The series of news items on sex scandals in the American, European, and Latin American churches has now shifted its attention to Asia, particularly, the Philippine Church. Regardless of the social status of those involved, such lurid and horrendous stories as of sexual harassment, sexual abuses, acts of lasciviousness, homosexual acts, pedophilia, rape and even consensual sex have always been a fodder to our mass media. What’s more, cases are brought to higher levels of opinion and sarcasm, even downright ridicule and condemnation, whenever they involve the men of the cloth. But each time we discuss a sex-related offense, of anyone and by anyone, for that matter, we are immediately confronted with a lot of attendant issues such as women’s rights, the privacy of both the offender and the offended, the punishment due the offender, the right of the accused (which includes presumption of innocence), sensational media reporting, the intention or motive of the accuser, the possible seductive advances of both the aggressor and the victim, the possibility of a third party involved, the personal behavioral history of the protagonists, and, in the case of an erring priest, the law on celibacy.
The frequency with which the issue of celibacy has been dragged into the picture and presented as the culprit of sexual abuses among priests only shows an alarming lack of understanding of this wonderful gift that God has given to his Church. What really is this law on celibacy?
Married Priesthood: The Solution?
At the outset, let us try to clear the air: sexual offense by a priest cannot be blamed on the practice of celibacy. Sexual offense is, in fact, the non-observance of celibacy. Conversely, we do not blame a monogamous marriage in cases of marital infidelity. Neither do we automatically advise people to revert to a single status just because the marriage vow is violated.
A lot of opinion writers have proposed solutions that, in the long run, create more problems for the priesthood. A married priesthood is oftentimes presented as the answer to the problem of sexual misconduct among the clergy. But the offered solution is rather simplistic. An abnormal sexual behavior, especially one that has a deep-seated personal history, remains abnormal even in married life.
Inside and outside of marriage, there are sexual deviants. Inside and outside of priesthood, there are sexual deviants. But sexual deviation is not the norm. It is, in point of fact, an exception. Psychological problems do not necessarily invalidate celibacy. These only bring to the fore the need to resolve one’s psychological hang-ups before committing oneself to a life of celibacy. The same logic applies to marriage. Ideally, psychological problems need to be resolved before marriage so that self-acceptance can easily lead to the acceptance of the other as other in the context of a lifelong partnership. Granting, for the sake of argument, that celibacy be considered optional and a married priesthood be conceded as a possibility, still there is the pressing need to evaluate the psychology of candidates and resolve their emotional issues that really lie at the root of any possible sexual deviation.
Of Crime and Sin
Our laws consider sexual offenses as crimes and, in some cases, they are considered heinous crimes. What our courts determine is simply the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is a proven fact that a jail term alone does not assure the overcoming of a sexual dysfunction. At best, a jail term can only prevent the possibility of another sexual offense. But then again, how do we reconcile this theoretical prevention with the actual high rates of sexual offenses even inside our jails? We need to go beyond the language of crime and punishment in order to shape a culture that is more sensitive to the dynamics of human growth. Even prisoners need to grow and outgrow their crimes. If a sexual offender is sent right away to jail—given the kind of jail that we have—there is little room for him to change. While in prison, there may be some circumstances, including sexual abuses too, that will even add to one’s hardness of heart. Such circumstances, though not entirely unknown to jail guards, will eventually close or, at least, make hard the possibility of a renewed life after crime. Government does not have enough resources to evolve programs that will rehabilitate sexual offenders. No rehabilitation, no renewal. On the other hand, victims, too, need rehabilitation. Without rehabilitation, there is little or no chance at all for them to outgrow their traumas and phobias.
Moreover, the language world of the Church goes beyond the order of crime and punishment. The Church is more interested in the inner condition of conscience. Sexual abuses are called sins, for that is what they really are. The realm of sin begs God’s mercy and forgiveness. But before we take easy recourse to God’s mercy and forgiveness, we have to understand that the mysterious dynamics of grace will have to touch the heart first and then lead one to a real conversion of heart. The grace of forgiveness is more fruitfully received by those who undergo deep conversion experiences. It is only in the context of conversion that a given sacramental penance becomes more meaningful and necessary for growth in the Spirit.
But if grace builds on nature, we really have to take into account the process of human growth and healing. It is in this framework that psychology may be of much help.
Psychology Made Easy
The American psychologist Richard Rohr distinguishes between sexuality and genitality. He stresses the fact that sexuality refers to the reality of self-giving life, love, communication and acceptance. If sexuality is pro-creative, then anything that builds up, that is, creates—such as life, love, communication and acceptance—is healthy sexuality. Genitality is simply one of the many expressions, symbols, rituals or celebrations of self-giving life, love, communication and acceptance. There are millions of other expressions of self-giving. One who reduces sexuality to genital activity misses the point. On the one hand, a person can still express his or her inmost love in a non-genital manner and celebrate a healthy sexuality all the same. For instance, helping the sick is a way of celebrating life and love, that is, an act favorable to life, pro-creative, and so it makes one’s sexuality very responsible and healthy. On the other hand, the genital act in itself does not necessarily mean a celebration of life and love, or communication and acceptance. Without self-giving love, genital expression may only be turned into selfish pleasure, exploitation or abuse. Genitality outside love bears the symptoms of a much deeper unmet need. Sexual dysfunctions arise from this need. The need is not that of the sexual act itself, but that of love, affirmation, acceptance and communication.
In reality, sexual misconduct is a cryptic longing for love and acceptance on the part of one who has been long deprived of the same love and acceptance. In most instances, sexual dysfunction comes from dysfunctional childhood experiences such as those that have to do with rejection, abandonment, or abuse. Yesterday’s victim is today’s aggressor. The unloved becomes unloving, and, in turn, becomes loveless. The abused becomes the abuser. We really need to get into the family background or the personal history of the sexual offender. The same thing applies to the married state. If a husband habitually looks for sexual pleasure outside marriage, and he does not undergo therapy or rehabilitation, chances are he will never change his behavior even if he finds another woman. In that sense, divorce and re-marriage will only multiply possible victims and broken families.
Theology Made Easy
The Swiss theologian Hans Urs von Balthasar says that authentic love takes the form of a solemn promise, that is, a vow. The vow ensures the stability, totality and responsibility of all human love. Thus, the love between a man and a woman takes the form of a marital vow. On the other hand, priestly love, if it has to be authentic love at all, should also take the form of a vow. The love of men and women in consecrated life, if it has to be meaningful too, should also be shaped by a vow. In effect, our love life is a vowed life. Love without a vow is unstable, irresponsible, and fragmentary. It is the kind of uncommitted and convenient love we used to find in movies, pocketbooks, or in love songs, but are now a reality, sadly, among many young lovers.
Any vow that is not supported by a structure of love will fail. Marriage vows are violated when there is no more love between spouses. Priestly celibacy is violated when love of God is blurred. The religious vow of chastity becomes rigid, even inhuman, when there is no more love. Therefore, sexual infidelity—whether in married, priestly or religious life—can be traced back to the frailty of all human love.
Another point we have to consider is that celibacy is not just a Church law. It is both a gift and a task. As a gift, celibacy cannot be claimed as though it were a matter of right. Priesthood, like celibacy, is also a gift. It is God’s gift to the Church. It is a vocation. But priesthood is also the Church’s gift to God expressed in the totality of one’s commitment, generosity, and prayer. If priesthood is rightly understood as a total gift then we have to admit that priesthood requires celibacy because celibacy implies totality of one’s self-giving. The apostles left their married state and followed Jesus. John, the unmarried apostle, never asked for marriage after he was called by Jesus. This is a point which a lot of married priests facilely overlook. They once were celibate, then they married, and now a number of them want to serve as married priests. This is the reverse route of married men who were called to leave their families behind in order to follow Jesus. Jesus, himself the High Priest, was celibate. That too has to be considered.
Therefore, we need to believe that the Spirit who gives the gift of priesthood is the same Spirit who endows the gift of celibacy to one who has been called and has heeded this vocation. It is the Spirit who ensures us that this gift of self be total, stable and free. It would be unjust for the Spirit to call somebody to the priesthood, without giving him the grace to make that priesthood a total sacrifice.
It is in one’s cooperation with the grace of priesthood that celibacy becomes a task. As a task, the observance of celibacy is a long journey to travel. In this journey toward holiness, sometimes we waver, we fail, we get frustrated, but we need to go on. All states of life that require a lifetime commitment—married state, single blessedness, priestly state, religious consecration—are both a gift and a task. This is so because everybody is called to holiness. And holiness is both a gift and a task.
Furthermore, priestly celibacy directs our attention to the priest’s relation to the Church. The vocation to the priesthood is not for the priest himself. Vocation has a mission. Priesthood is for the Church. The priest is not married to any one woman because his love is supposed to be oriented to the Church, the People of God. He is married to the Church. St. Paul uses this nuptial symbolism in his exhortation to Christian couples: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). It is not for nothing that the bishop wears a ring. The bishop’s ring symbolizes his marriage with the diocese. The American Jesuit theologian Earl Muller defends the practice of celibacy and the male priesthood precisely on the basis of the continuity and coherence between the Old Testament “Israel-Yahweh” / bride-groom relationship and the New Testament “Jesus-Church” / bride-groom relationship. There is so much meaning in this theological paradigm.
Just a final word on celibacy—let us, for the sake of justice, recover the significance of the eschatological dimension of the priesthood. Derived from the Greek, eschatos, which simply means “last, ultimate,” this technical theological term reminds us of the ultimate reality of life—the afterlife. The practice of celibacy points to the reality of the resurrection wherein people “neither marry nor are given in marriage” (cf. Mt 22:30). Of course, there are those who do not take this passage as a direct literal biblical proof in favor of celibacy. But celibates are nonetheless free to take it as an inspiration for a life of service here and now. No one has the right to take the eschatological dimension away from the Christian priesthood, or from Christianity for that matter. Jürgen Moltmann, a protestant theologian, says, “The eschatological is not one element of Christianity, but it is the medium of Christian faith. Hence eschatology cannot really be only a part of Christian doctrine. Rather, the eschatological outlook is characteristic of all Christian proclamation, of every Christian existence and of the whole church.”
The theology of celibacy is after all that simple: it is total self-giving love, a gift (a vocation) and a task (a mission), a spiritual marriage with the People of God (the Church), and a living sign for the children of the resurrection. Surely, despite the challenges and failures of priests in the area of celibacy, much is in store for those who faithfully follow in the footsteps of Christ, our celibate High Priest. Surely, too, despite the differences of personal beliefs and opinions, much is in store even for those who hate theology and celibacy.
