January 13, 2005
ICON OF THE INTERIOR LIFE:
What the crisis is not: To fix what is broken in the Catholic Church in the United States requires a clear understanding of what the current crisis is not, as well as a clear understanding of what it is. (George Weigel, chapter 3 of The Courage to be Catholic: Crisis, Reform, and the Future of the Church)
As with the charge that the crisis was caused by celibacy, the claim that the Church's sexual ethic was the root cause of the crisis missed an obvious fact: Sexual abusers are manifestly and unmistakably not living the Church's sexual ethic. On the contrary, they are doing what the Catholic Church condemns. More than one Vatican official, puzzled at the drumbeat of reportorial inquiries in March 2002 about "the Pope's attitude toward clergy sexual abuse," must have been tempted to reply, simply, "He's very much against it." What else could he be? What else could the Church be?As articulated by Pope John Paul II in his groundbreaking "theology of the body," the Catholic sexual ethic holds that sexual love is a matter of self-giving, not self-assertion — as indeed all genuine love is a matter of self-gift, not self-assertion. Moreover, the Catholic Church teaches that to give oneself to another through sexual love within the bond of faithful and fruitful marriage is an icon of the interior life of God himself — for God the Holy Trinity is a community of radical self-giving and receptivity. Journalists tend to reduce the Catholic sexual ethic to prohibitions on contraception and homosexual activity without asking about the affirmations that undergird those prohibitions. Most Catholics have never heard of John Paul II's "theology of the body," and Catholic dissidents tend to dismiss it because it leads to conclusions about contraception, premarital sex, and homosexuality they cannot tolerate. The fact, though, is that the Catholic Church has a higher view of human sexuality than the editors of Playboy or Cosmopolitan. The Catholic Church teaches that our sexuality teaches us deep truths about ourselves — and about God. Neither Hugh Hefner nor Helen Gurley Brown would dare make such a claim.
If there is a failure here, and there clearly is, it is the failure of the Church's pastors in the United States (and elsewhere) to teach the Church's sexual ethic as an ethic that affirms and celebrates the gift of sexual love. Popular impressions notwithstanding, Catholics in America are not regularly dunned with sermons about the evils of certain sexual practices. The truth of the matter is that most Catholics in the United States could count on one hand the number of sermons on sexual morality that they've heard in the last decade. Some could count on one finger.
This, in turn, suggests another dimension of the crisis: The Catholic Church in the United States has not learned to be comfortably countercultural in teaching its sexual ethic and in calling the people of the Church to the adventure of fidelity. Catholics are, very occasionally, urged to walk the walk of chaste sexual love as the Catholic Church understands it. Catholic bishops and priests almost never talk the talk of the Church's sexual ethic in persuasive, compelling ways that see and then raise the stakes posed by the sexual revolution. It can be done. A few scholars and an increasing number of young Catholic couples who have learned the "theology of the body" in Catholic renewal movements can, and do, talk the talk. When they do, skeptical secularists and committed feminists find in the "theology of the body" a genuine contribution to human thought and a defense of the moral foundations of civilization, not a repressive rejection of sex. Perhaps the Church, in the wake of this crisis, can begin talking the talk to itself about these matters.
It's especially unfortunate that the Church doesn't talk more about its sexual ethic because it does improve lives spiritually, physically and materially. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 13, 2005 2:18 PM
To claim that celibacy doesn't "cause" pedophilia, is like saying the swamp doesn't "cause" mosquitos. Both statements are true, but besides the point.
Weigel doesn't seem to understand the difference between direct causal relationships and indirect convenient covers for those who are predisposed to commit theses horrid acts. Celibacy does not "cause" abnormality but it attracts more than its share of abnormality.
Weigel might also have taken the time to examine why and how we have a primarily gay clergy, and the role official "celibacy" throughout church history in shelter and cover for gay men.
No, the Church in America intentionally recruited from among gays, confusing that with celibacy--it was bound to lead to such scandals.
Posted by: oj at January 13, 2005 6:07 PMIf the recent Austrian seminary scandal is any indication then the Church in Europe has been doing the same kind of recruiting.
You've got it backwards, OJ. It isn't that gays have been flooding into the clergy, it's that the straight priests have left in droves beginning in the 70s. After Vatican II, when their hopes for an end to mandatory celibacy were dashed, straight priests exited the clergy enmasse, leaving being a clergy with a gay majority (estimates of homosexual Catholic priests run as high as 67%).
For Weigel to claim that celibacy doesn't really turn normal men into slobbering pedophiles is disengenous in the extreme. Nobody is claiming that, nobody is criticizing celibacy on those grounds.
What celibacy is, is a cover/ shield/ closet for men who are predisposed to to these horrid acts. It doesn't create pedophiles and gays - but it does attract them. And by fostering an exclusive club with an "us vs. them" attitude towards the laity (and a code of omerta that Tony Soprano would envy), these abuses were hidden and left to fester behind the cover up.
There is a reason why so many straight priests exited from the clergy in the past three decades. Put simply, no normal, healthy and emotionally mature man will ever tolerate celibacy. Period. Even Jesus Himself said celibacy was fit only for eunuchs. In the past, straight priests always had "houskeepers" or women "helpers" who spent a great deal of time at the rectory. In Africa, priests continue this practice, often keeping nuns in a harem.
Since its introduction 1,000 years ago (in violation of the Church's norms and customs of the preceding 1,000 years), celibacy has been nothing but a source of sin and scandal. From medieval monks who frequented whore houses (and the nunneries that served as such) and the bastard children of renaissance Popes to the modern pedophile scandal - mandatory celibacy has been the worst self inflicted wound in history. Celibacy is as unnatural as homosexuality and a bigger source of hypocrisy.
If one were to judge a tree by the fruit it bears, mandatory celibacy must be considered a great evil.
(P.S. I noticed that you expunged from the archives our last exchange. You remember, gladly killing gays if only the law would allow it? Winston Smith of Minitruth would be proud. I also noted that you've blocked my postings from home. Neither act speaks well of your courage)
I'm hardly courageous but you're not blocked--though you do need to have an IP to post--and the prior exchange should still be in the archives. Pedophilia is one of the good reasons why homosexuals have always been dealt roughly with. As you note, there was never such a problem with pedophile priests before. It is a recruiting and disciplinary scandal, not a celibacy scandal.
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/006483.html
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 8:40 AMdan:
Here's your prior obsession-fest:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/017878.html
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 8:56 AMReview the archive OJ, you'll see that our discussion about gladly killing gays if the law would only allow it (beginning with the death by stoning required by Leviticus) has been expunged.
As for recruiting problems, how does one attract enough normal, healthy males to a life of celibacy? Once recruited, how does one prevent them from causing the more traditional Chruch scandal involving women?
As for discipline problems, how can we expect a secretive, self protective organization to adequately police itself and not just sweep these problems under a rug? Obviously the laity needs to assume at least an oversight position to prevent corruption in the clergy.
Celibacy is a great evil, or at best a serious mistake. It is a wellspring of sin and hypocrisy greater than any Jesus condemend the pharisees of committing. It needs to be done away with. If it stays, the priest shortage will worsen and all that will remain in the clergy will be gays.
dan:
The return of religion to its prior prominence in our society will take care of the recruiting problem.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 9:16 AMDuring the Age of Faith the Church was nothing if not scandal plagued. From the Borgia Popes to village priests demanding sexual favors from women confessors, the church was a cesspool.
The good old days sucked.
Posted by: dan duffy at January 14, 2005 9:28 AMReview the archive OJ, you'll see that our discussion about gladly killing gays if the law would only allow it (beginning with the death by stoning required by Leviticus) has been expunged.
Dan:
I remember that exchange. You are quite right--it is gone. I wonder why that would be?
You are also right about celibacy being a world-class example of a self-inflicted wound. That requirement is a significant barrier to any emotionally well adjusted male. Why anyone should be surprised that the maladjusted should therefore be overrepresented is a singular mystery.
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 14, 2005 9:31 AMdan:
Every human institution in every age is scandal plagued, but homosexuality/pedoiphilia is qualitatively different.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 9:36 AMHomosexuality/pedophilia has always been part and parcel of celibacy. Gays have always been predominant in the celibate Church. Which is not surprising when the typical medieval penalty for sodomy was public torture and execution. Where else was a medieval gay going to find refuge and a lucrative career path if not in the Church?
In the middle ages the desire for an alter boys bum had a name, it was called "the monk's disease".
Jeff:
As you know we don't take down posts, though we do sometimes close comments when they become inappropriate.
If it makes you feel better I'll repeat what I said then: it's perfectly moral and healthy for a society to purge itself of homosexuals, witches, adulterers, etc., and if our society still enforced its moral laws so rigorously as to stone miscreants I'd happily join in.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 9:45 AMLet he who is without sin cast the first stone ...
Posted by: Jeff Guinn at January 14, 2005 1:37 PMYes, that's why it requires societal consensus rather than individual whim.
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 1:52 PMSo OJ, if a mob lynches someone (or stones them to death) that's "societal consensus" and that's OK as opposed to a murderer acting on an "individual whim"?
Recently in Iran "societal consensus" allowed the mullahs to hang on a public street corner a 16 year old, mentally impared girl on the charge of "immorality". (see http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15557.html)
Apparently the Iranian theocracy has achieved what you would consider to be a perfect society.
Posted by: Dan Duffy at January 14, 2005 2:43 PMNot a mob.
We elected Bill Clinton president after he executed Rickey Ray Rector, no?
Posted by: oj at January 14, 2005 4:21 PMOJ:
looks like you took a living-room helmet wrong turn here
Folks:
OJ is a frenzy of productive posting and opinion, his output defies belief, check out his 1000+ book reviews, for instance; so, OJ is fabulous but sometimes obviously wrong and will not retract when wrong; in the scheme of things, this is a pretty small foible for all he provides; and, it may not actually be a foible, perhaps it is an altruistic ruse to keep us churning...I'm all for giving the guy the benefit of the doubt
Why is morality wrong?
Posted by: oj at January 17, 2005 10:22 AM