The below is a reply to this article on the news that a priest got caught playing around with a woman on a beach.
I find some of the things noted in the article questionable. For instance, it was noted that Father Cutié does not oppose the celibacy rule. I recall watching a clip that implied just the opposite. And, it sounds to me that he does not want to be some sort of spokesman, but does he really support the current policy? Some accounts say "no" he does not:
The Rev. Alberto Cutie, who lost his church and radio show last week after the release of the photos, also said while he still believes in celibacy for priests, he thinks it should be optional.
"I do believe that people should be given the option to marry or not to marry in order to serve God," he said. "But the Church, see, has tradition and practices that are part of wanting to do what is right. I think we've all have ideals, and we have ways of living, and we want to do things right. But the truth is, sometimes we fall short. And I fell short."
[The article also quotes the "I don't want to be the anti-celibacy priest," which now is put in context.] But, "optional" is not the idea, is it? You cannot say "well, I think birth control or divorce is on the whole bad, but sometimes, well, I think we can choose it." Note that the woman he was caught with is divorced. Divorce is not allowed in the Catholic Church though (as Sen. Kennedy's ex-wife will tell you) there is an arbitrary annulment process available in various cases. Water tends to find an outlet, no matter what the "rules" say. As the article notes:
In the Catholic tradition, sexual fecundity is a good thing. Such Catholic countries as Brazil, France, Italy, and Spain are hardly known for their puritanical sexual mores. Even in northern climes, the large Catholic family is proverbial.
Some of these countries are also well know for sex before marriage, adultery and so forth. That is, they violate widely held Catholic morals. So, let's not be coy here, hmm? We are then told:
But the priests who stand in the person of Christ at Mass, who dispense God's mercy in the confessional, who baptize our children and bury our dead—we Catholics expect them to be sexually abstemious. They are supposed to be holy, and holiness has always and everywhere been associated with purity. For a variety of complicated historical reasons, the purity that matters most when discussing the Catholic clergy is sexual purity. And sexual deviation, more so than any other of the many forms of human sinfulness, brings out the tabloid editor in all of us.
Now, someone else noted that one of those "complicated historical reasons" was that in feudal times, celibacy had property implications. I don't mind that over time old mores change their basis some, just as marriage has over time become more of an equal partnership between men and women than it once was (just as the "male as breadwinner" ideal replaced one where the wife often had a more equal role in home economics, including producing clothes and raising food).
But, let's not b.s. -- to be blunt -- here too much, okay? First, "purity" is a complex quality, underlining by the fact that so many non-Catholic clergy are sexually active, in fact, often they are expected to get married (fornication might be deemed impure but not all types of sex). Again, some have written -- including with cites to biblical texts -- to show how this is understood to be scripturally compelled. Some even suggest this supports the idea of same sex marriage.
Next, if you want to talk about sexual deviation, and the "tabloid editor," not having sex is considered "deviant" in this culture. Or, generally speaking, probably. This helps explain why certain people look upon priests with a certain cynical eye, some assuming that Catholic priests are probably statistically more likely to be homosexuals.
We also have mixed up ideas about sex in this country -- considering it "impure" to be baptized by someone who has sex personally seems a bit strange to me (fwiw) -- and artificial rules that the most Catholic friendly countries simply do not follow are not helpful. The article suggests the celibacy provides a sign that sex is not everything. It very well might do the opposite -- it highlights it, makes it taboo, in effect, can pervert it. It is like being against birth control and abortion. Is this really the way to truly, in honest practice, promote the "sanctity of life"?
Father Cutié suggests it should be a choice for a priest not to marry. If a member of the clergy believes that his or her path is to serve the church and congregation, foregoing a family of their own (or rather, certain type of family), it might be the right choice for them. But, let's fetishize sexual purity so much in the process. Just as a vow of "poverty" might not be too harsh if you live and work in a middle class parish that very well might be a step up from your origins, there are various ways to be "pure," and a blanket rule for such a worldwide institution of sexual abstinence is not a realistic path to purity.
The inability of the article to be fully honest seems to only underline this. My concern here is not a blanket rejection of doctrine, but a plea for it to be handled in a more honest way. Many active Catholics would agree.