As part of the pledge homily, our pastor mentioned that people ask, "Father, do you tithe?" He says, "Yes." They ask, "Does it hurt?" He answers, "Not really. It's a habit I've had for many years." This brought me to recognizing once again that he's the sort of pastor who brings up things like habits of virtue, and this brought me to the question of married priests.
Before I became Catholic, I more or less reflexively ascribed to what I believe Tom Wolfe called the "steam boiler" theory of sexuality, that the sex drive continually builds up pressure, which if it isn't released, will result in explosion. Wolfe contrasted this with the "electronic circuit" theory of sexuality, in which current following particular pathways reinforces those pathways. Wolfe thought the "steam boiler" theory, on which Freudian psychology is based, was absurd. This intrigued me. In fact, I brought it up with TEC Fr David Miller in my 1981 confirmation class. Fr Miller, who was responsible for the formulation that Anglo-Catholics want the prestige without paying the dues, nevertheless became so exercised that he almost accused me of heresy -- clearly he was a committed Freudian.
A pastor who advocates developing habits of virtue, which I've heard several Catholic priests do, probably ascribes to the "electronic circuit" theory, which goes to one basis for not seeing anything wrong with a celibate and chaste priesthood. Chastity, I come to see, is a habit that's developed like any other. I've got to think that a successful priestly formation includes the resources by which men develop the habit of chastity. The priesthood is a sacrifice. Whether an individual is called to that sacrifice would include whether he's capable of developing the habits of virtue that go with it. Otherwise, this would be evidence that he doesn't have the vocation.
So next we come to the proposals that are made for Rome to allow married priests, at least, outside the exceptions that are currently made for married ex-Protestants. Fr Ripperger has basically asked the question I like to ask: "What problem are we trying to solve?" Is it the problem of pedophile priests? Married men are pedophiles, this doesn't stop them. Married Protestant pastors are pedophiles. Let's go farther. Is it the problem of predatory gay sexually harassing bishops? I think we need look only at the example of TEC Bp Paul Moore, Jr, who had nine children but was finally forced into retirement by a sexual harassment suit from a male priest in his TEC diocese.
In fact, it seems to me that the whole basis of the sixth commandment is to recognize that there's marriage, but that adultery happens, in a large number of possible forms. Having some men get married is not, logically speaking, a deterrent to adultery; it simply defines what then takes place. But theologically, the priests are already married to the Church, so if they engage in the wide range of adulterous conduct, they're already adulterous.
But let's look at Catholic permanent deacons. My understanding is that married men who want to become permanent deacons are allowed to enter formation only when it's plain that their children are nearly grown, and thus their families won't either be shortchanged by their duties, or impose too great a burden on their performance. There's apparently quite a bit of attention paid to forming the wives of deacons as well as the deacons themselves.
Yet following the Luke Reese affair, I saw comments on various blogs that far less attention is paid to forming the wives of OCSP priests than is paid to the wives of permanent deacons. And beyond that, the normative family photo of newly-ordained OCSP priests shows a happy-face group posed with children in the high single digits a la Paul Moore, Jr, ranging from teens to babes in arms. Frankly, is this prudent? If it's not a good idea for permanent deacons, why is it good for OCSP priests?
I've observed here many times that there's basically a two-tier acceptance path for OCSP clergy. For the married ones, there was at least previously a tendency to select men not too far from secular retirement age, which meant their children were largely out of the house. But now, the tendency is to bend whatever standards may once have existed and go to great lengths to find much younger men with large families still in progress. On the other hand, there's the much smaller number of celibate seminarians.
What problem are we trying to solve? What problems are we seeking out when we just don't need them?
