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."