There’s always been a sense of dueling antithesis between the Catholic media’s two NCRs—the National Catholic Reporter and the National Catholic Register. But readers’ gripes normally center on questions of orthodoxy rather than good faith. Trust in good faith, however, can quickly be shattered by a piece of the likes of one published last week in the National Catholic Reporter, a rant which does better to earn the label “anti-Catholic” than recent offerings from the New York Times, Time, and Newsweek.
Despite the lack of evidence tying celibacy per se to the proclivity for sexual predation, the article’s authors, Fran Ferder and Fr. John Heagle, rehearse a conspiratorial argument about the supposed deviancy to which the unmarried are given.
Celibacy is mandated for male church leaders. Women are excluded from sacramental leadership, thus creating an ecclesial environment that offers a perfect refuge for those whose sexual interests do not include women. Among them are the sexually disinterested, who simply don’t pick up sexual cues in the environment. For these asexual men celibacy is easy—and so is failing to notice if some of their brothers become sexual with minors. Since asexual individuals have a minimized capacity for intimate feelings, their affectivity is stunted, limiting their ability to experience the whole range of the most normal human feelings, including falling in love and feeling horrified over the abuse of a child.
To review, then: The way we discern the depravity of child abuse is not by the use of reason or the contemplation of ethics, but feelings—feelings developed through sexual activity. Following the logic, we might conclude that Hugh Hefner, given his considerable experience, must have the keenest sense of all of the havoc sexual harm wreaks on children. Ferder and Heagle go on to suggest that those who live celibacy successfully do so on account of sexual pathology, blunting their consciences to evil, while other priests in their midst commit sex abuse with impunity. How the “asexual” ones manage to end up as bishops involved in cover-ups is left unexplained. With the explanation growing increasingly complex, little is resolved, and some Catholics might simply conclude that the authors’ experience with ordinary priests and seminarians is somewhat limited.
If Ferder and Heagle’s reasoning sounds familiar, it’s because it stems from the more commonly heard line about celibacy delivered by skeptical secularists: Not only is real celibacy unreasonable, but celibate environments are breeding grounds for sexual predation given the lack of the sexual outlet provided by marriage. That marriage seems not to solve the problem of sexual abuse in other religious groups or in society at large is lost on these theorists. Joining them are Ferder and Heagle, who seem to believe that sex and marriage serve, among other goals, to rescue their participants from the otherwise uncontrollable urge to commit sexual crimes. Heck, that makes marriage sound more repressive than celibacy. As is so often the case, allegations about psychological conspiracies operating within the Church do little but complicate the issue of sex abuse, and give Ferder and Heagle’s readers the impression that the armchair is preferable to the psychologists’ couch when it comes to understanding the Church.
August 9th, 2010 | 7:06 pm
thank you for the link to the “Reporter” article. I usually don’t read them.
August 10th, 2010 | 7:44 am
You say that marriage is a sexual outlet and you miss entirely the notion of love understood in the sexual union of marriage. Logic doesn’t always lead to wisdom and truth, as your response to NCR illustrates.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:12 am
It doesn’t take this article to identify the NC Reporter as anti-Catholic. Anti-Catholicism is one of its core editorial principles, a fact long obvious from even the most perfunctory reading of its pages.
Also (Sister?) Fran Ferder has long been deviant on the issue of human sexuality. The article cited is perfectly in character for her and her priest collaborator(s).
August 10th, 2010 | 9:14 am
@tess
I have no idea what you are talking about. The way I read it FT says that NCR claims marriage is a sexual outlet; one that will prevent the problems of celibacy. So I gather that you agree with FT. Although the logic you object to is on FT’s side so maybe you don’t. Evidence says the position taken by NCR’s authors is simply false, i.e. there is no connection between celibacy and the sexual abuse of minors. How wisdom and logic could fail to align I don’t know, but I think you are saying wisdom is greater than logic with which I agree.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:04 am
Tess,
Yes, I think we’re on the same page on this. I drew attention to NCR’s subtle insinuation that marriage can cure or prevent the manifestation of latent sexual vice, and tried to make a very brief case that it’s absurd. Here’s the section I’m referring to:
…
If Ferder and Heagle’s reasoning sounds familiar, it’s because it stems from the more commonly heard line about celibacy delivered by skeptical secularists: Not only is real celibacy unreasonable, but celibate environments are breeding grounds for sexual predation given the lack of the sexual outlet provided by marriage.
That marriage seems not to solve the problem of sexual abuse in other religious groups or in society at large is lost on these theorists. Joining them are Ferder and Heagle, who seem to believe that sex and marriage serve, among other goals, to rescue their participants from the otherwise uncontrollable urge to commit sexual crimes. Heck, that makes marriage sound more repressive than celibacy.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:24 am
Mandatory celibacy in the Roman Catholic priesthood sets up a sub-culture that draws idealists, homosexuals and those who would sexually abuse children and vulnerable adults. Most of the idealists have left the system over the past 30 years. The homosexuals are doing their best to maintain their furtive lifestyle and their cover. The sexual predators are adapting to the changing clerical environment. Catholics in the pews need to triple their donations to sustain these dynamics, otherwise the truth about double lives in the priesthood will continue to painfully leak out.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:50 am
You certainly do need to triple your donations if you are to keep the Church’s income at anything like what it used to be.
Can’t have those bishops not being able to afford their fancy lace vestments, now can we?
August 10th, 2010 | 12:00 pm
The major difference between the two NCRs is that one (the reporter) is independent, and is not afraid to be a critic. Indeed it was the Reporter that started reporting the abuse scandal before the MSM got hold of the story.
The Register on the other hand is owned by Maciel’s Legion, and is its voice. It therefore has insider knowledge that having a wife and children does not stop you being a sexual deviant.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:10 pm
Sorry to do an Amazon link, but it’s on my book list and the easiest way to link it.
http://www.amazon.com/School-Darkness-Record-Conflict-Between/dp/B000EEHNXO?tag=dogpile-20
If you’re unfamiliar with Bella Dodd and her role in Communism, you should check this out and do some research on her writing. That the homosexual issue and child abuse (which is primarily a homsexual issue, not a pedophilia issue – check out pederasty) should have started to become an issue in the 60s is relevant. Not to say that priests have not been subject to temptation prior to that, and no doubt have fallen – but it certainly has never been a problem to the extent that it has been in the last 50 years. Why is that?
August 10th, 2010 | 8:37 pm
There is a legitimate discussion to be had on the pool of men who open themselves to the call and those, by reason of celibacy who stand aloof. Does celibacy attract sexually immature or confused men at a higher rate than experienced by other faiths not imposing that discipline. This discussion deserves more than your ideological score-settling against the National Catholic Reporter.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:51 pm
JFM,
I agree that your questions deserve a reply. But as to taking issue with the scope of what I’ve written here, I simply didn’t set out to answer that question–only to draw attention to what I think is an egregious maltreatment of it by the National Catholic Reporter.
August 11th, 2010 | 5:55 pm
Mr. Staley-Joyce, in one of your comments you write: “I drew attention to NCR’s subtle insinuation that marriage can cure or prevent the manifestation of latent sexual vice, and tried to make a very brief case that it’s absurd.” I do not want to take issue with your comment as such, but ask whether or not the Apostle Paul draws the same “insinuation” in 1 Corinthians 7:9: “But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” Earlier in the chapter (7:5) Paul has said that a husband and wife should not deprive each other of sexual relations for a long period “so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Now, Paul sees marriage as a means by which one extinguishes sexual passions (otherwise he/she would “burn with passion”) and aids in sexual self-control (otherwise she/he would have a “lack of self-control”). The results that Paul foresees for marriage do not necessarily equate to the “subtle insinuation that marriage can cure or prevent the manifestation of latent sexual vice,” but they certainly ought to be considered in this discussion. Paul does not offer to us the unitive dimension of marriage in this passage and he seems to say that marital sexuality is positive in that it stops us from engaging in other sexual behaviors. On this score, I have always found his discussion in 1 Corinthians 7 unsatisfying and struggled to find the positive dimensions of his discussion of marital sexuality, but it seems to come closer to the NC Reporter position than yours. Any thoughts?
August 12th, 2010 | 3:42 pm
John,
I think that’s a useful comparison. To begin, though, it’s important to look more broadly at Scripture’s take on the issue. First, we find evidence that Jesus and St. Paul were both celibate and recommended celibacy to Christians (1 Cor 7:8-9). While acknowledging that it should only be embraced by those who are able to live it faithfully (Matt. 19:11–12), it is elevated to a high place in Christian life (1 Cor 7:36-38), higher even than the married state. It’s an especially fitting calling (1 Cor 7:27-34) for those whose ministries require them to work primarily for the kingdom, without the additional task of raising a family. So clearly, celibacy is a good thing, and for those called to it, it has magnificent spiritual and practical usefulness. Both the married and the celibate occasionally stray from their vows, but as we have seen, neither the celibate nor the married life “cures” us of our human weakness for sin. Although the sins of celibate men make particularly juicy fodder for the press, so do the equally serious (and often identical) sins of married men, on occasion. It’s consoling, besides, to see how many saints the celibate life has made in the long history of the Church.
So, more to the question, does Paul mean to say that marriage is a way of escaping from inevitable sexual deviation? While he recognizes that one welcome side effect of the marital state is a lessening of the “burning with passion,” he cannot and would not view that as a primary end of marriage, since marriage is intrinsically good, and is worth pursuing for its own sake (not merely instrumentally, for the sake of lesser goals). Marriage has never been taught to be a “necessary evil” to help deal with fallen nature’s desires of the flesh. Further, marital sexuality is a good in itself as well, and can’t be instrumentalized merely for the sake of dealing with biological tension (nor should it be instrumentalized for the sake of pleasure alone or procreation alone). In fact, if a couple were to attempt marriage merely with the intention of enhancing their capacity for sexual self-control, it would likely be an invalid attempt at the sacrament.
So, all in all, I think St. Paul would disapprove of talk of marriage merely as a solution to a problem—a problem already formulated the wrong way, by weighing the pros and cons of the married and celibate states, instead of dealing with them as vocations.
August 13th, 2010 | 4:47 pm
Thanks for your response. I need to read it a few more times before I respond, as there is a lot to mull over. On the issue of the goodness of celibacy, however, I have no questions to raise, as I agree with your representation of the issue in Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact