The Real Story about Celibacy

The Real Story about Celibacy
Rev. James R. Haley
Let me see if I have this completely “straight” from my Catholic moral training:
Mr. X, a heterosexual man, can only become a priest if he makes a vow of celibacy – if he vows to remain unmarried to a woman.
With his priestly vow of celibacy per se he does not, as is frequently believed and wrongly reported, make a vow to refrain from sex. But since he vows to remain unmarried, he is required by his Catholic faith to refrain from sex. He must remain chaste – he cannot have sex because, according to his Catholic faith, sex outside of marriage is morally wrong.
ü Since he cannot have sex, he is taught by his Catholic faith that he should be modest in his relations with women - he should observe conventional and prudent proprieties in his speech, behavior and dress around women.
ü Since he should be prudent in his associations with women, he is instructed by his Catholic faith that he should avoid the temptations inherent in certain situations, relationships and behaviors – he should avoid the near occasions of sin with women.
ü Since he should avoid the near occasions of sin, he is taught by his Catholic faith that it would be wrong for him, without a compelling reason, to live with women, or to associate exclusively with women in situations outside of his work or the necessities of his ministry, or to develop particularly close, or personal, or secret, or intimate relationships with women. And of course it would be wrong for him to access pornography as a substitute for the sex he cannot have.
If he were to engage in such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors, and if these improper situations were not kept wickedly secret, they would rightly create a scandal for the faithful who would, quite correctly, believe that such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors would naturally lead to serious sins with women in thoughts, words and deeds. And thus these situations would seem to violate the intent and the spirit of his priestly vow of celibacy - to remain unmarried - to remain personally, emotionally and intimately un-associated with a woman.
Such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors could eventually lead to the direct violation of his priestly vow of celibacy by leading to a scandalous and sinful marriage between the priest and "that woman." According to the canon law of the Church, such a marriage would not be recognized as a valid marriage, and the consequence to the priest would be an immediate removal from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself (Canon 194).
I know many heterosexual priests who have suffered such a fate.
----------
Mr. Y, a homosexual man, can only become a priest if he makes a vow of celibacy - if he vows to remain unmarried to a woman.
He does not vow to remain unmarried to a man because, according to his Catholic faith, he can never marry a man - he cannot vow to give up what he cannot have in the first place.
Therefore, Mr. Y's priestly vow of celibacy is an easy, ludicrous and utterly pointless promise for him to make since he does not want to be married to a woman.(It wasn't so easy, ludicrous or utterly pointless, however, for Mr. X.)

With his priestly vow of celibacy per se he does not, as is frequently believed and wrongly reported, make a vow to refrain from sex. He makes a vow to remain unmarried. But since he has vowed to remain unmarried to a woman, and since he cannot validly “marry” another man, he is required by his Catholic faith to remain perpetually chaste - he can never have sex.
ü Since he can never have sex, he is taught by his Catholic faith that he should be exceptionally modest - he should observe conventional and prudent proprieties in his speech, behavior and dress around other men.
ü Since he should be prudent in his associations with men, he is instructed by his Catholic faith that he should avoid the temptations inherent in certain situations, relationships and behaviors - he should avoid the near occasions of sin with men.
ü Since he should avoid the near occasions of sin, he is taught by his Catholic faith that it would be wrong for him, without a compelling reason, to live with other men, or to associate exclusively with men in situations outside of his work or the necessities of his ministry, or to develop particularly close, or personal, or secret, or intimate relationships with other men. And of course it would be wrong for him to access pornography as a substitute for the sex he can never have.
If he were to engage in such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors, and if these improper situations were not kept wickedly secret, they would rightly create a scandal for the faithful who would, quite correctly, believe that such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors would "naturally" lead to serious sins with other men in thoughts, words and deeds.

However, in Mr. Y's case, unlike Mr. X’s, such imprudent and immoral living arrangements, associations and behaviors could not be said to violate the spirit and intent of his utterly pointless and ludicrous priestly vow of celibacy - to remain unmarried to a woman - to remain personally, emotionally and intimately un-associated with a woman.

Such imprudent living arrangements, associations and behaviors could easily, however, lead to many personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men – even to many homosexual relationships in which there is no sexual contact and thus those relationships that could be considered “celibate” by using a much more confined and secular definition of that word – certainly not the fuller definition used in the priestly vow of celibacy to which Father X is held bound.

If Father Y attempts to “marry” his homosexual partner, the Church would certainly not recognize the “marriage.” In fact, the Church would not even recognize such a union as an attempt at “marriage.” And since such a union would not be considered a “marriage,” there would be no immediate removal from ecclesiastical office if such a union formed.(Unless, I suppose, the homosexual priest was foolish enough to attempt a “civil union” in the state of Massachusetts.)

Canon 1055, and its frequent application in marriage tribunals, exclusively defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman. The reality of a personal, committed, exclusive, intimate, emotionally fulfilling and even non-sexual relationship between a homosexual priest and another man would therefore present a very novel and problematic case, because canon law never mentions homosexual priests at all. Nor does it mention their potential for unions that for-all-intents-and-purposes could be considered quasi-marriages. It is as if neither homosexual priests nor their intense or intimate unions ever existed in reality.
What is the result of this morality in the real world of the Catholic rectory?
The outcome is that Fr Y, the homosexual priest, is potentially allowed to have, certainly not prevented from having, one might even say continually tempted to have, many personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men, whom he can even live with, and associate with almost constantly.
Fr. X, the heterosexual priest, on the other hand, is discouraged from having, forbidden to have, and actively prevented from having such personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate, and emotionally fulfilling relationships with women, whom he certainly cannot live with, nor with whom he can constantly associate.
Said simply: Fr. X, the heterosexual priest, cannot live his life with women. Fr. Y, the homosexual priest, is conveniently "forced" to live his life with other men.
So what is the compelling reason for such duplicitous moral standards? What is the compelling reason that Fr. Y is forced into such imprudent and foolish living arrangements for perhaps the entirety of his priestly life? Well, the direct reason is that he is forced to live in such imprudent arrangements by his shepherd and moral guide, the bishop who assigns him to his rectory, or by the abbot who directs his religious community. And in placing their priests in living situations together, the bishop or abbot is following the dictates and recommendations of ecclesiastical documents and of canon law, which encourage priests to live together, to support one another, and to closely associate with one another throughout their priestly lives.
By assigning religious men to live only with men, and religious women to live only with women, the bishop or abbot is apparently also following the tradition and moral prudence, or one can more properly say, the moral necessity, of keeping religious men and women separated from one another - a very prudent practice because, in the words of an honest speaker concerning human nature and Christian love:“There is nothing more naturally attractive for a Christian man in love with God, than a Christian woman in love with God.”
But that same-sex living assignment quickly and clearly runs seriously afoul when the sexual orientations and desires are reversed from their norm and, even more so, when those sexual orientations remain hidden from the outside world – that leads to the very improper, imprudent and secret situation that the Church was trying to prevent. In other words: There is nothing more “naturally” attractive for a homosexual man in love with God, than another homosexual man in love with God.

So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests.
Of course, all of this moral double-dealing leads to many situations of outright hypocrisy and utter dishonesty. For example, how can a homosexual priest who lives with another man, rightly tell the young “couple” in high school that it would be morally dangerous to spend so much exclusive and private time together, or tell the college kids that it would be improper for them to share intimate coed living arrangements, or to instruct the “couple in love” that they should not be living together? A priest should not only be the teacher of correct moral behavior, but should also be the model of that correct moral behavior. What is he supposed to say to these enquiring minds that search for the Catholic truth from their priests and bishops:“Just look at me and my life. It’s perfectly ok to do what you are doing, just as long as you remain celibate?” Or let me now carefully qualify that:“just as long as you have kept celibate for three years, and are willing to keep your sexual orientation and desires secret from others in your public life.”
What nonsense. What utter moral nonsense!
It seems to me that the double celibacy requirement has encouraged homosexual men in larger and larger percentages that, as you describe, are more than happy to "give up" traditional marriage for the priesthood. From what you have described, as power structures have evolved through the years in the Church, homosexual men have become favored. Their tendencies and nature were hidden from the public under the quiet cloak of "celibacy." As the pressure of greater numbers and power of homosexual men in the Church gains, the numbers of heterosexual men further decline.
Your document describes the dilemma and the extreme irony that the current situation is for many - a curtain or front behind which many homosexual priests can hide. Could it be entitled something like: Can a homosexual priest be celibate?

I tell ya, you can't make this stuff up, folks.

Sure sounds bogus to me. The whole Catholic thing is creepy.
They're such perverts.

Joseph Tyson wrote:

What nonsense. What utter moral nonsense!

Yes, of course it's utter moral nonsense. But what do you expect, when the premise - that to be a priest you need to be celibate - is itself utter moral nonsense, and thoroughly unbiblical at that?

Just read a little scripture, and you will see how far away Catholicism is from sound doctrine. Celebacy is just one of many fables.

1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry,[and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.
1Ti 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
1Ti 4:9 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
1Ti 4:11 These things command and teach.
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
1Ti 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

1Ti 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Joseph Tyson wrote:

I tell ya, you can't make this stuff up, folks.

What is your point in putting this up? The reality is the Church has always had to deal with homosexuality and not just in it's priesthood. There has always been the prohibition of "special friendships" in convents, monasteries and seminaries. In our super charged sexual culture it's not easy to be celibate if one is called to community life, the priesthood or faithful if one is called to marriage. Name an organization:
religious, secular employer, volunteer group etc. that doesn't have some kind rules for being part of it. One may disagree with the rules but if you want that job or be part of the group you've got to follow them or pay the price if found out not following them. The weakest link in the good reverend's thinking is can the homosexual priest counsel hetero couples. Does the oncologist have to have had cancer or the obstetritian a pregnancy? Do we discount the abilities of anyone just based on what they have experienced themselves? I know there are many arguments for and against priestly celibacy but this good reverends argument seems to hinge on the "Me thinks you protest too much" words of Shakespere.

For my money, celibacy is a fairly unnatural state to choose. However, God Bless them that can both live that life style and the reasoning behind it.
The premise that a homosexual priest cannot counsel hetro married couples is lame at best. Priest that are celebate have no real experience in that regard(married life) their point of reference is just as negligible.
It is too easy to blame all the ills of Catholism on homosexual oriented priest; granted it is an easy answer.

Joseph Tyson wrote:

So ironically, tragically, inexplicably, it is the Church itself, the model and guide to moral life, that is encouraging, advocating and requiring the perpetual near occasion of sin for homosexual priests, and, in turn, creating an extremely uncomfortable situation for the heterosexual priests who are not interested in forming one of those personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men. And this non-interest from the heterosexual priest is a frequent cause of alienation, resentment and bitterness from the homosexual priests who would prefer to live with, and associate with, other homosexual priests, especially when so many other homosexual priests are afforded that “secret” privilege. In simple terms: the straight priest is neither wanted nor welcome among the homosexual priests.
Of course, all of this moral double-dealing leads to many situations of outright hypocrisy and utter dishonesty. For example, how can a homosexual priest who lives with another man, rightly tell the young “couple” in high school that it would be morally dangerous to spend so much exclusive and private time together, or tell the college kids that it would be improper for them to share intimate coed living arrangements, or to instruct the “couple in love” that they should not be living together? A priest should not only be the teacher of correct moral behavior, but should also be the model of that correct moral behavior. What is he supposed to say to these enquiring minds that search for the Catholic truth from their priests and bishops:“Just look at me and my life. It’s perfectly ok to do what you are doing, just as long as you remain celibate?” Or let me now carefully qualify that:“just as long as you have kept celibate for three years, and are willing to keep your sexual orientation and desires secret from others in your public life.”
What nonsense. What utter moral nonsense!
It seems to me that the double celibacy requirement has encouraged homosexual men in larger and larger percentages that, as you describe, are more than happy to "give up" traditional marriage for the priesthood. From what you have described, as power structures have evolved through the years in the Church, homosexual men have become favored. Their tendencies and nature were hidden from the public under the quiet cloak of "celibacy." As the pressure of greater numbers and power of homosexual men in the Church gains, the numbers of heterosexual men further decline.
Your document describes the dilemma and the extreme irony that the current situation is for many - a curtain or front behind which many homosexual priests can hide. Could it be entitled something like: Can a homosexual priest be celibate?

I'm very glad you went green with this. It is shocking the amount of old growth forest that would be destroyed with the HUGE page after page writings you do, and the bible thumpers do attacking the church, if it was on paper. Between you and Steven and godisifaithful, you could wipe out Humboldt County alone.

I can't figure out where this Rev. James R. Haley is coming from. He could be a Protestant minister who just wants to "prove" once again how wrong the Catholic church is. He could be a heterosexual priest who wants to get married and since he can't is angry and frustrated about the celibacy requirement. He could be a homosexual who wants to come out of the closet. One just can't tell with just the "Rev." title being used.

I was told that celibacy is a discipline, & correct me if I'm wrong. They can't even discipline their pedophile preists.

insite wrote:

Just read a little scripture, and you will see how far away Catholicism is from sound doctrine. Celebacy is just one of many fables.
1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1Ti 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
1Ti 4:3 Forbidding to marry,[and commanding] to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
1Ti 4:4 For every creature of God [is] good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
1Ti 4:5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.
1Ti 4:6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained.
1Ti 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself [rather] unto godliness.
1Ti 4:8 For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
1Ti 4:9 This [is] a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation.
1Ti 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
1Ti 4:11 These things command and teach.
1Ti 4:12 Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.
1Ti 4:13 Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
1Ti 4:15 Meditate upon these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may appear to all.
1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.
1Ti 3:1 This [is] a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
1Ti 3:4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
1Ti 3:5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
1Ti 3:6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
1Ti 3:7 Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

if my above post is judged clueless, off topic and nuts, could someone please explain to me these scriptures? I am neither clueless or off topic. And unless you can give an explaination for the scriptures, I think others are the ones who are nuts. At least, if not nuts, they are so closed minded they'd argue with a fence post!

JessieWay wrote:

I was told that celibacy is a discipline, & correct me if I'm wrong. They can't even discipline their pedophile preists.

it was a dicipline alright. that way the priests could have their mistresses and father their bastard sons and daughters. many of these bastard sons were declared 'legitimate' so they could be given a red cap. Read 'A World Lit Only By Fire' by William Manchester. An incredible read!

JessieWay wrote:

I was told that celibacy is a discipline, & correct me if I'm wrong. They can't even discipline their pedophile preists.

Celibacy is a discipline. Pedophilia is a form of abberant behavior. It goes across all cultures, religions, genders professions, married or not married, etc. It was hidden but now with all that has taken place is no longer hidden. It has opened all our eyes and the call is "Never again".

insite wrote:

<quoted text>
it was a dicipline alright. that way the priests could have their mistresses and father their bastard sons and daughters. many of these bastard sons were declared 'legitimate' so they could be given a red cap. Read 'A World Lit Only By Fire' by William Manchester. An incredible read!

You paint with too broad a stroke. Yes, these things happened and have been written down. It makes for a better read than those of priests past and present who work quietly, devoutly, prayerfully and yes, celibately for the good of those they serve.

I don't dispute that there are/have been devout priests.

insite wrote:

I don't dispute that there are/have been devout priests.

I'm glad we can agree on that.

Joseph Tyson wrote:

I tell ya, you can't make this stuff up, folks.

That was a terrific write up! thanks