Wednesday, August 22, 2018

Just don't do it

Here's conservative Catholic Philippa Martyr's remarkably un-detailed assessment of how to respond to the Catholic Church's crisis with regard to sex and sexual behaviour:
I don’t know a soul, clerical or lay, who hasn’t been damaged by the sexual revolution. But I also know there’s no point in saying, ‘It’s always been like this.’

The solution is not married clergy, gay clergy, or even married gay clergy. It’s the same solution it’s always been: a renewal and restoration and re-catechesis of the Church’s complete teaching on sexual morality, and practical advice on how to get it right, at least most of the time.

For the last 40 years we have had Catholic marriage promoted, explained, and supported at every level of the Church. Perhaps it’s time to look at the chaste and/or celibate state in the same way.

We all know many faithful Catholics who can’t marry – or re-marry – for a whole range of reasons. All of us could benefit from some help to live lives that are just as holy and as countercultural as faithful married Catholic couples.

What, exactly, does she see as a system of helping those who can't have sex?  

[Update:  and, I might add - I would love to know her "practical advice on how to get it right".   I'm looking forward to Dr Philippa Martyr's book "The Joy of No Sex": richly illustrated with some hairy, clothed dude getting distracted in novel ways from sexual thoughts?   I think cats would likely feature a lot, somehow.]

The whole problem with her approach is that it really is only looking at the historical context as far back as the 1960's.   Yes, it's true, the 1960's did invoke a challenge to the Church's authority in the matter of sex and sexuality, but the true historical context needs to go back at least a century earlier - to the turmoil of the 19th century, and the scientific, philosophical and theological challenge of modernity to the Church, and the way people understand the very nature of humanity.    

Poor old Philippa seems to think you can just set the clock back a few centuries and that's that.

You can't.

Update:   I said in comments I would link to a piece that appeared recently from a guy who had been a seminarian in the 1960's, but left and didn't become a priest.   As he says:
From my personal experience, I would guess that obligatory celibacy plays an important role. To paraphrase Saint Paul, for some people the burning sexual energy cannot and should not be contained. The effort often infantilizes men, subverting normal sexual urges into strange pathways, blocking sexual maturity.

For a few priests, celibacy appears to deepen devotion to God; many simply ignore it; for others it is a source of malaise and unhappiness. For far too many men, it has led to criminal depravity.

The Catholic hierarchy has primary responsibility to find the answer and to make the indispensable cultural and institutional changes in the priesthood. Prosecution of abuses has become more common, but it’s not enough. I don’t see evidence that the clergy — priests, bishops, the Vatican or even the much admired Pope Francis — are willing to address the elephant in the room: What is wrong with the institution of the priesthood and how can it be fixed?
Or how about a former priest, writing in 2010, who puts it this way:
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.
A special problem arises when, on the one hand, homosexuality is demonized as a matter of doctrine, while, on the other, the banishment of women leaves the priest living in a homophilic world. In some men, both straight and gay, the stresses of such contradiction lead to irrepressible urges that can be indulged only by exploitation of the vulnerable and available, objects of desire who in many cases are boys, whether prepubescent or adolescent. Now we know.
Update 2:   Here's a point I may have missed before.   Even though (as I noted in an earlier post) Philippa loves to blame homosexuality as at the core of the problem, the irony is that the proportion of gay priests in the priesthood has almost certainly increased over the last 50 years before of the outflow of straight priests who leave to marry!:
In the last half century there’s also been an increased “gaying of the priesthood” in the West. Throughout the 1970s, several hundred men left the priesthood each year, many of them for marriage. As straight priests left the church for domestic bliss, the proportion of remaining priests who were gay grew. In a survey of several thousand priests in the U.S., the Los Angeles Times found that 28 percent of priests between the ages of 46 and 55 reported that they were gay. This statistic was higher than the percentages found in other age brackets and reflected the outflow of straight priests throughout the 1970s and ’80s. 
So even if it was fair [it isn't, in the broad way she does] of Philippa to, um, blame the gays,  the fact that celibacy has caused heaps of straight priests to leave the priesthood would still pretty much be consistent with "celibacy is a factor in the sexual abuse crisis."  

10 comments:

not trampis said...

Thjer problem was pedophiles saw rge Catholic denomination as an easy way to prey on children.
It had nothing to do with their so called priests being unable to marry.

Steve said...

Homer, so you're saying an 18 year old with a sexual interest in children would say "how can I have ready access to children - I know, I'll become a priest"? Come off it.

not trampis said...

back then of course. you work next to young kiddies where they trust you. It is very easy to groom them.
Examining the Royal Commission it seems easy in retrospect to see where peodophiles would go to pursue their evil behaviour.

The Catholic denomination was not the only area just one of the easiest to get into.

Steve said...

Gee, even CL in a recent comment was a bit closer to the mark than that. (Not that he is 100% right, either.)

The most likely explanation is this: the Church sought and encouraged vocations from young men at an immature stage of sexual development; and some who felt guilty about their sexual urges (be they leaning towards same sex interaction, or otherwise) saw celibacy as a way of putting a lid on it once and for all.

That's a bigger challenge than a young man can know, and years later, it got the better of them: having no "legitimate" form of sexual expression, they would opportunistically use children - often male, partly because they more easily rationalise it as being welcome by someone who they could think of a younger version of themselves, and partly because regardless of whether it was welcome, they may easily be emotionally blackmailed into not disclosing it.

Repeat offence may well have made such priests primarily attracted to children/young men: it's very unlikely that at the start of the path to priesthood that they had much in the way of paedophile interests. Offending in this way starts usually in older males.

I just found an article on line that says this:

"It is also important to recognise that not all child sex offenders feel driven or compelled to sexually abuse children. In fact, opportunity can play a key role in the commission of sexual offences against children. As Wortley and Smallbone (2006) argue, research has indicated that situational and environmental factors can play a key role in sexual offending against children. Smallbone and Wortley’s (2001) own research on child sex offenders found, for example:

a late onset of offending behaviour (37% were aged 31 to 40 years);"

which backs up my explanation.

Some who started as seminarians would have already understood themselves to only be attracted to men - and it is certainly true that there were more or less openly gay priests operating in seminaries from the 60's onward who encouraged the seminarians to not take Church teaching on sexuality and priestly celibacy seriously.

As such, they were part of the problem, but not really the explanation of why children were often the victims. (If anything, one might think that being introduced to sex by an older man might have encouraged a sexual interest away from that with children/young men.) No, the reason children and younger teens were targetted is more explained by the reasons I gave above. And it is also likely that a teenager with ambiguous sexual feelings who stayed out of the priesthood may well have developed into satisfaction with straight sex alone.

Hence, the conservatives who want to call it a purely homosexual problem, solved by keeping homosexuals out of the priesthood, are wrong to a significant extent; even though they do have a point about it being inappropriate for practising homosexual priests to be have been working within seminaries to encourage young men to play around and not take sex per se seriously.

It is obvious why they do this - they do not want to admit that celibacy is a significant part of the problem. It obviously is, regardless of the fact that you will still have cases of married men trying it on with children too.

not trampis said...

what a load of old bollocks
Having sex with children is abuse period.

If celibacy is a problem then they would engage in either fornication and/or adultery not pedophilia.

It is the closeness to children that counts . That's why the YMCA was an obvious target as well.

TimT said...

I have a problem with the 'celibacy is the cause' argument because it seems to be nothing more than an elaboration on the old Freudian guff: repressed desires come back to the surface in one way or the other.

It could be pointed out, for instance, that the majority of cases of paedophilia happen in the family, in a situation in which you'd have to assume that the offenders are nevertheless sexually fulfilled.

I don't mind what Martyr says. An article in a newspaper is hardly a manifesto, after all. She's not obliged to provide full details. I think a certain amount of openness and unashamed honesty about sexuality would certainly go a long way to avoiding those cases you discuss, of people being uncertain about their sexuality and entering the priesthood.

Steve said...

Yes, having sex with children is abuse - who's arguing that?

Your next sentence fails to take into account the fact that men who want sex release of any kind can think it is easier to keep it hidden if it's a youngster - using the sort of manipulation that is possible with a kid, but not so easy with an adult.

Your last sentence seems to suggest that opportunism is a factor - but you don't seem to want to admit that in preference to the inherent improbability of young men wanting to spend years in Church training, and earning no real income for the rest of their lives, all because they will get to have sex with youngsters.

Come on...Your anti-Catholic sentiments just make you uncompletely unreasonable on this topic.

Steve said...

Tim - Freudian ideas of repressed desires were unnecessarily elaborate and fanciful - but the fact he came up with some improbable stories doesn't detract from the fact that the attempt at a permanent suppression of any sex relationship can strongly influence some men into doing bad things, and with victims who they think they can control.

And the fact that celibacy isn't the only factor in all cases doesn't mean that it can't be an important factor in one subset of cases.

And the situation as I have described it has been confirmed by some.

I think the humane and reasonable thing for the Church to do is to allow priests to marry, even if (like the Greek Orthodox) marriage may mean a limit on progression within the hierarchy.

If some priests think celibacy helps them feel closer to God and to do their job better - fine. If others find its ultimately depressing and lonely and distorting their life, and they find someone who will let them experience life like most people do while still being a priest - that should be fine too.

Steve said...

I meant to say - has been confirmed by some ex priests, and researchers into the problem. I only read a column or letter the other day from a former seminarian who basically argued along the lines I did - I may be able to find it again and put it in the post.

not trampis said...

gay priests do not have sex with children. Pedophiles do. Omly pedophiles have sex with children