BishopAccountability.org
	Ending Celibacy Solves Nothing By Daphne Caruana Galizia Malta Independent April 11, 2010 http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=104429 The uproar about paedophilia in the Catholic Church has provoked the usual calls for an end to mandatory chastity for priests. How this will make things better, rather than worse, is beyond me. As things stand, the Catholic Church and its faithful must contend with paedophiles. With an end to celibacy, they will still have to contend with paedophiles but will also have the sort of problems that come with priests suffering marital breakdown, adultery, and prior to that, flirting with and courting members of their congregation. And that still leaves the Catholic Church with the problem of one set of rules for heterosexual priests and another set of rules for homosexual priests – because even in the unlikely event that the ban on marriage for Catholic priests is lifted, the rules on homosexual unions are not going to change. The good thing about the current situation is that priests are 'safe' to speak to – in their vast majority, at least. You can speak to a priest without having him flirt with you, hit on you, or make suggestive remarks. This is a great advantage for women, particularly because the most useful role of a priest is that of a source of advice and solace and a 'receptacle' for confidences. Every woman knows that if she talks to a non-celibate heterosexual man in this way, he takes it as a sign that she is interested in him even if she is not. This can be tedious. Heterosexual men tend to overlook just how important it is for a woman to be able to confide in a priest without having him get ideas. It is the same reason women can relax in the company of homosexual men. Whatever they say and do, it's not going to be seen as a sexual overture or an invitation to get to know her better. I used to think that vows of celibacy were silly and pointless, but I've changed my mind. Celibacy is what sets priests apart from their flock, and while there are those who think that priests should be just like the rest of us so that they can understand our problems by experiencing them directly, I really don't think so anymore. Priests should be different to their flock. It's one way of maintaining respect, for a start. But more importantly, the last thing the faithful need, when they turn to priests for succour and inspiration in coping with life, is having them go through their own marital problems, difficulties with recalcitrant teenagers and so on. When you're looking for a calm port in a storm, you don't want a priest who brings out the whisky and says: "Oh my god, I know exactly what you mean. My wife has been screaming blue murder for a week. She nags me, nags the kids. I can't stand it anymore." When you're married, your first duty is to your spouse and children, not to your flock. Allowing priests and vicars to marry has actually weakened other Christian churches. By allowing priests to be like everyone else, they have effectively made them just like everyone else, so few bother with them anymore. You might as well speak to a friend or neighbour. An end to chastity will not do away with the problem of paedophile priests. The argument that links paedophilia with celibacy is illogical. If a man is so sexually frustrated that he is prepared to break his vow of celibacy, commonsense dictates that he will turn to a woman – or to a man, depending on his inclinations – but not to a child unless children were his thing to start with. There are always women and men who make themselves available, whatever the context, now more so than ever. So the only priests who relieve their urges with children are those who are made that way. Allowing them to marry will not change their interest in children. Even when they are defrocked, they continue to be interested in children. A lot of people seem to be under the impression that it is the nature of the Catholic Church which is capable of changing the sexual nature of priests. But this is naïve. The more obvious explanation for the presence of paedophiles in the priesthood is the same one for the presence of paedophiles in any other profession or job which places adult men in a position of trust over children. In other words, the priests who are causing all these scandals were paedophiles to begin with, and that's why they became priests in the first place: to gain access to children or as a way of taming – unsuccessfully – their 'sinful' nature. This is not the same thing as saying that a certain kind of really repressive religious upbringing is without risk of perverting a young boy's sexuality in one way or another. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are born, but paedophiles are made. It is unrealistic to expect the Catholic Church to be free of paedophiles. It is as at risk of 'infiltration' by men with paedophiliac urges as is any other organisation that works with children. Yes, rigorous checking is required, and in these days of declining numbers of vocations, the Catholic Church may find itself desperate enough to snatch up all-comers. But it isn't fair to blame the Catholic hierarchy for the presence of paedophiles in its midst. How would anyone know that a man is a paedophile until he acts and is found out? And there's the rub. It is what happens after paedophiles are discovered that is the source of the angst which the Catholic Church is being put through today. It is certainly responsible for failing to put in place checks and balances to ensure that children are never in a position of vulnerability to single men, even if those single men have taken vows of celibacy. Wherever there are children, if the primary carers are men there should also be the constant and obvious presence of women. This does not only serve as a deterrent to the paedophile, but gives the child somebody to turn to if men are seen as predatory and dangerous thanks to the actions of just one or two. It is very odd how customary wisdom and social tradition dictate that groups of girls should never be cared for by men alone, and yet that same customary wisdom and social tradition think nothing of putting groups of boys in the sole care of men – schools and orphanages, for example, in which girls are looked after by women and boys are looked after by men. Girls are never put into the sole care of men in such institutions. So why are boys? Oddly, despite the mounting evidence over the decades that men prey on boys too, we have persisted in seeing these situations as freakish exceptions, and refuse to face the fact that even a one per cent risk of abuse is too much because that one per cent is not a statistic but real children.
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.