|
|
|
24 September 1996
Unholy Orders
The scandal over the antics of Bishop Roderick Wright has shaken the Catholic
Church and turned the spotlight on the issue of priestly celibacy. Mark
Ryan finds himself in sympathy with the Pope
Revelations that Bishop Roderick Wright not only had a mistress, but had
fathered a child in the course of a long-term affair with another woman
has caused a severe crisis within the Roman Catholic Church. The affair
came to light amid increasing calls for an end to the ancient Catholic practice
of priestly celibacy. Cardinal Basil Hume, in a typically spineless intervention,
said that although he was personally opposed to lifting the ban on marriage
for priests, he thought it was only a matter of time before celibacy was
dropped, thus managing to place himself on both sides of the debate.
If celibacy was under attack as an aspect of a broader hostility towards
religion, mysticism and irrational beliefs then that would be fine. The
French Libertines of the 17th and 18th centuries poked remorseless (and
lewd) fun at the clergy for this very reason. But that is not what is happening
today. Celibacy is under attack because it is held to place too great demands
on weak individuals who are incapable of living independently, controlling
their urges for the sake of a higher cause, and making calculated decisions
about what it is to which they want to dedicate their lives.
Catholicism is the only one of the Christian religions which insists on
celibacy for its priests. There are all sorts of complicated historical
reasons for this, but in the past this was always held to be one of the
signs of the strength of the Catholic priesthood and of the dedication of
individual priests to their vows. Celibacy of course did not necessarily
mean chastity. Many priests found it difficult to resist the everyday temptations
offered by a parish-full of housewives desperately in need of some spiritual
relief while their husbands were out at work. Then there were always the
services of the housekeeper who might be kind enough to offer something
more than a cup of Horlicks at bedtime. Many eyebrows would be raised both
in the parish and the hierarchy if the housekeeper was anything other than
senex et horibilis. Having said that, it is probably still the case that
most priests went through life without having tasted the pleasures of the
flesh. Enormous variations existed from country to country. In Africa, priests
often took concubines. In Ireland, where sex used be considered a greater
sin than genocide, the opportunities were more restricted.
Whether they observed chastity or not, the fact that Catholic priests did
not marry was once considered a sign of the priest's spiritual elevation,
self-control and independence. Today however it is seen quite differently.
Now, the individual is seen as too weak and pathetic to be able to live
without the emotional prop of a relationship. The attack on celibacy is
not an attack on religion, it is an attack on the individual and on his
capacity to overcome his own weaknesses.
There are a number of aspects to this attack. The first is the idea that
the individual is incapable of controlling his urges. When the news of Bishop
Wright's shenanigans first broke, there was reported to be a good deal of
sympathy for him. 'At least it's a woman', was a common observation in the
diocese. Obviously many feared a re-run of the Irish fiasco in which a string
of allegations of paedophilia and homosexuality did untold damage to the
Church there. Celibacy is generally held to be the cause of priests turning
to more perverse forms of sexual behaviour. By depriving himself of sexual
release through marriage, it is said, the priest is damaging himself, distorting
his sexual urges to the point where they are more likely to take a pathological
form. In other words, when set against the powerful pressures of deep sexual
urges, the will of the individual is far too weak a thing to guarantee sufficient
control. Marriage is thus not so much the enjoyment of another's company,
but a way of containing the volcano within.
Just as sexual release is seen not so much as a source of pleasure but as
a form of therapy, so too the relationship is put forward as an emotional
crutch which can help the priest in his hobble through life. Without the
support of a relationship, the priest will be lonely, miserable and unable
to function in a capacity which would be of use to anybody else. The fact
that the Catholic priesthood has been, unfortunately, one of the most effective
fighting organisations known to man, especially since the laws on celibacy
were tightened after the Reformation seems to have escaped the notice of
those advocating marriage. For centuries, priests have been at the forefront
of the war against progress. They have fought secularism, enlightenment,
democracy and communism on every continent, often with great success. In
all this, they had more important things to be doing with their lives than
wondering how they could form meaningful and supportive relationships with
other individuals. When they did become preoccupied with such matters they
left the priesthood and disappeared into private life. The history of the
Catholic Church proves that, far from needing the emotional support of marriage,
priests operated more effectively when they could dedicate themselves unhindered
to their task, often under the most difficult of circumstances. When people
attack celibacy suggesting that individuals cannot get through life without
the emotional support of another, they show a disregard for experience and
a low opinion of the strength and resilience of the individual.
Those opposed to celibacy are attacking the one positive thing about the
Catholic Church - its belief that the individual priest (if not the individual
layman) can master his urges, his loneliness, his need for comfort and so
on, and can dedicate himself to what he believes in; that he can master
his weaknesses and become strong. Opponents of celibacy however are more
in tune with the times. They believe that weakness is not something to be
fought, but something to be accepted; that the weak should not be chastised,
but should be pampered and given counselling to help them come to terms
with their frailties. In these times when religion itself is dissolving
into 'personal growth', the very idea of testing oneself in the outside
world, and of trying to overcome weaknesses has lost much of its appeal.
It is reported that priests will now receive counselling to help them through
the trials and tribulations of the celibacy which they chose for themselves
in the first place. This pandering to weakness is itself like a parody of
Catholic dogma. The Church always taught that the individual was a weak
creature needing the guidance of the Church to pass through the 'vale of
tears' in the hope of redemption in the after-life. For centuries those
committed to advancing society pilloried the Church for this dim view of
the human potential. Much of contemporary dogma however is equally scathing
of the capacity of individuals to master adverse circumstances. But at least
the Church offered something in return for a miserable life. Today all that
is on offer in exchange for an acceptance of our weakness is the possibility
of a supportive relationship and a course of therapy.
Join a discussion on this commentary
|
|
|
|