ARTICLES
May 2002 ARTICLES
Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
It's Not About Celibacy, Stupid
Mahony Supports Discussion of Married Priests
By Christopher Zehnder
Reports of molestations of minors by priests across the country have raised the hue and cry against priestly celibacy. Though it is widely admitted that molestation and pedophilia are as common among married non-Catholic clergy as among celibate Catholic clergy, the vociferation that celibacy (and an all-male priesthood) is the root cause of these problems has not abated.
Locally, Los Angeles Times columnist Steve Lopez keeps up the tired reiteration. In his March 27 column, "Church's Scandals Start with Celibacy," Lopez relates the startling opinion of one "Father Frederick," an Orange County priest. Father Frederick gave the connection to the abuse of nuns by priests in Africa, to clerical concubinage in other parts of the world, and to the cases of molestation in the United States: "These are issues of human sexuality," he said. Lopez then asked Frederick the question: is it time for the Church to reconsider celibacy "and let priests marry"? "Isn't it obvious?" was Father's laconic reply. (What might not have been obvious to the reader of Lopez's column was how the removal of celibacy might help Father Frederick. "About halfway through our discussion," wrote Lopez, "Father Frederick told me he's gay."
Lopez, though, kept his most stunning revelation for the end of his column. He had visited Father Frederick enroute to hear Cardinal Roger Mahony speak at the archdiocesan Chrism Mass. According to the archdiocesan newspaper, The Tidings, Mahony called this Monday, March 25 Mass "a Mass of reparation for the sins of those priests who have created such devastation in the lives of the innocent; a Mass seeking deeper forgiveness from all the victims who have suffered so much; a Mass for the healing of those so greatly wounded; and a Mass to help the church become more open, honest and trustworthy." At a press conference after the Mass, Lopez asked Mahony "if he were open to a kind of self-examination that includes broader reforms, such as letting priests marry." Lopez said he thought he knew Mahony's reply, since he is "probably the most powerful cardinal in America," and "the Vatican does not operate a democracy." Yet Mahony's reply surprised even Lopez. "I think all these questions are open; I never said they should not be raised," said the cardinal.
Another March 27 Times article gave a fuller account of Mahony's statements. Referring to an editorial in the newspaper of the Boston archdiocese that called celibacy "an issue that will not disappear," Mahony, according to Times, told reporters "that he was glad the paper raised the issue, noting that the Catholic Church had for 1,100 years allowed its priests to marry. 'The Eastern Catholic churches have always had a married priesthood, and it works out fine,' he said. 'So I think it should be discussed.'" When asked if he had a personal view on celibacy, Mahony replied, "no, I just think it should be very much discussed. When I do, I'll let you know."
Mahony, though, told reporters that he did not think sexual abuse was linked to celibacy, because, he said, experts have said there is no correlation. Far different, though, was the opinion of Father Richard McBrien of Notre Dame University. In his syndicated column, published March 21 in the archdiocesan paper The Tidings, McBrien blamed celibacy as a cause for pedophilia. McBrien noted that "when bishops are asked not only by the media but also by their own priests whether they are at least open to a discussion of issues like these [i.e., celibacy, abortion, the ordination of women], the bishops usually reply that such matters have already been settled. The counter-cultural church will not tack to the fickle winds of popularity."
As a representative, presumably, of the "mainstream church," as opposed to the "counter-cultural" one, McBrien thinks that clerical sexual scandals are rooted in "the Catholic Church's insistence on life-long celibacy as a condition of ordination and of continuance in priestly ministry," which has made "the pool of potential priests within the general population of young Catholic males" exceedingly small. He continued: "society's greater openness regarding human sexuality, the rise in the economic status and educational opportunities of many Catholic families along with a broadening of career choices, and the loss of cultural supports for the celibate life" have dissuaded men from the priesthood. "When thousands of priests left the priesthood to marry, thousands more young men began to think twice about embracing a commitment to lifelong celibacy.... The ministry of a parish priest is more difficult now than it was in the golden 50s. He often lives alone in an oversized rectory, a relic of a bygone era, without the support and companionship of other priests. In many dioceses, he is responsible for more than one parish, sometimes having to drive 50-100 miles on a Sunday for Mass at two or three different locations. Burn-out too often follows."
But celibacy, to McBrien, is "only one element in a larger network of church regulations and teachings regarding human sexuality and marriage." With clinical objectivity, McBrien notes that many find "the church's approach" to sexuality merely "one of prohibition." Even "within the marriage of a man and a woman" -- the only place the Church allows "sexual expression" -- McBrien says "there are stringent limitations, for example, against birth control by artificial means." "Others -- rightly or wrongly," he continues, "see the church's tenacious opposition to both abortion and the ordination of women as having more to do with the need to control women than with anything else."
Father McBrien's column demonstrates where a discussion about celibacy might go in the current climate of the Church. Indeed, celibacy seems a mere wedge issue for others, like the ordination of women and an easing of certain Church "bans" on sexual activity. Whether or not Cardinal Mahony would want the celibacy discussion to go so far as the likes of McBrien might push it, the very fact that he publicly said he wanted the discussion opened has been seen as a daring departure from Rome. The Times chirped that Mahony's statements on March 25 were "a sharp departure from Pope John Paul II's insistence that the celibacy issue is closed." Steve Lopez wrote that Mahony 's reply kept him "off balance, contradicting Pope John Paul II," and gave the "gay" priest Father Frederick "a measure of hope."
In its exuberance, though, the Times has overstated the case and confused celibacy with the priestly ordination of women. "I do not think the pope would have stated that the question of priestly celibacy is closed, since this is a discipline and not divine law," said Father Richard Perozich, a priest in San Diego who works with Courage, a ministry to homosexuals. "I have read that the Holy Father was not going to end the requirement for celibacy in the Latin rite. He has said that the question of ordination of women is closed, since this is divine law." Celibacy, said Father Perozich, is open to discussion; but as a discipline arising from papal authority, it may not be discussed at a national bishops conference without the pope. The proper place to discuss such an issue is "at the ad limina visits, in consistories and synods of bishops with the pope."
Perozich is not an absolute prohibitionist on the celibacy question. While he sees celibacy as "a charism, a gift, whereby one is free to love as Christ loved for the many ('a married man, St. Paul notes, 'is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife')," Father Perozich notes that "it may be possible for married priests to serve as associate pastors in our Catholic mega churches." A priest pastor, though, should be celibate since "he must manage the whole parish." His situation is not equivalent to that of a Protestant pastor who only occupies himself with spiritual matters.
But, "before the any one jumps to revisit the charism of celibacy for the priesthood," said Father Perozich, "the church needs to look at itself and the society in which it lives, and how it is responding to that society."
The first step would be to understand the character of most of the current cases of priestly molestation. To do this, one must first make definitions. In common parlance, molesting priests are called "pedophiles"; what is pedophilia? It is a classification, said Father Perozich, used "to describe the sexual attraction to, or sexual behavior with, prepubescent children." Pedophilia, said Father Perozich, "is not gender specific;" that is, pedophiles are not exclusively attracted to one sex or the other. Pedophilia is "certainly a spiritual disorder," said Perozich, "and I believe the psychological and socio-political communities still consider it a disorder." A primary sexual attraction to teens (ages 13-19) is termed "ephebophilia." It also not gender specific. Father Perozich believes that it is still considered by the "psychological and socio-political-legal forums" as a disorder.
Though "in most of the priest scandals, much of what has been reported could be classified as ephebophilia," said Father Perozich, "very little has been pedophilia. Much of what has not been reported has been sex with adult men and priests; [and that is] little reported since adults can't sue for consensual sex. While all sex for a priest is sexual misconduct, priestly sexual misconduct has been almost exclusively homosexual."
Father Perozich said he does not think that allowing married men to become priests is the answer to the problem of priestly molestation. "Men with immature or undeveloped psychosexuality and with spiritual disorders such as homosexuality, pedophilia, ephebophilia, will not be satisfied by a sexual relationship with a woman in marriage," said Perozich. "The argument against celibacy expresses here the fallacy of relevance. A person with homosexual lusts, child or youth lusts, who does get married brings with him any previously developed sexual disorder. Those whose sexuality has developed toward the proper object of the opposite sex, but whose sexuality has been severely corrupted by fornication, masturbation, prostitution, and pornography, will bring these lusts into their marriage also. Adultery is a greater risk where multiple partners and much fantasy have been indulged as a sexual appetite. Marriage alone won't preclude these also."
Perozich thinks the Church hierarchy must "define clearly its teaching on sexuality, and preach clearly the church's full teaching on sexuality." Only then will they be able to help those struggling with pedophilia, ephebophilia and homosexuality. "For those [seminarians] who are consumed by lust, a psychological and spiritual program may help before one pursues theology, and even into theology, if problems resurface," said Father Perozich. "Anyone who is not clear on one's gender, such as describing oneself as a 'gay' rather than as a male, and does not understand his psychosexuality, should not be advanced toward ordination. Very few will admit compulsion to sex with minors. The church will need to weed out the perversions in its seminaries, in faculty, in homosexuality, fornication, etc., before it even needs to look at the celibacy issue."
Michael Rose, whose new book, Goodbye! Good Men (Aquinas Publishing, Ltd., www.goodbyegoodmen.com), details how seminaries have discriminated against orthodox candidates, agrees that the molestation problem is not a fruit of celibacy. "The problem has been," he said, "that too often in the seminaries the perverts advance, while the healthy, heterosexual seminarians who accept the Church's teaching on human sexuality get driven away or are booted. It is a problem with homosexuality in the priesthood. The gay subculture in seminaries and among ordained priests fosters an acceptance of perverted activity and a protective network."
In an April 3 interview with the Los Angeles Times, Cardinal Mahony rejected the linkage of molestation with homosexuality. "I think it has nothing to do with homosexuality, heterosexuality or with celibacy," he said. "It is a problem of sexual maturation on the part of the priest. That's where the problem is. It doesn't make any difference who it is or what line of work they're in."
If the cardinal thinks the bishops have been negligent in teaching the truth about sexuality, or in allowing unworthy candidates to remain in the seminaries, he has not said so publicly. In his homily for the Chrism Mass on March 25, he noted that "a small group of priests" has "dragged the blanket of shame and guilt over the rest of us." He admitted the possibility of his own guilt, but only in the failure to apply adequately the archdiocesan safeguards and policies that protect the faithful from priests currently working in the parishes. "As your Archbishop, I accept fully my responsibility to protect all members of the people of God from any misconduct or abuse," said Mahony. "If my actions have at times been inadequate, or my response not as swift as it should have been, then I offer my sincere apologies."