I don't think Nicole Winfield is capable of writing a story without mentioning the sexual abuse of children. I wonder what the effect is on the mind to think about such things on a daily basis. In fifteen paragraphs supposedly about celibacy she mentions sex scandals in nine paragraphs. Amazing.

She mentions celibacy four times.

It's amazing what passes for journalism these days.

Dear Dana,

You know I respect your point of view a lot. And I think you are right about the press in some ways from a strictly thematic point of view. I am no fan of the Roman Catholic Church at this point, but still it seems ridiculous that all they seem to be known for these days in the press is buggering. You may also be right that this is not a great cultural moment for journalism. But to whom would one ascribe the heightened, almost paranoid sense that our general culture has about the Roman Church at this point? I would ascribe it mostly to the paranoid attitude inside the church itself. In fact I remember years ago when the whole story really broke, that former Vatican Ambassador from Boston Ray....Something was on Nighline and he categorically said this was all a plot to destroy the Church. How often did they repeat that, until they were finally forced to change their tune by the law. How many aspersions did they cast, and how many reputations did they set out to ruin in the press before they grudgingly admitted some problem. Fast forward about eight years and now they have run through a concatenation of defenses from bad press coverage to supposed links to Anti-Semitism thanks to the Pope's private preacher who was promptly disavowed. It makes your head spin. So it may not be fair ultimately to tar so many with the same brush strictly speaking, but they have made their bed and now must lie in it.

But as to the press not getting the celibacy issue have to agree in a way, again not from any love on my part, but from an admittedly miserly attempt to be fair to them in some way at this point. I knew a number of men who were real celibates. Happy, warm, not-hyper-vigilant, not in denial, etc. It was a way of being that seemed to fit them, and I have fond memories of their authentic humaness. But here's the rub, so to speak, these men were so in the minority. The rest of the priests I knew were quite the opposite, and the subterfuge needed to maintain their double or triple lives made them, in my experience, some of the most spiritually wretched creatures I have known in my life. And let me stress, I have not led a sheltered existence. Some of these people were gross. I ALWAYS thought my former Vocations Director, Neil Doherty was gross. He made my skin crawl instinctively. I remember feeling viscerally nauseous when I was in his company. But even with that I never dreamed of the depth of the man's depravity, ruining the lives of innocent children. And what a terrible memory for me to recall that Doherty as my Vocations Director was in deep consultation with the faculty and seminary staff of Catholic University on the manner they were going to eject me from the seminary life. No wonder I was treated badly when this was the level of deliberation. When you have vicious child rapist types being consulted on how young people's lives are going to be assessed by supposedly serious theology professors, one of whom is now the head of their CUA School of Theology, what other realistic assessment are reasonable people supposed to give an organization like this?

The sad part is the press will not make the simple commonsense judgment that most people are not able to lead celibate live per se. This requirement of the Roman Church's should be treated the same way the press treats the Christian Science's prohibition on medical treatment. That is, it should not be taken seriously as a general matter. Not just because people who have been "in" the organization have mountains of private evidence that it is not followed de facto. But again as just a reasonable, sane judgment about the nature of most people.

The historical perspective is illuminating, by the way, on this very
issue. Though celibacy has been around for about a thousand years as a requirement, the fact is for the secular clergy that most history indicates that really no one expected it to be followed. Nothing about the Benefice system would lead you to believe that most priests were EVER celibate. And it was no big deal that they weren't. In a way the rise of the religious orders, and particularly the Mendicants, can be seen as a de facto attempt to actually lead celibate existences which the secular clergy were not even expected to do. The crucial part is that they had to agree not to leave most of their money to their kids. That was the whole point. But the modern world takes all these things more seriously which were only occasionally taken seriously before. This is a very weird trajectory for an organization. In other words, it only "worked" in the past because no one ever really expected it to really "work", as massive evidence shows. But as you Dana, often point out, there are many other sides to this same organization. Other very good sides. I won't argue against that. For I experienced at least some myself. But I think you should probably own up to the fact, if you don't mind my cheeky way of putting it, that if they are dealt with in a paranoid manner these days, the genesis of that treatment is 95% from their own paranoia and delusional self-assessment.

P.S. I assume you are not writing under the name of simply "Dana"? That is someone else, right?

Best wishes,

Peter

Priestly celibacy is not something that the Church pulled out of thin air. It's referenced in the Bible as being a way that men and women can be free of distractions to serve the Lord more single-mindedly. For those interested, see: Matthew 19:10-12; 1 Cor 7:32-35; 1 Cor 7:8-9; 1 Cor 7:36-40; 1 Tim 5:9-12; and Rev 14:3-4.

Peter, I don't have a general gripe with the press. Rather my complaint is against the particular reporter, Nicole Winfield, who seems to be building her career on these sex abuses cases. This is a business for her. If she wants to specialize in writing about sex abuse she should do so. But to pretend to be covering the Vatican is intellectually dishonest. She uses the headline from whatever Vatican event happens and puts it at the top of a story about sex, priests, and children. There are names for that kind of behavior. “Journalism” is not one of them.

I agree with your take on celibacy. I once asked a monsignor how he dealt with celibacy. He didn't answer me but he mentioned the confessional in his non-answer. He also told me the history, that you have revealed here, of the inheritance issues. I suspect the job is best performed by a man who is not encumbered by the personal loyalties that intimacy develops, also.

What do you mean by the term “secular clergy?”

Hey Dana,

"Secular Clergy" is the term historically for diocesan clergy as distinguished from those in religious orders. This is obviously not quite the meaning "secular" has today.
Up to about 150 years ago, and so that means the vast majority of the Catholic Church's existence, parishes were organized as Benefices. A parish was something one owned in a sense, at least temporarily, and it gave off a revenue. It was quite different from the diocesan system of today where priests are paid by the diocese. Priests were paid by owning a benefice or parish, which often had certain lands and workers (serfs) attached to it. Other poorer priests would work for the owner of a benefice. The owner of the benefice often didn't even have to live at the Benefice, but he still got the revenues.
All this reaches an apotheosis at the Council of Trent when they forbid the ordination of even worthy and holy candidates if they do not own a benefice or have a job lined up at one. Very different from today, and most Catholics have no idea about it.

Peter

Peter Fuchs,
I've always said the church is a big fat corporation. It seems to me that lowly priests were akin to sharecroppers or tenant farmers--vindicated only by tilling the soil in a parish and being the indentured servants of the top honchos in the hierarchy. Marriage was fine as long the properties of the Catholic priestly class were ceded to the corporate enterprise and in later years celibacy was a tool to make churchly acquisitions more dependable and smooth. I suppose all that land was necessary to make the fiefdom vast and the diocesan system would not have been possible without all that land. Imposed celibacy, even the self imposed kind, intensifies the itch to stray and despite the fact the great Buddha and many other so called wise men renounced marriage and intimacy to meditate and become one with the universe in a single minded fashion there is nothing to say that sex or intimacy are distractions that will detract from the process. In fact the Hindus believe that sex itself is a divine dance, like that of Shiva with Parvathi--the Kama Sutra celebrates all sorts of sex including gay sex as a perfect consummation of the human spiritual pilgrimage and quest. To me there is no god, but if there were a god, the maxim that celibacy would heighten the service to this god seems no more than a fraud perpetuated by those who occupy the seats of power in the catholic church--this is a case of the old boy network loath to give up the exclusivity conferred on it by the celibacy vow, somehow making this celibacy even a requirement to be an unadulterated devotee of god. A hoax if ever there was one especially in the face of the scandals galore that reveal sex is a major preoccupation of many of the priestly occupants of the church.
Ravensfan Anon

Chaste makes waste.

As the Executive Producer for Cinemax's Real Sex, No. 35, I want to ask your readers a question. As you know , we do light-hearted documentary vignettes about interesting ways people are having sex around the world, often focussing on Scandanavia and Japan. I have come across a posting by a Catholic blogger, a Mr. Peters, who seems to be describing a potentially titillating light S&M scene, or general world-view that could be interesting for our show. But the catch is that it involves the Pope. My question can a Sex scene in which the Pope is involved, possibly be sexy? Perhaps it will work because the subtext seems to be S&M. By the way, I am assuming that this S&M interest described by the writer all involves consenting adults, and that the talk of discipline all involves consenting adults, even though he is using the Pope's words. Still the question remains, could this be a hot scene with consenting adults, and perhaps some special costumes:

"Spare the rod, spoil the world – according to the Holy Father:

The Church too must use the shepherd’s rod, the rod with which he protects the faith against those who falsify it, against currents which lead the flock astray.

The use of the rod can actually be a service of love. Today we can see that it has nothing to do with love when conduct unworthy of the priestly life is tolerated.

Nor does it have to do with love if heresy is allowed to spread and the faith twisted and chipped away, as if it were something that we ourselves had invented.

- From the papal homily at the end of the year for priests this weekend (the entirety of which is well worth the read)

I could reflect on many things in this short passage, but I want to focus on one: Pope Benedict has highlighted here the connection between laxity of discipline and laxity of orthodoxy.

Therefore, according to the Holy Father, the Church best safeguards herself (and her children) when she is vigilant both about protecting and defending the truths of the Church (i.e., doctrine) and the disciplines of the Church (i.e., punishment of sin, intolerance of evil). Those who criticize the Church for not “cracking down” on her guilty priests ought to also criticize the Church when she does not “cracks down” on her guilty teachers (to put it in imprecise but effective terms). Similarly, those who find fault when the Church disciplines her wayward teachers should realize they are harming the ability of the Church to discipline her wayward pastors.

At the same time, the fullness of the Church involves both promoting virtue and chastity in its priests and lay people, as well as promoting fidelity to the saving teachings of Christ and understanding of those same teachings in the wider world around us.

A holy universal and Catholic church will always be unified by the teachings of Christ and the personal witness of her shepherds."

Yes, sir!

Real Sex.....No. 35

Just my opinion Mr. Stefano, but I don't think that one's going to work.

Joey Stefano,
The nut cases of this world come in many shapes and sizes and you seem to be a shade of complete craziness. What a garbled piece of nonsense you have posted! So you want the pope in a titillating sex documentary and then you go on to give a somber lecture about what the catholic church should do about the imposition of its doctrines versus the imposition of discipline--all in an S&M setting--not that I love the pope or the papacy--but yours is a incoherent comment masquerading as irony.
Ravensfan Anon

Mr. Ravensfan Anon,

I don't know if I have your name right, and by the way, what does it mean? You all sort of answered my question. It was a lame idea. At one time Catholics were sort of hot. Now they just gross people out. And the Pope is a total wood killer. Even when they get on that "discipline"
and "strictness" thing it is no longer a turn on. it just seems creepy. What is weird is that it does not seem to even work for them in real life. I got the excerpt from a site with a lot of yacking about the Pope and defending the Catholics in various ways. But like I said, when you talk about discipline and control all the time and you can't even keep your own priests in line, then Catholics are going to be people who find it hard to get a date. Because the secret all pornographers know is that most people are NOT turned on by danger.

I meant to say "an incoherent comment" not "a incoherent comment".
Ravensfan Anon