Time to Abolish Clerical Celibacy

frontpagemag.com ^ | January 3, 2002 | Jamie Glazov

[dtom]

Time to Abolish Clerical Celibacy

FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2002

FATHER ARTHUR CARRAHER is a Roman Catholic priest in Toronto. He has just recently confessed to being a child molester. He faces seven charges of indecent assault in Dublin, Ireland.

	Make Comments
	View Comments
	Printable Article
	Email Article

Tragically, this 79-year-old criminal might avoid justice, because it looks like he will live out his final days in Canada. Already ill, this individual benefits from the fact that bureaucrats have yet to ratify an extradition treaty that would force him back to Ireland.

It is clear that "Father" Carraher settled in Canada to avoid punishment for his crimes. His victims, meanwhile, whose lives he shattered at a young age, cry out for justice.

This outrage is just another reminder of the serious problem that has grown within the Catholic Church as a result of the imposition of clerical celibacy.

I am a Catholic. I believe in the Church. I have also had the privilege of meeting, and befriending, many Catholic priests in my life - and a large proportion of them are obviously pious people who are not child abusers.

Having said that, I must say that, as a Catholic, I can no longer stay silent about the pathology that the enforcement of celibacy has caused within the Church.

Forced clerical celibacy simply has to go. It is directly connected to the widespread existence of pedophilia and homosexuality in the priesthood. Many of my fellow Catholics will be outraged at me for raising this issue. But I am far more concerned about the victims who have had their lives and identities destroyed for a lifetime, than I am about making some people uncomfortable about bringing this taboo subject up for discussion.

Let?s get one thing straight: enforced celibacy has nothing to do with Christian theology. That?s why it was never an enforced rule for priests until the 11^th century, when the Church officially mandated it for completely non-theological reasons. Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) banned priests from being married because he wanted to solve the problem of their families inheriting Church property.

Anyone with half a brain would have known that Pope Gregory?s act was going to invite a tremendous evil into the Church. I mean, think about it: does it really take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen to males in an institution that forbids them from getting married? Let me give you a little hint: ponder what happens to a male?s mind and body after he goes through puberty. Now consider the consequences of a male repressing, and not having an outlet for, the natural feelings and desires that he will subsequently live with for the rest of his adult life. Perhaps some people don?t need sex. Fair enough. But it needs to be a voluntary decision.

Is it really a surprise that criminals like "Father" Carraher emerge and that they destroy the lives of many innocent human beings? Of course Carraher must accept personal responsibility for what he did. After all, the majority of priests are obviously ethical people who do not hurt young boys - notwithstanding their celibacy. But this does not mean that we should ignore the pathology that is engendered by enforced celibacy.

In recent years, reports of Catholic priests sexually abusing children have come to light in virtually every major U.S. city. Yet the Church continues to refuse to deal with this problem in a serious way. It?s time it did.

The fact is that when women are demonized, pathology always emerges. It is so ingrained in many Catholic priests to believe that it would be dirty and evil for them to have sex with a woman, that some of them end up rationalizing that it is less sinful to molest a little boy -- or to have sex with a man. Yet, for the Catholic Church, the alternative decision to engage in homosexuality is far more sinful, and in the case of the abuse of little boys, far more inhumane, criminal and clearly diabolical.

Abnormal sexual behavior, like pedophilia, is often found among males in situations where the woman -- the ideal sexual object -- is forbidden or unavailable. That?s why a strong case can be made that Islamic terror, for instance, is rooted in the misogyny and sexual repression that is embedded in Muslim cultures.

In light of these realities, it is the obligation, especially of Catholics, to speak out against the Church?s policy of mandatory celibacy for priests. It?s the least that the victims of "Father" Carraher, and of the hundreds of monsters like him, deserve.

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Soviet Studies. He is the author of 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. Born in the U.S.S.R., Jamie is the son of prominent Soviet dissidents, and now resides in Vancouver, Canada. He writes the Dr. Progressive advice column for angst-ridden leftists at EnterStageRight.com. E-mail him at jglazov@home.com.

View Comments | Make Comments | Jamie Glazov Archive

Horowitz's Notepad | Poe's Notepad | Reality Bites | Shop Online | Encounter Books | CSPC Bookstore

Home | Contact Us | Advertise With Us | Archives | Privacy Policy | Top of Page

Advertise your banner here

Copyright © 2001 FrontPageMagazine.com

[CubicleGuy]

How old is your new "church" - about 40 years old, I think. Mine is around 2,000 years old, unchanged and unchangeable.

Since when do claims of antiquity help one determine who is right?

If that is the case, the Jews of 2000 years ago had every right to point at the new followers of Jesus and tell them they were a bunch of upstarts.

[CubicleGuy]

How old is your new "church" - about 40 years old, I think. Mine is around 2,000 years old, unchanged and unchangeable.

Since when do claims of antiquity help one determine who is right?

If that is the case, the Jews of 2000 years ago had every right to point at the new followers of Jesus and tell them they were a bunch of upstarts.

[st.smith]

How can carrying on the traditional Mass which has remained the same for centuries and which several Popes in their Encyclicals forbid making any changes to, become a distortion of it? I think you need to brush up on your Church history.

The traditional Mass is the property of the Church. You have no right to it. While I lament the changes to the Mass as well, I recognize that any reform in the Church must come from within. We do not take our disputes outside the family of the Church- to do so is to cease to be a part of the Church.

You are taking encyclicals and interpreting them on your own- when each and every document of the Church can only be interpreted within the Body which gave birth to it. Has the Church ceased to be your mother? Will you deign to tell Her what she is, when She can still answer for herself?

[discostu]

I can't understand the death of someone's parents. I've never lost anyone close to me (I know lucky duck). And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Had I ever lost someone close to me I could relate to other who have even if the relationship were not identical, but because I've never lost anyone I've never been able to be useful for those around me when they have. I've tried but the attempts have been miserable failures, I can sympathize but I cannot empathize.

On the other side someone that's never been in a committed relationship can't relate to the everyday troubles of those who are. And there are very few things in life that have any real similarity to marriage, some form of equivalency a person can use to relate. And none of them are on the standard path to becoming a priest.

[discostu]

I can't understand the death of someone's parents. I've never lost anyone close to me (I know lucky duck). And that's exactly what I'm talking about. Had I ever lost someone close to me I could relate to other who have even if the relationship were not identical, but because I've never lost anyone I've never been able to be useful for those around me when they have. I've tried but the attempts have been miserable failures, I can sympathize but I cannot empathize.

On the other side someone that's never been in a committed relationship can't relate to the everyday troubles of those who are. And there are very few things in life that have any real similarity to marriage, some form of equivalency a person can use to relate. And none of them are on the standard path to becoming a priest.

[patent]

Traditions are those practices which made the Roman Catholic Church immutable and unchangeable and unequivocal. No dancing in the aisles, no Communion in the hand, no guitars, no English Masses, no tables facing the congregation, no ripping out of kneelers, but instead, absolute quiet at Mass, real Confessionals, and the graceful ambience of stained glass windows, Holy Water fonts, the Blessed Sacrament displayed prominently - not hidden off in some corner of the Church, High and Low Mass accompanied by the Schola singing beautifully in Latin. And real sermons and homilies, no social-work clap-trap.

You contend these things are all immutable and unchangeable? What a strange version of theology. Which Pope or Council issued a de fide declaration on no guitars, pray tell?

As you know, Popes in the past have forbid any changes to the Latin liturgy.

Yes, and then the next Pope invariably changes it. And the Pope after that, and the one after that, etc., on down through the ages. It is more of a tradition to change the Mass then it is to leave it alone.

What passes for a "mass" (lower case on purpose) in the Novus Ordo churches is a travesty.

What do you contend invalidates a Mass such that a lower case is justified? You are fully aware of the form and matter teachings regarding Sacraments. What is the form and what is the matter on the Mass? Check Aquinas’ Summa if you need help. You will see that even an illicit Mass that doesn’t follow the Rite is usually valid, and thus is a Mass. While it happens, it is rare that a priest is so wacky that he entirely invalidates the Mass, making it a “mass” (lower case on purpose).

patent  +AMDG

[Orual]

Since when do claims of antiquity help one determine who is right?

You tend to oversimplification. It is not merely a "claim of antiquity." It is a claim of tradition built from the time that Christ named Peter as the first head of His Church: St. Peter, the first Pope.

The Jews were God's chosen people. We hold the Old Testament in great reverence and much of our Liturgy is drawn from it. That the Jews chose not to accept Christ as the Messiah is understandable. There have been many religions that have since broken away from the Catholic Church. You make your choice and you stand by it.

[st.smith]

Most of it though is time. Priests don't spend all day for 10 years hearing about people's marriage problems and how they've dealth with them. They've got other things to do, things other than marriage to advise their parishioner about.

I will grant you that priests will not have as much experience with the practical aspects of marriage that someone like a marriage counselor would. However, do they need to?

I would argue that a sufficient knowledge of the practical aspects of marriage combined with superior knowledge of the structure of marriage (the ideal of marriage), is more than enough to give excellent advice. If specialized advice is needed one can see a specialist. However, I still hold that it is not the experience of being married that makes one a specialist in counseling, it is experience in counseling married people- whether one is married or not.

[Campion]

Since when do claims of antiquity help one determine who is right?

When they extend back to a Founder who was Divine and rose from the dead to prove it.

(Sure beats a founder who was an occultist and Freemason from upstate New York, with a poor grasp of archaeology, a poorer grasp of theology, and an inability to keep his lecherous paws off the servant girls, doesn't it? Hey, you started this ...)

If that is the case, the Jews of 2000 years ago had every right to point at the new followers of Jesus and tell them they were a bunch of upstarts.

They did a lot worse than that. (St. Stephen the Protomartyr, pray for us.) Again, the only excuse for changing a Divinely-received covenant is when you receive a new Divinely-ordained covenant.

(Gold plates that nobody can produce, written in a language that nobody has ever heard of, relating events that never took place, do not qualify.)

[Orual]

Bye, patent. Happy New Year.

[st.smith]

because I've never lost anyone I've never been able to be useful for those around me when they have. I've tried but the attempts have been miserable failures, I can sympathize but I cannot empathize

You have not lost someone close to you, but you have experienced suffering- you know what it is like. Furthermore, you know from other sources (or could know if you wanted to) what it is like for people to lose a loved one. Take for example C.S. Lewis's book A Grief Observed. It provides unique insight in the experience of losing a loved one. Lewis allows you to have a look at what he has experienced subjectively. We can get similar insight from other, books, movies, plays etc. We can also get insight from those who we know. When your friend loses a loved one you are in some ways party to it. You grieve with them. All this points to the fact that we can have genuine insight into that which we have not experienced directly.

[Orual]

The traditional Mass is the property of the Church. You have no right to it

Well, tortured, illogical reasoning has seen a comeback. What do we do with the traditional Mass? Put it in a box and display it at the Vatican, as an artifact of the past? It certainly does belong to me and to every Catholic in this world. The Church is the people. If you don't understand this, then it is useless to even try to break through your convoluted thinking processes.

As to intrepretations of the Popes' Encyclicals - what is there about "it is forbidden to change the Liturgy of the Mass and if you do you will be considered a heretic" - that requires interpretation?

[Orual]

Quo Primum, Pope St. Pius V, 1570

"Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force - notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription - except, however, if more than two hundred years' standing."

"Accordingly, since it would be difficult for this present pronouncement to be sent to all parts of the Christian world and simultaneously come to light everywhere, We direct that it be, as usual, posted and published at the doors of the Basilica of the Prince of the Apostles, also at the Apostolic Chancery, and on the street at Campo Flora; furthermore, We direct that printed copies of this same edict signed by a notary public and made official by an ecclesiastical dignitary possess the same indubitable validity everywhere and in every nation, as if Our manuscript were shown there. Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission, statute, ordinance, command, precept, grant, indult, declaration, will, decree, and prohibition. Should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul."

Given at St. Peter's in the year of the Lord's Incarnation, 1570, on the 14th of July of the Fifth year of Our Pontificate.

See, no way to misinterpret this.

[Aristophanes]

I am truly sorry that your family left the Church. The Church is waiting to receive you back with open arms when you're ready.

But my real point is that I get great advice on family and marital matters from my two pastors -- both of whom are FSSP priests and neither of whom has ever been married. What they have been is members of large families and brothers to siblings who are married. No disrespect to you or your mother, but I disagree that it takes a married person to counsel another married person.

Pax.

[discostu]

I've never felt things like that give insight. They might teach you rote things to say but they don't garner core level understanding. I've thrown out some of those rote things picked up from books, most of the time it seems like they help, but I feel dirty afterwards, like a charlatan pretending to understand that which I don't. Maybe I'm just too finicky but I put no trust in the "insight" gained from second and third hand experience. I don't like using it on others (and will only use it for grief, a time when people need all the help they can get even if it leaves the helper feeling like a schmuck) and I won't let it be used on me.

[Aristophanes]

Married priests is like working mothers. I'm delighted some can appear to handle the balancing act but, given my choice, I'd rather have EITHER a mother OR a business associate rather than having some woman who's perpetually borrowing from Peter to pay Paul and vice versa.

EXACTLY right.

[patent]

It is a claim of tradition built from the time that Christ named Peter as the first head of His Church: St. Peter, the first Pope.

Really? What part of the tradition you’ve referred to was passed from Christ to Peter? The de fide prohibition against guitars? Perhaps you think Christ wrote the entire Tridentine? Silly.

The Church is the people.

Now you sound not just like a Protestant but a liberal one. The Church is not a mass of people gathering in community, it is the Bride of Christ.

As to intrepretations of the Popes' Encyclicals - what is there about "it is forbidden to change the Liturgy of the Mass and if you do you will be considered a heretic" - that requires interpretation?

First, your quote is horribly wrong. Can you point out where one of the Pope’s Encyclicals said this? Of course not.

Second, if changes to the “Liturgy of the Mass” made one a heretic, the majority of Popes after Pope St. Pius V were heretics. Is this your contention?

See, no way to misinterpret this.

But you have done so, it seems. Again, do you contend that any changes to the Mass makes one a heretic? If so do you claim that all the Popes that so changed it were heretics?

patent  +AMDG

[Askel5]

You realize, of course, that you're severely limiting the power of human reason, intelligence and logic to perceive the truth of things sans actual experience?

Take a look at this thread -- Marriage and "De Facto" Unions (Cohabitation and Homosexual Marriage).

It's a perfectly objective discourse on the essential differences between marriage and de facto unions. It defends marriage absolutely, recognizes precisely the differences which set marriage apart and excoriates de facto unions without damning to hell the participants in same.

If you can improve somehow on the argument (or prove even one point objectively wrong) by virtue of your having been a homosexual, shacked up or married ... please let me know. I'm very interested.

The true beauty -- for me, anyway -- of the priest's counsel is that he is limited, or should by all rights limit himself, to what is Enduring and Universally true about marriage, sex, love, commitment, children, family, etc.

It is EXACTLY when some participant colored by experience or pycholo-psychiatrist colored by their Method seek to impose always Their Own Views that one runs aground. Lessons learned or imparted in the strictly personal or particular do not end up of much enduring value.

[Orual]

patent, I said goodbye very nicely. You are free to believe whatever it is you wish, but I think it's really amusing that you have labeled me a "liberal Protestant". No, not amusing, but absolutely rolling-on-the-floor, tears-streaming-down-the-face, gasping-for-breath, belly laughing, fud-ruckingly, hysterically unbelievable. At least you left me happy. But it would be nice, if just once, you could leave out your silly personal labels, especially since you come to such enormously wrong conclusions.

I guess you think the Mass and the Church belong to some hierarchal group of men, sitting around a table, making solemn gestures and aheming to each other. The statement I made about being labeled a "heretic" was just a bit of hyperbole and you know that very well. I posted the Encyclical for all to read. Silly man.

[TEXASPROUD]

I thought I had a call, so, I answered that call. Considering the fact it took 14 years to ordination at that time, the Church ,in its wisdom, gave you time to consider your decision. When I left, I was told the door swings both ways. If I ever decided to come back I would be welcome. By the way I didn't meet my wife until I had been out for a couple of years. There is another Freeper from the D/FW area that was at the same seminary. It took him a few more years to make the same decision. The point is, there are some great married deacons out there that would make great priests as well, and the ones I know are also some of Uncle Sams Misguided Children. Remember some of the Eastern Rites that recognize the Pope also have married clergy. Its a debate that will be going on for some time, with the shortage we have, it's an option that may be viable. Dominus vobiscum.