - most of those I mention work and do research in the behavioral health field as opposed to sociological surveys and studies. If you are going to research behaviors such as celibacy, I would place more weight on those who are skilled in psychology and the behavioral sciences in order to make any analyses and conclusions versus some type of survey results. Surveys are notoriously inaccurate; can be easily skewed; and can be easily interpreted to arrive at whatever you want them to say.
Greeley's 2004 book - please seriously read that book. His critique is not professional; he does question their methodology but based on what - his opinion? He offers no alternative; he cites no documented evidence that points out that their methodology is suspect. His arguments are old, tired, defensive, and sound like one of his novels. This book itself is outdated; events have passed it by. Greeley, by his own admission, has his own authority issues - why, one could cynically say that Greeley never met a pastor or a bishop that he did not cross swords with or find fault with....so, how is he much different from the Carroll you describe? (by the way, Greeley's novels seem to hold up a type of heroic adolescent celibate role model.....his novels also never mention female celibates since you mention that) Since you have already dismissed some of the researchers who Greeley cites in his book, read Sipe's response to Greeley's book in his ''The Serpent and the Dove'' - chapters 4 & 5 - link: http://www.richardsipe.com/Books_by_Sipe/Celibacy_in_Literature_and_life.html
Highlight: ''Andrew Greeley claims that priests possess a special fascination because of the celibacy associated with them. He is correct. Celibacy is a source of fascination. In his autobiographical account, Greeley delivers a double dose of fascination: first in the rhetorical style with which he deals with sex and defends celibacy, and second in the intriguing way’s in which he exposes himself.''
''Greeley shows one sign of a troublesome quality —an implicit superiority toward non-celibates. Greeley is reluctant to share his own “weaknesses,” in spite of the fact that he does include some narrative of his celibate development—no adolescent loves and no adult love affairs'' (Kennedy's 1972 psychological investigation and report described and characterized this type of celibate development but, I presume, you would reject that as did the NCCB which never published or used these very studies they commissioned)
My comments directed at Fr. Imbelli had more to do with his reaction. Fr. Imbelli is usually a careful and thoughtful writer. Given that, those who have read and followed Carroll know his weaknesses, his biases, etc. So, why get overly defensive about the value of celibacy - his Boston Globe article obviously was not a thorough study of the strengths and weaknesses of the charism of celibacy; nor did he intend to do a balanced study. So, why react to it? Again, I think some of you have read way too much into his comments - does he directly demean celibacy? Does he directly say that all celibacy is a waste of time?
Finally, here is a more recent presentation about priest morale - link: http://www.elephantsinthelivingroom.com/documents4.html click on Church Structures and scroll down to the last article - "Why Priests Are Coping Poorly"
The parameters of the LA Times survey, including the number of dioceses, can be found on pp. 133ff. of Greeley’s “Priests.” That section is accessible through a Google Books search.
The various links you provide contain interesting points, but, as you acknowledge, they speak psychology-psychiatry, not sociology. Greeley’s critique of Richard Sipe and others is that they present their studies as sociologically normative, but lack the necessary sampling and controls, among other things. Greeley can be notoriously combative, but in “Priests” he explicitly provides a reasoned critique of Sipe’s (and others’) methodology. One may not agree with that critique, but it must be engaged and not dismissed ad hominem.
In addition, contrary to your claim that I “describe” James Carroll in unflattering terms, my post said nothing about him.
Last, I don’t presume to speak for Father Imbelli, but one of his points was questioning why the Globe gave Carroll an entire page in its Sunday edition when he already writes a regular Monday column that has made many times over many years the very same points about celibacy. There is nothing new here; the dateline could equally be 1974, 1984, 1994, or 2004.
Carroll’s piece, as Jim Martin points out, engages in unworthy stereotyping that undercuts his own argument. A full-page article, as opposed to a shorter weekly column, should meet a higher standard of evidence and fairness; 2,130 words—a lot for a newspaper—allows for the nuance that is lacking in Carroll’s piece, perhaps even a four-word acknowledgment that “Jesus himself was celibate.”
Now, if only readers would get similarly worked up over Carroll’s dismissal—in “Constantine’s Sword” and its nearly verbatim reprise in “Toward a New Catholic Church”—of Jesus as the unique, universal savior and of the Cross’s saving power!
***********************************************
The Letters of Teilhard de Chardin and Lucile Swan A Personal Interpretation by Ursula King
"The long awaited correspondence between Teilhard de Chardin and Lucile Swan has now appeared in print. The letters have been superbly edited and annotated by Thomas M. King S.J. and Lucile's cousin, Mary Wood-Gilbert. They are accompanied by photographs, explanatory essays, and a helpful chronology of the lives of the two correspondents. It has long been known that a deep friendship existed between Teilhard and Lucile, yet few details were available before. We had to await the full text of this correspondence to discover the strong, loving bonds which existed between these two great souls.
Many volumes of Teilhard de Chardin's letters have appeared in print, made available by those who were their recipients, since Teilhard never kept any copies himself. Previously published letters give us many insights into Teilhard's personal life and manner of working, his travels around the world, and his friendships with people from different backgrounds. Teilhard was a beloved and precious friend to many. Several of his close friends were women, among them his cousin Margurite Teillard-Chambon, the philosopher L6ontine Zanta, Solange Lemairre, Ida Tieat, Rhodh de Terra, and the American sculptress Malvina Hoffrnan. Some, but not all, of Teilhard's letters to these women have been published much earlier, whereas his letters to Lucile Swan have only now become available.
They represent not simply another correspondence with one of his women friends, but they are a unique collection of very special letters which throw new light on Teilhard as a person and put his ideas, especially those about the nature and power of love, into a hitherto unknown perspective. "
www.teilharddechardin.org/.../32-Letters_of_Teilhard_and_Lucile_Swan.pdf
And what does the "happiness" argument prove? As a deacon of 21 years experience, with 41 years of full-time service in the Church, I know my married vocation is a tremendous gift to my life that I feel grateful for every day. I work with many happy celibate priests, too. But then, I also know a lot of happy non-Catholic ordained ministers, mostly married, men and women. I hope that we're all happy because we're following a call that really rang true within our hearts.
And I think that call comes to men and women, married and single. I do know good women who have left the Catholic Church to pursue ordination. Why is that necessary? Why is our hierarchy unable to discuss this openly?