Celibacy: an alternative position

Joe Xuereb

Aug 27th 2010, 12:03

1) @Joe Brincat. Your quote: 'Rather than as a non-believer I consider you as one in search of answers to deep questions. That enquiry is yours'.
Sorry, I overlooked this. My brain don't work so well these days.
'Rather than an atheist you see me as......' Joe? A bit patronising isn't it. No problem.
Chicken and egg situ here. I was never particularly pious but I was a believer and was indoctrinated into the rule-book. And curious. Maybe genetically programmed to be that. Certainly its human and therefore, common as muck.
I excercised my questioning, my doubts, but in terror, so quickly dismissed. Eventually, atheism set in. Terror conquered, gradually (a lifetime's damage is not put right in a day), it was THEN that I started deep questioning in earnest. And once that takes off, there's no stopping. To the extent that these days I wouldn't even quote Darwin, or Dawkins, or Hitchens, or Hawkings to myself (I'm no scientist anyway). I just apply the principle of commonsensical reasoning. It grows like a positive cancre.
continued

Joe Xuereb

Aug 26th 2010, 13:57

2) But if a man develops a jaded view of his wife's charms, the same could be said of the wife. I'd guess it's more like 50-50%. The whole within the context of knowing that instinctive monogamy is not a fact of life but mere fantasy for the sake of creating comfortable boundaries - that don't work.
I grew up when people prefixed unmentionable words like broom, floor-cloth, dish-cloth with the word, 'pardon'. Was it snobbery? aspiring to a middle-class? In any case, it was a world of euphemisms and taboo words. And, surprise! surprise! sex and its parts were absolutely verboten not allowed. People (ie women particularly unless they topped in which case they had to look at that tired, sweaty face that was already tired 15 years before and now distracted by the wailing infant in its cot just inches away) just looked at the ceiling and thought of population growth, salvation, etc. I imagine, or would like to imagine, that this handling of things with tissue paper does not exist anymore; I've been away so long. But one cannot pussy-foot around a thorny subject forever and a day without getting their finger pricked :)

Joe Xuereb

Aug 26th 2010, 13:42

1) Gratitude for anyone (myself included) who writes in Maltese. Glad to see that Maltese lingo exposure is getting a deserved airing. But there is a wider readership out there and they must not be short-changed (they could of course learn my language).
Pointers. The majority of sexual abusers of anybody will have a sex life.
An sexually-abusing priest and a sexually-abusing grandad impact differently. The priest is accountable and creates detrimental scandal to the faithful. the grandad brings shame on himself and possibly his family. But no scandal there. This is obvious and should be laid to rest.
@Joe Brincat. The trouble in most failed marriages started in the bedroom is the accepted wisdom. 90% of instances it's the man's fault. Not quite Joe. Without going into graphic details, the man has to deliver and be seen to deliver. The woman is more passive and has greeter leeway for pretence. Happens! It is said that in the bedroom there is usually a third person, most usually in the man's imagination. He is helping himself along, euphemistically speaking.
continued

Joe Xuereb

Aug 26th 2010, 13:18

Joe Brincat, I must not be ungrateful and belittle your acknowledgement of my worth. That said, you sound a little surprised that a non-believer has christian principles. I've had people tell me that I have decent princiles that were inculcated in my via Maltese birthright, religion, etc. No doubt (although I claim that decency can be attained from different sources, like natural commonsense, survival instincts, OTHER RELIGIONS and so on). However, living away, a natural curiosity for the truth, I worked and re-worked those principles through a fine sieve. It's been a hard trek and continues, and will continue to be - in the sense that any principles I have and practise I do not expect ANY reward for. Not ANY reward. Ukoll, ma nhossx l-ebda dmir li nkattar 'it-twemmin' tieghi u nkabbar il-kotra. I am a one-man band and I feel comfortable with that, if at times a bit shakey. But I cannot return to the crowd. It didn't work the first time round. It would work even less if I returned. But that is my problem to deal with. I'm a big boy now. I have to take responsibility for my honest, if shambolic, meschina, existence.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 26th 2010, 12:19

@ Ernest Vella:

Ghalkemm jien personalment ma nemminx li hemm korrelazzjoni diretta bejn ic-celibat infurzat u l-abbuz sesswali (ghalkemm jista jkun fattur f'xi kazi), tajjeb li nghamlu distinzjoni bejn li wiehed jghid li c-celibat jista jwassal ghal abbuz sesswali (suggett ghal opinjoni jew dibattitu), u li wiehed jghid li c-celibat iwassal ghal abbuz sesswali (li ma hux minnhu).

Huwa fatt li nies celibi li jaqghu ghal abbuz sesswali huma f'minoranza negligibbli (jekk ikkumparata ma l-gheluf ta' celibi li ma jaqghux), izda m'hemm xejn hazin li wiehed jiddiskuti u jghamel ricerka dwar jekk hemmx korrelazjoni (anki jekk minima) bejn ic-celibat infurzat u l-abbuz sesswali, anki jekk dan iservi ta' gid ghal minoranza li hi suxxettibli ghall-abbuz u ghall-vittmi taghhom.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 26th 2010, 12:16

@ Ernest Vella. Ghandek ragun hafna.

Nemmen li jkun hemm min jitkaza, u mhux qed nghid hawn fuq il-gurnali, imma fil-hajja in generali u bit-tfesfis fil-widnejn, halli wiehed jghatti xturu. "Jekk jidneb dak u l-iehor, x'fiha li jien naghmel l-istess ?" Hafna drabi dan ma jinghadx imma hekk ifisser.

L-abbuzi jsiru kullimkien. Ikun it-tahwid fil-personalita` tal-persuna. U responsabbli l-persuna mhux f'liema ghaqda qieghed. Msieken l-ohrajn li minhabba fi ftit jiehdu t-timbru.

Ernest Vella

Aug 26th 2010, 11:14

Ma nistax ghaliha li nhalltu ic-celibat ma l-abbuzi...m'ghandhom x'jaqsmu assolutament xejn...il-maggoranza l-kbira ta nies li jhaddnu c-celibat, "ghas-saltna t'Alla" ghamlu u ghadhom jaghmlu tant gid li mhux sew li jigu certu nies iparlaw kontra c-celibat u jippruvaw jimminaw l-istess celibat.

Jien iltqajt ma hafna sacerdoti, patrijiet, sorijiet, ghaqdiet tal-lajci li jaghtu hinhom, flushom, sahhithom u l-bqija ghan-nies, tfal, zghazagh u adulti bla ebda interess jekk mhux li jizirghu l-imhabba t'Alla fil-qlub taghhom. Hemm percentagg zghir li abbuzaw u huwa hazin hafna u dizgustanti, imma anke b'mizzewgin instemghu abbuzi...alluri nwaqqfu z-zwieg?

M'ghandniex ihalltu iz-zewg affarijiet li huma kontra xulxin b'mod assolut

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 26th 2010, 08:53

@Joe Xuereb. You said that nobody cares about what you write. You may be wrong there. I share some of your considerations in this last comment.

Earlier on you described yourself as a non-believer. I beg to differ. You seem to believe in many principles. Such as "a married state requiring so much dedicated energy that it would negatively impinge on a man's religious duties. Now I am sure there are men who can take these strictures on board, such being the strength of their vocation". And "Sublimation, through painful insights, should be fine."

Rather than as a non-believer I consider you as one in search of answers to deep questions. That enquiry is yours.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 25th 2010, 19:00

There is no doubt in my mind that RCism layers sexual-guilt in spades. Maybe the Church has a point in expecting priestly celibacy; not so much a denial of intimacy with another being but more about a married state requiring so much dedicated energy that it would negatively impinge on a man's religious duties. Now I am sure there are men who can take these strictures on board, such being the strength of their vocation. I can, however, imagine any number of reasons why this vocation would waver even with a fully-fledged priest.
It seems that in some, sexual guilt is so strong that they feel the priesthood is a solution, a peaceful life. Sublimation, through painful insights, should be fine. But celibacy through mere order is not sublimation but repression. And that is where the danger lies. Men would do well to realise that the priesthood is not like some escape clause from life's vicissitudes and tribulations.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 25th 2010, 17:08

Although priests do not marry, yet from their work, they get to understand the intricacies of marital relations. In the past, that was even more so. Somewhere I wrote that the parish priest was the natural crisis manager in a marriage. His intervention was considered as fundamental.

My humble experience grew more informed from my profession. For example, it is easier to make a man reconcile with his wife, than the other way round. Another source of marital problems, though wives may attribute to various causes, eventually boils down to an uncomfortable bed, and it is in more than 90% of cases, the fault of the husband.

Priests have one advantage on marriage, through being celibate. They have a more idealistic image of marriage, and can speak about its beauty. Married people keep such subjects to themselves, unless there is a crisis, when then they let the world know. So we hear more about crises.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 25th 2010, 14:11

@ Richard Curmi: I agree with you that priests would try to know something about married life but this is through the pastoral experience that they open themselves up to. Therefore, in my opinion, it depends on this: how much they are open to pastoral experience and whether they allow that experience to change them. Wouldn't you agree?
@ Jessica Debattista: I never meant that you were 'servile' personally; I said that your outlook as a laywoman is servile, in that you feel you are subject to the priests as a Roman Catholic; at least, that is how you came across to me.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 25th 2010, 13:38

@ Franco Farrugia: “You appear to be a very servile laywoman, ... speaking of 'the right quarters' etc ... If you are a layperson, you should be part of the 'debates' taking place”

In answer to Mr. Joseph Camilleri’s interesting comment, Dr Joe Brincat posed the following question: “Is there the possibility that marriage problems for married priests cause more upheaval in the community ?”

I find that a very relevant question and something which probably neither of us can answer for neither of us is an insider, and that is why in one of my comments I said that: “Perhaps, it is not for us to discuss whether priests should be celibate or not for I am sure that debates are ongoing in the right quarters,”

By the “right quarters’ I meant the people in the know of what goes on in Church administration.

And Franco it has nothing to do with my being servile.

Joseph Camilleri

Aug 25th 2010, 13:29

@ Dr Joe Brincat
I agree with you that there would be problems for the Church from an organisational point of view if its hierarchy were ever to entertain the idea of removing the condition of celibacy on priests - though I would add that the greatest problem would be for Church leaders to change their mental framework. It is not easy to find another John XXIII. But my little knowledge (which may be a dangerous thing) has led me to believe that the individual is as important as - perhaps more than - the organisation to which s/he belongs. So, in my opinion, the good of the Church is the sum of the good of every individual priest, and indeed every individual layperson. In the search for the good of the Church in the abstract, there is a tendency to forget the individual, as happened when so many valid priests were ‘defrocked’ because they wanted that most natural of things – to be in a loving sexual union blessed by the Church. At a time when we talk so much about the empowerment of every citizen, shouldn't priests too be empowered to decide what is good for themselves?

Richard Curmi

Aug 25th 2010, 13:16

"I think that the greatest problem that priests have is not celibacy but obedience."
Mr. Franco Farrugia did very well in bringing up another problem that priests have. I don't know whether it is the greatest problem or not but our attention is drawn to the fact that priests do not decide to leave always and only because of celibacy. There are priests who leave for other reasons even if once they get their dispensation they get married.

"Priests certainly 'discuss' about marriage, which they know nothing about." on this one I beg to differ Mr. Farrugia. I see this type of argument repeated over and over again - because one is not married cannot speak about marriage; if one is not celibate cannot speak about celibacy; etc. Priests know nothing about marriage, family etc? This type of argument does not convince me although I admit that there is an argument in favour of Priests not knowing everything about marriage but nothing?

Dr Joe Brincat raised a lot of serious practical problems if priests were allowed to be married.

I wouldn't think that marriage would be an option for religious orders, would it?

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 25th 2010, 09:21

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"So although as Kenneth says: “it is a privilege they can renounce anytime” it is not as easy as one can imagine".

Of course, its never easy. No life-changing choice ever is. But at least, for better or for worse, there is a choice that can be made.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 25th 2010, 07:56

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"...not to mention a detachment and a negation of God by the layman, therefore problems have developed and they are increasingly creating other problems – child pregnancies – fathers unknown - extramarital affairs etc…".

I'm sure you did not mean it that way, but allow me to clarify that a "negation of God" does not automatically mean negation of a moral life. In fact, in my case, the opposite is actually the case.

Since I take morality very seriously, unlike some believers in God I do not stop at what God is said to allow or prohibit in religious texts, but go even further (my vegetarianism is an obvious example of that). Needless to say, I also never got another child pregnant in my childhood days, I was never an "unknown father" and I never had an extra-marital affair.

People are not moral because of religion, even though people might find their morality in their religion. It is also sometimes the case that some religious people are actually amoral, because to be moral requires conscious weighing of alternate actions (including revision when required) and not simply obeying pre-set rules on what's permitted and what's not.

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 25th 2010, 07:47

@ Joseph Camilleri. I have a very open mind about the subject. I think that the biggest stumbling block is the way how to change things. There are many practical problems.
Would marriage be allowed for the religious orders ?
Would marriage be allowed all along the hierarchical line ?
Is there the possibility that marriage problems for married priests cause more upheaval in the community ?
What about the upkeep of the married priest and his family ? What if the married priest shows too much concern to save for a rainy day and to settle his children, as any father would do ?
One may refer to what happens in other faiths. But all these problems do arise.

On the other hand, there are so many who left the priesthood to get married and form a family. Vocations are hard to come by. In certain countries,especially South America, areas bigger than Malta would have one priest.

It is not simply a theoretical problem, or one mainly based on principles and theological or scriptural considerations.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 24th 2010, 19:30

2) I could say that a porno session could take the edge off a man's darker desires. Until the next time of course. His urges will always be with him because he's healthy. That's the whole point. Hopefully, he'll get married and sire children. And be mature enough to manage his new status. A tall order but achievable.
Jessica, I know only too well that women used to have large families that entailed self-sacrifice, ill-health, worries, you name it! They also had faith and probably prayed. And it worked. I'd run up a hill if offered a prize at the top. But that wouldn't make the running any easier. But the prize gives the psychological impetus to strive for it. Please don't apologise for lengthy comments. People who have not staying-power to read a few lines are not worth the bother anyway. We're reasoning animals, we communicate. If some cannot or won't, that is THEIR outlook.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 24th 2010, 19:24

1) @Joseph Camilleri. You'll remember I said earlier that in Western societies we are sold romantic love to a fault. The facile dripping off the tongue of words like 'human dignity'. And people buy into it because 'Nature's trick' is real enough. Once married let's say, the union is buttressed by claims to the sacrament, two become intertwined into one, let no man pull asunder, etc.
We are animals with reason and we need to sublimate our urges if we're not to be destroyed. It's a hard slog to do this through insights. To sublimate 'because it's a sin' is unconvincing and doesn't really work.
Modern temptation is too much to bear? In the past there was extreme curiosity, nothing was allowed. It is more lax now, the curiosity brought down to manageable level (but always there and always will be). This is why laxity - and in this I include 'tasteful' pornography - could be seen as being beneficial. It is very easy to claim that porno induces rape, etc.
continued

Joseph Camilleri

Aug 24th 2010, 13:49

Celibacy is not a 'scandal' in any sense - but neither is it a virtue. The sex drive is a natural instinct to preserve the race and, whether a person sublimates or satisfies this urge does not, necessarily, make that person more or less virtuous. The Catholic Church's imposition of celibacy on its priests is the result of historical events. The flourishing of Christianity coincided with an ascetic movement and the first philosophers of the Church happened to be ascetics who built a whole philosophy on the basis that the Biblical Eve, being the source of sin and evil, had to be repulsed and men could only do so by repressing the sexual urge. This old tenet that sex is somehow debasing and celibacy uplifting has lingered on and colours much of the Church's thinking. But the denial of sex, like the denial of food in fasting periods, has no intrinsic value. That is why there are so many voices within the Church saying that priests should be free to choose celibacy or marriage. The idealisation of celibacy by the Church is as much a delusion as the idealisation of sex by the Romantic movement.

Jessica Debattista

Aug 24th 2010, 13:46

@ Joe Xuereb and others:

Part 5

So although as Kenneth says: “it is a privilege they can renounce anytime” it is not as easy as one can imagine.

For those who believe in God, I can almost look at it in this way; that when one falls in love there is a preference for the physical union, but God is a close second.

For a priest the first preference is God but his attraction to another human being and the ensuing physical union comes a close second. So it is not easy for a priest to renounce his first preference and leave the priesthood. I would think that a priest should remain a priest but be given the option to marry after due consideration.

(Sorry about the long comment. I started writing and just got carried away. The following comments will be shorter. I promise!)

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 24th 2010, 13:43

@ Joe Xuereb and others:

Part 4.

There is a strong emphasis on sex nowadays, not to mention a detachment and a negation of God by the layman, therefore problems have developed and they are increasingly creating other problems – child pregnancies – fathers unknown - extramarital affairs etc…

Now man is being moulded according to these influences and by “man” I am also including the religious people. So we who have known other times are becoming accustomed to a different way of life which the up-and-coming generation, not having known anything different, will take it as the norm.

We are clamouring for divorce and there are strong arguments which sway even the most hardened ones against it, to accept it as necessary.

Celibacy is not generally discussed by the layman though I would think it would be very much discussed amongst priests/monks themselves. It could be that it is not on the Pope’s agenda to even discuss it, but that does not mean that it is not in the meantime undermining the continued existence of Holy Orders.

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 24th 2010, 13:39

@ Joe Xuereb and others:

Part 3.

We are made up of spirit and matter and both have their importance in our lives. So if my spirit hankers after God and I give it preference that does not mean that my physical needs are non-existent. It only means that I have to abide by the rules which prohibit me from having sexual relations with another person for that would remove my concentration on the matters that have to do with God.

But if my attraction is towards another human being for the purpose of procreation and for the continuous nurturing of offspring, I would be irresponsible to seek other relationships to the detriment of the family.

Now the way society has developed which can be described as a natural evolution, one has to adjust according to the pressures that this evolution is exerting on each and every one of us.

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 24th 2010, 13:37

@ Joe Xuereb and others:

Part 2.

Nowadays it is still “Nature’s (god’s) trick to get us going, to procreate” but we do not take our responsibilities as seriously as they did. We want to carry on with our lives with as little change as possible from when we were still unhampered with a family. And as you say “Job done, Nature washes her hands. Next!! Falling out invariably ensues.” And so we demand ‘divorce’.

Now celibacy and marriage - though as Kenneth said, one could not put them in the same basket for one is a privilege and the other a right and therefore not “analogous” - are exposed to the same culture that has developed over the years.

I tend to look at both states of life as a vocation – one is drawn to a person and the other one is drawn to God. One is drawn to a physical union with another person and the other one is drawn to a spiritual union with God. Both are noble in their own way.

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 24th 2010, 13:35

@ Joe Xuereb and others: “Falling 'madly' in love is Nature's (god's?) trick to get us going, to procreate.”

Part 1.

You know Joe, my mum used to say pretty much the same thing. She went on to have eight children - amongst them two sets of twins - three of them died when they were babies. Five of us survived. She had her moments of deep sadness and loads of sleepless nights and days of utter exhaustion notwithstanding that she had help from her sisters and could also afford a maid.

Imagine other women who had to struggle on without any help!

But these women had strong faith in God and that is what gave them the strength and will power to carry on. They never thought about divorce and they hardly ever strayed for they accepted their responsibilities. That is not saying that there were not the few who did stray but the latter were the exceptions.

Continued…

Franco Farrugia

Aug 24th 2010, 05:42

@ Jessica, again:
'As I see it, we, perhaps egoistically, clamour for divorce because we have not acquired from marriage what we had hoped for.' >> Well, why not? You only live one life; why shouldn't you start again, if your marriage has somehow broken down, sometimes through no fault of your own?

'one would do well to consider why these young men find it so hard to commit themselves to God.' I think that the greatest problem that priests have is not celibacy but obedience.

'it is not for us to discuss whether priests should be celibate or not for I am sure that debates are ongoing in the right quarters, but maybe getting feedback from laymen would be a way of showing a different perspective.'
Did I read this well? You appear to be a very servile laywoman, ... speaking of 'the right quarters' etc ... If you are a layperson, you should be part of the 'debates' taking place - I don't think that there are any, not under this Pope, surely - and anyway, why should it be 'not for us' to discuss'? Priests certainly 'discuss' about marriage, which they know nothing about.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 23rd 2010, 23:42

Listen Farrugia.
Time was when boys spent a lot of time around priests and churchy things like model altars, etc. They seemed natural priests-in-the-making.
It's unfair that modern generations are more open to temptations than yesteryears'. The urges have always been there nevertheless but things were done differently. There was more innocence (ignorance). I am sure that a hundred years ago there were men who repressed their homosexuality to such a degree - shame, fear, confusion, extreme religious feelings - that they married and died without even realising they were gay. What we call, 'ta' wara l-muntanji' (the back of beyond). Much less likely to happen today.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 23rd 2010, 23:18

In matters viscerally primitive, neanderthal even, as in sexual drive that is so sweepingly strong for a purpose (as in, survival and promulgation of the human species), taking vows of celibacy, chastity, whatever is mere verbiage. For obvious reasons, it cannot be otherwise. It cannot be controlled any more than hunger can, or personal ablutions. Given that there is nothing particularly altruistic about the sexual act, it is naturally selfish (people can wax lyrical about wanting to please their partner but ultimately/primarily, they do 'it' to gratify themselves. If it weren't the case, and given that it is the eye that eats first, we would do it with anybody. But we don't precisely because we are seeking appeasement for our need for self-gratification. And therefore, nothing particularly romantic, is it?! That comes later, the falling in love, madly. The person we're attracted to is, initially, merely the vehicle of our human desire for intimacy). Given this understanding, sex, like anything pleasureable, can become an addiction and that is the sadness for the human involved. I eschew the word sin on purpose for obvious reasons.
Rather, it becomes a treatable medical condition, like alcoholism. And,...no, I'd rather not say it.


.

Joe Xuereb

Aug 23rd 2010, 22:41

Let's brain-storm!
Chastity, virtuous? An ingratitude towards god's gift!!
Jessica, if not in love celibacy is easy? What, what?!?!? The eye eats first, then the hunger. Then perhaps falling in love.
Falling 'madly' in love is Nature's (god's?) trick to get us going, to procreate. Job done, Nature washes her hands. Next!! Falling out invariably ensues. What then? The mature have the wherewithal to manage, a rare gift. Demands sacrifice for the devil down below. Sacrifice demands pay-offs. What payoffs?
We're saddled with our need for, let's call it intimacy for tdecorum's sake. But we don't have to bow to intimacy. To withdraw for the right reasons (deep insights and so on) is fine. Shun intimacy for the wrong reasons and one's in real trouble. Particularly when something like the priesthood is used as flight from 'life's-big-little-horror' (like, when I was younger I had a coterie of slightly older homosexual friends. They'd all spent time at some seminary or other but were on the meat-market in the time it takes saying, 'dick's your uncle'.
I'm sure young novices sometimes feel troubled by enforced celibacy. One cannot reason with depression, gobbledegook doesn't work. So what's done to/ with them? Exorcism?

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 23rd 2010, 20:29

@ Jessica DeBattista (Part 2):

Now you might say "why should a priest leave the priesthood just because he won't stay celibate"? However, to get a different perspective, keep in mind that for Christians, the priesthood is not a right, but a privilege. That privilege comes with the attendant duties and prohibitions as required by the particular denomination (the Catholic church, in this case).

So while it is always healthy to have the debate within the Catholic church hierarchy (or perhaps even spread it further), priests cannot complain for a privilege freely chosen, particularly since it is a privilege they can renounce anytime and still remain good Catholics and do good in their local community.

Finally, I hope you appreciate my objectivity, despite being an atheist who has several disagreements with the Catholic church.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 23rd 2010, 20:10

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"So we want a second chance and maybe eventually even a third. We might be so self-centred that maybe we fail to perceive that other people also have ties which likewise they would like to be reviewed".

I'm assuming that in the conclusion of this quote, you are referring to priests. I'm not self-centred at all. It just so happens that the situation is not analogous. Priests who do not want to remain celibate can always leave the priesthood. They do have a way out, so to speak.

But in any case, I'm not against giving priests the option of marrying while remaining priests. It's just that I don't see it as any of my business to argue for or against. I'm not even a member of the Catholic church. It's neither my problem, nor do I have the right to interfere in how the Catholic church makes rules for its own members.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 23rd 2010, 20:10

@ Franco Farrugia:

Franco, I mentioned a whole list of negative practices and you choose to single out one item and make a fuss about it.

If you think that I have something against the body, forget it! I myself like to take care of my appearance, if for nothing else it is because it makes me feel good. But this fixation with rippling muscles being a turn-on, I myself find it ridiculous as I find ridiculous, fake boobs.

Rippling muscles turn to fat and flab if not arduously maintained and fake boobs are just that – fake.

Regarding your quote: “In married life, what is worrying is that the couple fail to see the need to further keep up one's attractiveness towards the other - and perhaps, that is also when trouble starts.” I can only say that you could be right and - you do not have to be explicit - though I doubt that when one loves a person one bothers all that much about the outward appearance.

It is generally a likeable character and compatibility that keeps couples together.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:35

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 3.

Perhaps, it is not for us to discuss whether priests should be celibate or not for I am sure that debates are ongoing in the right quarters, but maybe getting feedback from laymen would be a way of showing a different perspective.

I have made my views amply clear but of course, mine is a narrow view, and that is why I threw the teaser at the commentators - to try and broaden my view.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:32

@ Kenneth Cassar:
Part 2.
Now, I will try to discuss both marriage and the priesthood together. Both states of life were entered into willingly and fully aware that there are obligations attached to them: Marriage is forever and priesthood requires the vow of celibacy.

However we are almost all in favour of divorce, which is really a reneging on the contract of marriage but we fail to dwell on the predicament that a priest finds himself in, if he were to fall in love and would like to have a family.

One might say that a priest can always leave the priesthood – fair enough.

But judging by how much vocations have dwindled, which does not necessarily mean that young men are not attracted to the Holy Orders, one would do well to consider why these young men find it so hard to commit themselves to God.

Continued…

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 23rd 2010, 15:26

@ Kenneth Cassar: “In a word, no, provided that it is freely chosen ...."
Part 1.

Yes Kenneth, Mr. Curmi has already made it amply clear!

I felt like asking that question as a teaser - to set the ball rolling so to speak. I wanted to branch out the discussion to include other facets.

For instance: We are at the moment very much into the “divorce issue” and we are in for many more discussions pertaining to the latter. As I see it, we, perhaps egoistically, clamour for divorce because we have not acquired from marriage what we had hoped for. So we want a second chance and maybe eventually even a third. We might be so self-centred that maybe we fail to perceive that other people also have ties which likewise they would like to be reviewed.

I asked the question: “"Marriage is a basic human right. Would celibacy be going against this right?" for a reason, which is the following: In previous blogs some commentators had insisted that divorce is a basic human right. This statement was rebutted and it was almost affirmed that marriage is a basic human right whilst divorce is not.

Continued…

Franco Farrugia

Aug 23rd 2010, 14:26

Jessica, reallllly! To even think of claiming that I am out of touch with reality ... is ... preposterous, to say the least? What is so wrong with one showing off one's physique? What is this that Roman Catholics have, against the body, against sex in general, against all that is physical? What is so wrong with it? I really think that I am far, far too much immersed in reality - that's what's wrong with me. We are, after all, animals. And the study of animals shows that males and females make a good effort at attracting others. I prefer things to be like that, where one looks after one's body, where one looks after one's appearance. In married life, what is worrying is that the couple fail to see the need to further keep up one's attractiveness towards the other - and perhaps, that is also when trouble starts. Need I be more explicit, Jessica? Because I can be, very much. But I doubt whether what I would have to say will be reproduced.

Richard Curmi

Aug 23rd 2010, 13:43

@ Ms. Jessica DeBattista: "This pride in having a member of your family as a religious was very strong at one time". Years ago having a priest in the family was seen as enhancing that family's social standing in the local community. Trouble was that once it was public knowledge that a young man is studying at the seminary or had joined a religious order, as you rightly intimated, there was no turning back. It would have been a scandal of some sort.

Even earlier in the piece once a boy played with his altar, joined the ranks of the altar boys and perhaps was heard saying that he wanted to become a priest, his destiny was sealed.

He wouldn't be allowed to mix with other boys who had other interests, girls were absolutely out of bounds and bit by bit was cut off from the world that he should have been allowed to know better before his final decision.

That was a time also when both the diocese and the religious orders tried everything to attract young people to the priestly/religious life putting excessive importance on the numbers.

Hopefully today is different.

Kenneth Cassar

Aug 23rd 2010, 12:26

@ Jessica DeBattista:

"Marriage is a basic human right. Would celibacy be going against this right?".

In a word, no, provided that it is freely chosen, and I believe the priesthood is nowadays freely entered.

That something is a basic human right does not mean that people have to partake in it by force. Rights imply a choice - the choice to use the right or not.

While I do not wish to enter into the debate on priestly celibacy, I only would like to point out that Catholic priestly celibacy is a free choice - no one is forced to become a priest.

Fr Joe Borg

Aug 23rd 2010, 07:38

"Mexico for Fr Joe?" Would not mind it one little bit though I would prefer other places, if given a chance. The dungeons of the Inquisition are not one of them. Joking apart. discussion is ongoing inside the Church.

CJohn Zammit

Aug 23rd 2010, 01:35

'Alternative'; 'position'! Wot? The Maltese chapter of the Kama Sutra?"

Any which way one feels around this topic, it's all make believe.

@Jessica DeBattista
Franco's reference to the 90-year olds, is spot on. If there were sexual-historians willing to dig the dirt on what went on in those 'innocent' days, their report would make Vella Gera's fiction read like a fairy tale. The old-timers had their way in more ways than one.

@Dr. Joe Brincat
"Fr Joe, I think there is some confusion. Celibacy is not getting married. Chastity is a virtue."

Now, I am confused!

In Canadian-English, "celibacy" means, "[the] commitment to abstain from sexual relations and from marriage"; "chastity" means, "sexual abstinence; virginity".

The latter can happen even in marriage, so much so that, Article 19A of the Marriage Act considers non-consummation to be sufficient grounds for Annulment.

Imagine that ... annulment of a valid marriage! An absurdity!

In Canada, as everywhere else on the planet (no need to mention the Philippines), the legal termination of a valid marriage is referred to as, "Divorce".

i am sure that Fr. Borg will be getting around, again, to the divorce-issue, which is much more interesting than discussing priestly vows.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 22nd 2010, 20:07

@ Richard Curmi:
Part 2.
There are other similar cases I am aware of when young lads “willingly” embarked on this voyage with the full blessing and pride of the parents.

This pride in having a member of your family as a religious was very strong at one time and it was tantamount to a smear on the family name if the person concerned opted out. So these men waited out the demise of their parents before they took steps to get a dispensation.

I can mention other cases where these men still struggle on for not everyone has the mettle to take such a drastic step.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 22nd 2010, 20:05

@ Richard Curmi: “How well does a young person understand what is involved in opting for that life?”

Part 1.
Mr. Curmi that is the question that should be addressed for although as you rightly say, “…when one follows willingly his vocation to the priesthood one knows that one has to embrace celibacy”, yet unfortunately, they are often not fully aware of what they are in for.

Very often these young adolescents are drawn to the priesthood at a time when they are not yet exposed to what life can offer.

I can quote a case, quite close to home, where a young boy brought up as a boarder with the Jesuits was naturally drawn to the religious way of life and would have willingly joined the brotherhood had not the foresight of his mother deterred him with these exact words: “Take your time! Don’t rush in. Wait until the battle starts (meaning wait until you start getting sexual feelings).

Continued…..

Richard Curmi

Aug 22nd 2010, 13:47

@Ms. Jessica DeBattista; "Marriage is a basic human right. Would celibacy be going against this right? "

Forced celibacy would be going against that right. However when one follows willingly his vocation to the priesthood one knows that one has to embrace celibacy. It is the individual's choice to go for Holy Orders or not to answer that call. No one makes him join the priesthood against his will. He would be renouncing to that right out of his own will.

Also in other comments the difference between celibacy and chastity was brought up in a correct way. Indeed I understand that besides embracing celibacy, those receiving holy orders or joining a religious order take a vow of chastity.

Can a person dominate his/her sexual urges throughout their lives? Isn't it very hard to renounce to the intimacy of a relationship with a loved person? Would not married priests be as dedicated and understanding as celibate priests?
How well does a young person understand what is involved in opting for that life?

Anyway, am I right in saying the John Paul II banned any further dicussion of this topic? Mexico for Fr Joe?

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:12

@ Franco Farrugia:

Part 2.
Regarding “temptation” and the relaxed attitude towards sex, it is enough to keep in mind today’s mentality about censorship: the easy availability of pornography; the cult of binge drinking which is gaining ground and lessening inhibitions in the process; The one-night stands with persons one barely remember their names the next morning; the sort of attire designed to titillate; fake boobs (costing thousands of euro) bursting from tight corsets…..

The men are not lagging behind either: They are killing themselves working out in the gym to have those hard biceps and well defined six pack. Their attire too is designed to show off to advantage the muscle definition often boosted by steroids.

It is all about the “body beautiful” and sex nowadays, and if you fail to see it I have to say that you are not in touch with reality.

Notwithstanding, like you, I’m quite happy to be living in the present time but I can look back to other times with nostalgia, when girls were approached with more respect.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 22nd 2010, 10:09

@ Franco Farrugia: “I hope that Jessica Debattista is not glorifying the past. I have it from 90-yr olds that the same things took place in the past as much as they are happening nowadays.”

Part 1.
Franco I am not glorifying the past.

I said that “…in the past it was relatively easier to live a virtuous life for there was not the temptation that we are engulfed with nowadays.” Note the emphasis on “relatively easier”. And if you think that they happened as much as they are happening nowadays than you must be wearing blinkers.

Continued….

Franco Farrugia

Aug 21st 2010, 20:00

I hope that Jessica Debattista is not glorifying the past. I have it from 90-yr olds that the same things took place in the past as much as they are happening nowadays. The difference is that there is less hypocrisy amongst young people now and things happen out in the open whereas then, things were very, very shrouded. Then, the father's word was law in the family. A pregnant girl was first given a hiding, then bundled off to Gozo, the child never ever heard of. Abortions, using natural means, were not unheard of either. So, whether there were chaperones or not, the human flesh, back then, was not very different from the way it is today. I would never for a moment want to live at that time.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 21st 2010, 11:32

Part2.
Depression and other ailments are not unknown to happen to priests who have to suppress natural urges. Alcoholism is another problem, for loneliness can at times become unbearable. Now isn’t that a cause of worry?

It is true that all above-mentioned ailments happen to everyone, but generally one tries more than the prescribed pills to get better, for one is advised to work out any problems worrying the person. But how does one work out the “problem” of celibacy when one is bound by a solemn vow?

In today’s society one should be in awe and admiration of priests who are willing to live a celibate life but one would think that priests should be allowed to get married if they so wanted later on in life.

Wouldn’t it be better to have priests marry rather than have priests leaving the priesthood so that they can marry?

Jessica deBattista

Aug 21st 2010, 11:30

Part 1.
“However, don't tell me that the requirement for most men who wanted to be priests but had to accept mandatory life-time celibacy as a condition, it was not a monstrous demand by a hierarchy in Rome that were, and still are, determined to keep absolute control over the clergy regardless of the cost."

So said Mr. Lovejoy who apparently gave the best years of his life to God but who in his maturity must have needed more than the spiritual union with God. With a name like that I am not surprised that he wanted to experience more from life. And what is wrong with that?

Continued….

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 21st 2010, 11:23

@ Franco Farrugia and Dr. Joe Brincat:

As Franco Farrugia and Dr. Joe Brincat rightly pointed out celibacy and chastity are not necessarily the same.

Celibacy is not marrying and not having sexual relations – an unmarried couple in love do have a sexual relationship even if they do not go as far as having intercourse - and they are unlikely to be chaste. Therefore I should have said, “It was extremely hard for them to resist but somehow they managed to refrain from sexual intercourse which was a prerogative of marriage.”

Chastity is a virtue and a state of sinlessness which I dare say no human being is exempt from.

The main point I wanted to stress however, was that in the past it was relatively easier to live a virtuous life for there was not the temptation that we are engulfed with nowadays.

Kevin Cassar

Aug 21st 2010, 02:06

By the way I forgot "CELIBACY NEVER"

Kevin Cassar

Aug 21st 2010, 02:05

Funny how Joe Zammit of Paola has nothing to say on this matter. I would expect him to come out with the usual - "Celibacy goes against the commands of God and is therefore EVIL"

God clearly said in Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth"

Or is this another one to chalk out?

Dr Joe Brincat

Aug 20th 2010, 22:58

Fr Joe, I think there is some confusion. Celibacy is not getting married. Chastity is a virtue. There are many confirmed bachelors, consequently celibate, but they make little virtue of chastity. Both are difficult. The urge to form a family, to have another "soul" close to you, and especially the instinct to "create" another generation are there. To renounce to them for a purpose is no light matter. Chastity is even more difficult, as the instincts cannot be silenced even by a decision to remain celibate.

I know what both mean, even if my attempt was for three and a half years with the Franciscans. When the news got around that I was joining, a friend of mine was tending his twin brothers. He raised one of them and told me :"Now you will not have like these". What a challenge !

A hypocrite would say that the instincts were making life easy for me.

I have great understanding for those who try and fail. I am not speaking about perverts. These cast doubt on the others whose life is a daily via crucis.

Franco Farrugia

Aug 20th 2010, 18:54

Dear Jessica, allow me to point out what I think - think - is a mistake in your first part.
'It was extremely hard for them to resist but somehow they managed to remain celibate.'
I very much doubt that they managed to 'remain celibate'. Celibacy goes much, much further than that. I really think, Jessica, that these young people were not 'celibate'. Ok, they may not have indulged in full sex, but ... in the privacy of their own rooms? I am sure that their friendly right hand had something to do with it and I am trying very hard to write in a correct manner, in the presence of the priest (sic). I repeat that celibacy goes much, much further than merely not having sex.

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 20th 2010, 18:49

Marriage is a basic human right.

Would celibacy be going against this right?

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 20th 2010, 00:53

Part 3.
When a couple falls in love, they are lost to the world, but the relationship transforms itself as time goes by. There might come a time when the feeling is almost platonic and sex is just performed because our nature needs an outlet and the instrument is at hand. (Sorry for being crude!)

I cannot help but wonder whether priests go through the same process i.e. they get the calling (usually at a very young age) and they are then entrusted to a superior whose job is to nourish this fervour. They are ordained priests, willingly giving themselves to God but, as time goes by, is this love for God transformed?

And since they are not immune to falling in love, would they love God the less if they were to get married?

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 20th 2010, 00:51

Part 2.

If one thinks of a vocation as a “falling in love” one wonders how long the heady feeling will last.

I had gone through a phase in my life when I had felt so close to God that I was almost jealous that I had to share Him with everybody else. I was almost in love with God and I’m sure that at that particular phase, I would have found a celibate life no hardship at all.

But that phase passed and though I still love God, I am not “in love” with God and so other feelings pertaining to my nature demand satisfaction.

Continued…

Jessica DeBattista

Aug 20th 2010, 00:48

Part 1.

There was a time, in the not too distant past, when most young people abstained from having sex even when they were engaged to be married. It was extremely hard for them to resist but somehow they managed to remain celibate. Their love was expressed in endearments which sufficed for the moment, and they lived in anticipation of the wedding day. But times were different then. Temptation was not what it is nowadays!

Can one imagine such a relationship in this day and age?

Thinking about priesthood in this day and age, I cannot but marvel how a vow of celibacy can be maintained. I am even more amazed to hear of new priests willing to make that sacrifice.

Continued…

victor rodenas

Aug 19th 2010, 21:20

In the first centuries after Christ, Bishops and Priests could marry.Man invented celibacy.......what man do he can undo.Jesus chose married men to be the first priests.This fact is never discussed when we refere to celibacy.Are Protestant married Priest not doing their duty well because they are married?