It was the hysterical media coverage of the funeral of the Pope Jean Paul ll three years ago that stimulated my interest. The whole thing made me feel alienated, more and more at odds with the millions of people who could obviously see something important in the Papal system. 

I looked at, by moments, to the hours and hours of coverage in Rome.  The fabulous robes, the processions, the crowds, the extraordinary temples of the Catholic Church… and felt…  confused and repulsed.

How could anyone think that this glorified circus had ANYTHING to do with Jesus – the man or the mythe.  And it is about him, the Christian religion, n’est pas?  That these emotionally charged, milling hordes actually believed in the god that these men – only men – represent - made me tired with frustration....what was I missing?   At best it was a scene from the child’s story of the Emperor’s New Clothes.  At it’s worst, it was an indication of how little intellectual distance we have made since the dark ages.

When Tony Blair became a Catholic (as did Charles II on his death bed) it was time for me to try to understand.  The inauguration of a new Pope seemed an ideal opportunity.
I read and watched all I could, determined to learn the general ‘raison d’être’ of the Catholic Church.  Very quickly I discovered that the most important subject of control for the Church is SEX.  It is this, above all else, that holds a spell over the clergy.  The four horsemen of the Catholic Church – Celibacy, Abortion, Contraception and Homosexuality. 

Celibacy.  

The  reasons for clerical celibacy were originally theological. Firstly is the desire to follow the teachings of Jesus who was considered chaste – even though modern theological historians consider that on this subject, like so many others, truth and faith rarely coincide.  

Secondly it is based on the quotes from the bible, such as ‘the sacrifice of married life’ as quoted in the writings of Luke 18:28-30, Matthew 19:27-30;and Mark 10:20-21. But in each case neither chastity or celibacy is mentioned by name, simply the spiritual rewards possible, having left hearth and home to follow Jesus. (wonder how their wives and children thought of all that).

Priests are supposed to follow the example of Jesus who was "married" to the Church, viewed by many Christian traditions as the "Bride of Christ". Which is curious, since I thought the ‘Church’ was created after his death, by St. Paul, also states that chastity is the superior state of life for all unwed believers - as expressed in I Corinthians 7:7-8, But even he was fairly tolerant on the issue...
"I would that all men were even as myself (celibate) but every one has his ‘proper gift from God’, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and the widows. It is good for them if they so continue, even as I”. Unfortunately he doesn’t say why.  Maybe it had something to do with the lack of hygiene and contraception 2000 years ago. 

Then in verse 9 he continues...
“But if they cannot contain, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn"  Goodness, that’s a lot more radical. So he really did have a thing about a bit of nooky. Yes, I know I’m being facetious... and it was written a very long time ago.

Let’s accept that it was a noble idea at the time, for a man of the cloth, on a personal level…like giving up chocolate for lent, only long term. A sort of personal proof that higher matters can dominate carnal urges through religious thought.   

This is, I imagine, assuming that prayer can absorb the religious man’s every waking hour, and that genetically his penis hasn’t got a mind of it’s own.   I’m not sure if masturbation is also a sin or not, but at least it’s unverifiable: though, presumably, for the very pious, even this release would be renounced. 

In reality, those few men who have a naturally low sex drive (types like the characters of Hercules Poirot or Sherlock Holmes, or real life men such as Edward Heath, Cliff Richards, my Uncle Joe, Gandhi...and I believe even he had problems) could probably cope well.  However; for those who have a more pronounced libido, there is a real problem.  There are cases of priests, forcing celibacy on themselves against their own natures, who have become mentally deranged, transferring their repressed instincts into all manner of obsessional behaviour.  More often than not, celibacy means loneliness too, exacerbating the dilemma.   

There is a distinction between monks and priests.  In general a monk is cut off from the secular world, in a semi permanent communion with himself and God.  He is surrounded by men of the same ideologies as himself, and can more likely live out his days in a personal and social cocoon, concentrating on his religious devotions. 

A priest, however, is a public person, guiding, comforting and forgiving his flock.  He is in contact with all manner of humanity, especially at their life changing moments, birth marriages and death.  This man, supposedly celibate and pure, is assumed to understand the world around him.  This includes the behaviour and psychological stresses of people with whom the priest can have little more than a glimmer of their mind set.  How can a man, who has – let’s imagine - dominated all his own weaknesses, have sympathy for those who haven’t?

Obviously there are the exceptions… men of such empathy that they can give genuine help. But choosing to be distanced from ‘normal’ life can’t be conducive to meaningful communication.  The only plus point could be that without a private life of their own, they can give 100% to their vocation….though this again is often part of the problem.

Nuns and women in general, barring rare exceptions, find it a lot easier to live without sex… which makes them stronger and safer.

The recent terrible scandals, mainly - but by no means uniquely - in America, of paedophiles in the priesthood was shocking proof of the mental deformities that celibacy can provoke.       The 2007 prize winning documentary by BBC’s Panorama, examines the facts.  It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope, who was responsible for inforcing the rules concerning sexual offenders in the priesthood for the last 20 years.
A secret document called Crimen Sollicitationis was written in 1962 and contains the procedures for dealing with child sex abuse scandals... implying that the Vatican is well aware of such problems and therefore expecting these kinds of situations..

Crimen Sollicitationis has been seen by few outsiders and anyway is written in Latin to avoid the casual reader.  It was sent to Catholic bishops worldwide, who were ordered to lock it away in the church safe.           
It informs them of how to deal with priests who solicit sex from the confessional and also deals with "any obscene external act ... with youths of either sex."  It imposes an oath of secrecy on the child victim, the priest involved and any witnesses, with a threat of ex-communication should the ‘oath’ be violated.  And the saddest fact is that most of this suffering could be avoided if the rule of celibacy was abolished.

Abortion

For me, the subject of abortion is so utterly feminine and so personal in every case that any religious role should be a non-judgemental support when required.  In countries with safe medical services, women have been able to have a termination and maintained their privacy. In many cases, a man or the man have not been consulted. Naturally the exception is when a woman looks for guidance from a male figure, by choice.

A termination is never undertaken lightly, but when it happens, it is usually a woman who knows in her heart that it’s the right thing to do, or forced onto her by a silverback male.  Anyone, anti-abortionists, the inseminator or the Roman Church should have no say – unless of course, they are prepared to take on the financial responsibility for the child, until his or her majority.  Otherwise, it shouldn’t be and isn’t any of their business.

The Catholic Church is run exclusively by men.  That their ideology states that all human life is sacred is honourable, but usually taken out of any real practical context.

In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared the Church’s teaching on abortion, saying it "is unchanged and unchangeable.Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors, I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church " (Evangelium Vitae 62).

This black and white attitude dictated to by men - who have been cut off for the struggles of liacal life from their earliest years - intolerant and unrealistic. Of course the debate rages on within the non religious talking classes about the morality of stopping pregnancies, and the horrors heard about in China’s one baby policy are cruel and inhuman, so the concerns are certainly not the prerogative of the Church.  If we could just inject a little understanding and humanity, our world would turn a little easier.  In Western Europe, outside the Catholic religion, we seem to have sorted it out quite well.

I remember my mother, sitting in her wheelchair, who said - referring to a televised discussion on population...
“Maybe we should first learn to give a better life to those who are already born, than forever being interested in more babies”.


Contraception

The Church is clear on this - no artificial contraception. No pills, no condoms, no other man-made devices.  I wonder how many people would now be trying to live on this one small planet if no one ever used contraception.  

There’s also a very murky logic to the ‘no contraception’ dictate.  Saying ‘no’ is a form of contraception; ie preventing new life, so where is the line between a refusal and using a condom?   Only penetration... Ahah! so that’s what they object to.... Oh I don’t know !!  So where is the line between other sexual practices and using a condom?  As usually I’m missing something.

Even if this doctrinal rule stems from the idea that life is sacred… there is no existing life involved with contraception…. So logically, the problem is not so much ‘not preventing life’ but ‘not having sex ’.  Again it seems that the church has never liked anyone having a sex life.  However, all the Catholics that I know, take no notice of this rule, which, to me, makes even more nonsense of the whole thing. 

Maybe; originally; centuries ago; it was a way of controlling sexually transmitted diseases and the breakdown of family life: long before we had personal independence for both sexes, education and the social safety nets of our modern society.  And even today, in under-developed countries with a Catholic tradition, there are uneducated oppressed people who only have their faith and their sex lives to comfort them and believe in keeping to the rules - with catastrophic consequences. Even faithful couples face poverty, misery and another one on the way, proliferating yet more poverty.

The present day situation is such, that this dictate has become ridiculous.  Control of the HIV Aids pandemic is hampered in some places, especially in Africa, by the Church’s ruling on condoms.  Abstention being the only way acceptable to the Church of Rome..  How realistic is that in lands so poor that the only way many women can feed their existing children, is prostitution - before they die of AIDS ?  It is a blind and evil doctrine.


Homosexuality

To acknowledge homosexuality, one has to start by acknowledging sex for it’s own sake… already a step too far for the Church… thus any two people who stimulate each other sexually, without the aim of reproduction are committing a sin.  Is this a proper moral code or just ordinary hypocrisy ?   

Recently the Church has written down guide lines for new recruits coming into the priesthood, who are becoming more and more difficult to find.  They mainly concern  homosexuality.  The finished communiqué is both rigid and concessional.  Priests who have ‘leanings’ are accepted, providing that they have abstained for the previous 3 years.   Now tell me,  how does that work in practice – taking their word?

In an article in Time Magazine about Pope Benedict XVI there was a quote from a Church document defining homosexual behaviour as “intrinsically disordered”.  I happen to agree.  but that’s not to say that I couldn’t have been gay myself... Consenting adults should be free to chose their own life styles, whatever anyone else thinks…..and for a saner society, so should Catholic priests.

In the days when homosexuality was still totally taboo, the church was a real option for a young, believing, gay man to find respectability.  If they realised as the years went by, that they had asked of themselves more than they could deal with, then there are several outcomes.... Either they found - with luck - a like-minded priest for a mutually discrete affair, or as we know, with the opportunity and a untouchable reputation they can turn into child abusers.  All in the name of the archaic rules of the Church.   I’m sure it was no different in centuries gone by... the hiearchy of the clergy has always had to contain homosexuality within it’s ranks.

Having a gay girlfriend back in the 60’s and gay male colleagues when I worked in aviation, has helped me to accept people as individuals.  I believe that in an ever confusing world each one of us must try to find a comforting private life.  I also believe that around 80% of gay people were born to be so - disordered or not - and that there is as much perversity in their ranks as in any group of heterosexuals.  

As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, its obsession with sexual denial is just another mind game that can, and always will, cause certain individuals to become predators.  In the name of common sense I suggest
1) that priests have a sex life of their choice, like the rest of us
2) that contraception is accepted as a saviour from several miseries
3) that women are allowed the right to make adult decisions for themselves.
Small concessions for the well being of all and a tiny step towards each of us finding a balanced life, in a crazy world.  Thank goodness that - dispite the crowds that cheer and the apparent devotion to the Pope - most of us don’t actually take much notice of the anti-sex laws made by bigoted robed figures cloistered in that enclave they call the Vatican.

As for understanding any more about the Roman Catholic Religion...Well no, I still don’t get it, but – as the saying goes - some of my best friends are Catholic, and I’ll always respect everyone’s right to believe as they wish.

Valda Lynen 2008

Comments (10)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form