Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1974
A Question of Freedom L E O M. C R O G H A N T i m e p r u n e s c o n t r o v e r s y . W i t h e r e d t h o u g h t s fall a w a y . F o r e i g n ideas are s e p a r a t e d . A n d t h e central issue, w h i c h has g a t h e r e d s t r e n g t h over the years, is revealed. T i m e has p r u n e d t h e c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r o p t i o n a l celibacy. Weak a r g u m e n t s p r e t e n d i n g t h a t a celibate is m o r e c a p a b l e of d e d i c a t i o n , having languished w i t h o u t t h e w a t e r o f e x p e r i e n c e , h a v e died. H o w does a m a r r i e d priest m a n a g e a f a m i l y and a parish? " A n y b u s y d o c t o r c o u l d tell y o u t h a t , " a n s w e r e d t h e Rev. R o b e r t D u r y e a , p a s t o r of a 4 , 0 0 0 - m e m b e r California parish a n d r e c e n t l y e x c o m m u n i c a t e d f o r his secret m a r r i a g e o f seven years. I n d e e d , a n y b u s y d o c t o r or e d i t o r or clerk or g r o c e r y m a n c o u l d h a v e t o l d us t h a t all along. T h e c e l i b a c y p o s i t i o n has l o n g d e f e n d e d itself w i t h c o v e r f r o m o t h e r fields. Since celibacy h a d b e e n so long i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e p r i e s t h o o d , it b e c a m e a l m o s t i m p o s s i b l e to challenge t h e first w i t h o u t b e i n g a c c u s e d o f a t t a c k i n g t h e s e c o n d . It was just five years ago t h a t a priest friend was denied e p i s c o p a l p e r m i s s i o n to publish an article o p p o s i n g t h e c e l i b a c y discipline. A n d n o w , in t i m e , has c o m e t h e t h e o l o g i c a l r e p o r t s p o n s o r e d b y the A m e r i c a n Bishops a n d w r i t t e n b y t h e Rev. A r m b r u s t e r , w h i c h f i r m l y s e p a r a t e s the p r i e s t h o o d f r o m t h e e n f o r c e d law o f c e l i b a c y : The simple theological fact is that celibacy is a charism bestowed by the Holy Spirit and it does not necessarily coincide with the charism of priestly service. (New York Times, April 16, 1971) While t h e c o n t r o v e r s y c o n t i n u e d , t h e t r u e issue, o f t e n i g n o r e d or dismissed, r e f u s e d to go a w a y and t o d a y stands u n c h a l l e n g e d as the p o i n t o f c o n t e n t i o n . T h a t issue is f r e e d o m . T h e N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r ' s s u r v e y o f priests was s u m m e d u p a r o u n d t h e q u e s t i o n o f f r e e d o m : Celibacy is a problem not because so many priests want to marry but principally because they are denied the freedom of choice. What is needed, suggested the psychologists, is a willingness on the part of bishops to give priests more freedom, which in turn would help develop the maturity that many of them now lack and thus make them more effective. (Time, April 26, 1971) Leo M. Croghan, Ph.D., is a clinical psychologist with experience in individual therapy with emotionally disturbed children and in family and group therapy, chiefly at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri. He served an internship in clinical psychology at Duke University in 1972-73. After 12 years in the Roman Catholic priesthood, he resigned from active ministry in 1971. 201
202
Journal of Religion and Health
In spite o f p r o t e s t s and i n d o c t r i n a t i o n to the c o n t r a r y , t h e r e has g n a w e d at t h e m i n d s of m a n y A m e r i c a n priests the fear t h a t t h e y are n o t free. T h e priestly s u b c u l t u r e presided over b y t h e a u t h o r i t a r i a n i m a g e o f the b i s h o p e n t w i n e d t h e priest w i t h a d o z e n sets o f e x p e c t a t i o n s , all t h e w a y f r o m clerical dress to r e q u e s t i n g p e r m i s s i o n f o r article p u b l i c a t i o n . It is a fear i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n spirit. T h e fear n o longer gnaws at t h e b a c k o f p r i e s t s ' minds. I t is o u t f r o n t f o r all to see. A n d n o w h e r e is it m o r e visible t h a n in t h e issue o f o p t i o n a l celibacy. T h e Rev. A n t h o n y P a d o v a n o in his " O p e n L e t t e r to A m e r i c a n B i s h o p s " (National Catholic R e p o r t e r , April 16, 1 9 7 1 ) p l a c e d his finger on this incongruence: At issue in optional celibacy is the right of radical freedom over the conduct of one's private life in the ministerial service of the church. The relationship between ministry and episcopacy will not be normalized in this country until the conciliar question of collegiality is adapted to ministerial priesthood and until the evangelical freedom of celibacy is applied to ministry in a land where freedom has been given unique expression. In F a t h e r P a d o v a n o ' s words, this is a land w h e r e f r e e d o m has b e e n given u n i q u e e x p r e s s i o n , a n d in the last d e c a d e t h e A m e r i c a n c h u r c h has b e c o m e a serious s p o k e s m a n for this f r e e d o m : f r e e d o m f o r the p o o r , the disenfranchised, the black. Y e t for all the d i g n i t y and h o n o r c o n n e c t e d with such a role, t h e c h u r c h ' s e f f o r t s are o f t e n d i r e c t e d at forces b e y o n d her i m m e d i a t e c o n t r o l . At t i m e s the very i m p o s s i b i l i t y of e f f e c t i n g change gives a safe, u n e x c i t i n g s o u n d to t h e call f o r f r e e d o m . B u t t h e r e is an area over which the c h u r c h has d i r e c t c o n t r o l . It is the area within. Until t h e r e is full f r e e d o m within, the c h u r c h will n o t be an effective s p o k e s m a n f o r t h e rights of m a n . Priests sense this. It is s o m e w h a t h y p o c r i t i c a l to s t a n d b e f o r e the w o r l d accusing it o f restrictions on p e o p l e ' s f r e e d o m w h e n o n e ' s o w n status is far m o r e restricted. Priests d o n o t have the " r i g h t of radical f r e e d o m over the c o n d u c t of their private lives in the ministerial service of t h e c h u r c h . " If priests do n o t h a v e o p t i m a l f r e e d o m f o r t h e m s e l v e s w i t h i n t h e i r o w n i n s t i t u t i o n , t h e i r stand on b e h a l f o f o t h e r s will a p p e a r w e a k or unreal. T h e u n r e a l i t y of t h e celibate cleric a p p e a r s in m o r e serious places t h a n in m i s g u i d e d s e r m o n s on h a p p y m a r r i a g e s and t h e w a y to rear children. T h e priest w h o speaks o u t for an i n t e g r a t e d n e i g h b o r h o o d d o e s n o t have to fear p r o p e r t y loss: the r e c t o r y will r e m a i n a clean, c o m f o r t a b l e island o f security, and besides, o n e d a y he will be t r a n s f e r r e d . The priest w h o e n c o u r a g e s his p a r i s h i o n e r s to send their children to i n t e g r a t e d schools has n o w o r r y a b o u t t h e quality o f his c h i l d r e n ' s e d u c a t i o n . It is f r e q u e n t l y said t h a t a clergy, b e c a u s e it is celibate, is able to s p e a k w i t h o u t fear o f retaliation t o w a r d wife or children. On the o t h e r h a n d , a m a n w i t h o u t f a m i l y faces the d a n g e r of recklessness, o f filling t h e void w i t h e x c i t e m e n t , o f e n c o u r a g i n g others to p e r f o r m b e y o n d t h e i r c a p a c i t y . T h e r e is t h e possibility of having an unreal view o f life. This d a n g e r is c o u n t e r b a l a n c e d in a clergy in w h i c h m a r r i e d and
A Question o f Freedom
203
c e l i b a t e w o r k t o g e t h e r . I t is intensified in a clergy in which e v e r y m a n is celibate. This u n r e a l i t y can b e c o m e a t t a c h e d to t h e value o f the celibate witness. In various civil rights m a r c h e s I have h e a r d priests b o a s t of their celibacy, h o w it frees t h e m f r o m familial worries a n d allows t h e m the public exercise o f p r o t e s t . On r e f l e c t i o n , this d o e s n o t a d d to b u t d e t r a c t s f r o m o u r witness, as if to say, had I real personal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , I w o u l d n o t be here. Whose witness carries t h e greater s t r e n g t h , t h a t o f Martin L u t h e r King w i t h his wife a n d children or t h a t o f Daniel Berrigan? It has b e e n argued that, h o w e v e r unreal t h e celibate p o s i t i o n m a y a p p e a r o n occasion, at least it is o n e t h a t a m a n has t h o u g h t a b o u t over a t r a i n i n g p e r i o d o f eight years a n d to w h i c h he p l e d g e d h i m s e l f at t h e t i m e o f o r d i n a t i o n . It is, so t h e a r g u m e n t goes, i m p e r a t i v e f o r s o c i e t y t h a t such a free c h o i c e and pledge be k e p t . I t m a y be q u e s t i o n e d , h o w e v e r , w h e t h e r or n o t a free c h o i c e was possible. T h e eight y e a r s o f training i n c l u d e d m a n y k i n d s o f o v e r t and subtle e n c o u r a g e m e n t s to affirm celibacy. M o r e o v e r , c e l i b a c y was clearly represented as t h e m o r e nearly p e r f e c t w a y o f life and was so t i g h t l y tied into the p r i e s t h o o d t h a t few were able to s e p a r a t e t h e t w o even t h e o r e t i c a l l y . B u t leaving t h e foregoing r e s p o n s e aside, the b e t t e r one is the simple s t a t e m e n t t h a t change has o c c u r r e d . T h e c h a n g e has t a k e n place w i t h i n o u r g e n e r a t i o n years a f t e r m o s t priests h a d p l e d g e d t h e m s e l v e s in a w o r l d w h e r e c e l i b a c y was placed first a m o n g priestly values. T o d a y the c h u r c h ' s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s e x u a l i t y has t u r n e d f r o m a negative m o r a l i t y to a p o s i t i v e a f f i r m a t i o n . Celibacy is no longer t o u t e d a b o v e marriage, and m a r r i a g e has e n h a n c e d its p o s i t i o n in s a c r a m e n t a l t h e o l o g y . T h e s e changes are real. T h e y a f f e c t lives. T h e y w e r e r e c o g n i z e d as real b y o n e N e w England priest w h o resigned t h e m i n i s t r y last y e a r and w h o i n c l u d e d this p a r a g r a p h in his l e t t e r of e x p l a n a t i o n : In the course of recent years, especially because of my training and experience in psychology, I have become increasingly aware of an "undeveloped area" in my life: that of feeling, which plays such a crucial though often unacknowledged role in the development of deep and close relationships. Concurrently, the Church's understanding of the role of feeling in an integral human life, especially as it applies to the domain of love, sexuality and marriage, has become more balanced, whereas in the past these values were more or less subtly downplayed. Since I judge that emotional growth is of crucial personal importance to me at this stage of life, I wish to act upon what I consider my deeper understanding. I cannot do so under the restrictions which a celibate life necessarily entails and so I have chosen to leave the active ministry which at present demands celibacy. (Personal communication) T h e w o r l d has changed. T h e c h u r c h p r e a c h e s this to her p e o p l e : y o u m u s t change y o u r m i n d on racial justice, o n t h e p r a c t i c e o f liturgy, on a t t i t u d e t o w a r d war. This m e a n s t h a t p e o p l e w h o p l e d g e d t h e m s e l v e s to a d e t a i l e d c h u r c h p o l i c y t w e n t y years ago are r e q u i r e d t o pledge t h e m s e l v e s a n e w t o a
204
Journal of Religion and Health
d i f f e r e n t one. This is h o w it m u s t be in a w o r l d o f change. B u t if t h e c h u r c h asks this change of her followers, she m u s t ask t h e s a m e o f her o w n officials. T h e a r g u m e n t s t h a t have elevated c e l i b a c y to a p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r o r d i n a t i o n h a v e fallen. Change has o c c u r r e d . Men should n o t b e f o r c e d to leave the m i n i s t r y in o r d e r to e f f e c t t h a t change w i t h i n t h e i r lives. T h e V a t i c a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l T h e o l o g y C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d like to ignore this change. In its O c t o b e r , 1970, r e p o r t t h e c o m m i s s i o n suggested t h a t , while it m a y b e useful to ordain m a r r i e d m e n to t h e p r i e s t h o o d , m a r r i a g e should n o t be an o p t i o n f o r o r d a i n e d priests w h o wish to c o n t i n u e in the m i n i s t r y . It is to t h e credit of t h e N a t i o n a l F e d e r a t i o n o f Priests' Councils t h a t it did n o t a c c e p t this w a y of s i d e s t e p p i n g the issue. R a t h e r t h e N F P C at its March, 1971, m e e t i n g e n t i t l e d its s t a t e m e n t " T h e M o m e n t o f T r u t h " and v o t e d it t h r o u g h b y a v o t e o f 182 to 23 w i t h t h e following r e c o m m e n d a t i o n : The substance of fidelity in ministry, however, is a commitment to service, and the charism of celibacy is subordinate to the charism of service. Faithful ministry in the church can also be effectively exercised by married priests. Therefore, we are convinced that the present law of mandatory celibacy in the Western church must be changed . . . . We call for the change to begin now. We ask that the choice between celibacy and marriage for priests now active in the ministry be allowed and that the change begin immediately. (National Catholic Reporter, 1971, 7, 8) T h e c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n the N F P C s t a t e m e n t and t h a t of the V a t i c a n ' s C o m m i s s i o n lies in t h e c o n c e p t of fidelity. In e f f e c t , the N F P C v o t e r e m i n d s t h e c h u r c h t h a t a priest's o r d i n a t i o n pledge c a n n o t be d i r e c t e d to an extrinsic value. It m u s t be a pledge to t h e evangelical ideal. T h e pledge is m a d e in practical w a y s t h a t , at t h e t i m e , are t h o u g h t to r e p r e s e n t best t h a t ideal b u t , should t h o s e w a y s u l t i m a t e l y p r o v e f a u l t y , as t h e y are d o i n g in o u r t i m e , t h e priest, t o o , m u s t change in o r d e r t o r e m a i n faithful to the ideal. In a n o t h e r article, F a t h e r P a d o v a n o urged the n e e d for a t h e o l o g y of fidelity. He is d e f i n i t e l y o n the side o f the N F P C d e c l a r a t i o n . He rejects the p r e s e n t n o t i o n o f fidelity t h a t t h e V a t i c a n C o m m i s s i o n w o u l d use to bind o r d a i n e d m e n to a c e l i b a t e life: The Catholic community requires a far more adequate theology of fidelity than that [by] which it now operates. If fidelity continues to be defined in terms of persistency in first commitments, especially with regard to non-essentials, then the larger question of fidelity will remain unanswered . . . . To compel an ordained minister of the gospel, for example, to express fidelity by a commitment to celibacy while depriving him of his more fundamental commitment to active ministry is to reverse the order of evangelical priorities. (Nalional Catholic Reporter, March 19, 1971) T h e A m e r i c a n B i s h o p s ' t h e o l o g y c o m m i t t e e has m a d e it clear t h a t celibacy is n o t a n e c e s s a r y r e q u i r e m e n t for t h e m i n i s t r y . This r e p r e s e n t s a change in a t t i t u d e and, if c e n t u r i e s m e a n a n y t h i n g to an i n s t i t u t i o n , a change in teaching. A priest, t h e n , o n c e pledged to an ideal t h r o u g h celibacy, learns t h a t his w o r l d has c h a n g e d . Is he to be f o r c e d to leave, as the N e w England
A Question of Freedom
205
priest did, in o r d e r to be t r u e to his d e e p e r c o m m i t m e n t to evangelical principles? F a t h e r P a d o v a n o describes t h e e f f e c t s o f an i r r a t i o n a l clinging to t h e discipline o f c e l i b a c y in this w a y : All of this comes down to a limited notion of fidelity--one which defines the faithful person as the one who always does what he once said he would, even though it destroys all that he is and all that he must become. It m a y s e e m overly d r a m a t i c t o i m p l y t h a t t h e discipline of c e l i b a c y c o u l d f o r c e a priest to " d e s t r o y all t h a t he is and all t h a t he m u s t b e c o m e . " Nevertheless, it has n o t b e e n a flair f o r d r a m a t i c s t h a t has f o r c e d the N e w E n g l a n d priest a n d t h o u s a n d s o f his fellow priests to leave t h e active m i n i s t r y . Decisions such as these are hell. T h e r e is no w a y o u t of t h e m w i t h o u t pain of an intense a n d p e r s o n a l kind. No one willingly c h o o s e s t h a t k i n d o f pain. So, t o o , f o r t h o s e m e n w h o , f a c e d w i t h a similar choice, h a v e d e c i d e d to stay w i t h i n the active p r i e s t h o o d . I t is n o t r i b u t e t o t h e discipline o f c e l i b a c y t h a t m a n y priests d e c i d e to stay. It is s i m p l y t h a t o n e ' s life w o r k , his s u r r o u n d i n g s , his prestige, his friends are t o o great a price to p a y . C e l i b a c y c a n n o t b e p r o u d o f t h e s e victories. T h e y are n o t the victories o f a free s o c i e t y . A n o t h e r a s p e c t o f the desired f r e e d o m has n o t b e e n t o u c h e d b y e i t h e r t h e N a t i o n a l O p i n i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r ' s s u r v e y or the B i s h o p s ' c o m m i s s i o n . Celibacy has left its m a r k on t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f t h e A m e r i c a n p r i e s t h o o d . T h e N e w E n g l a n d priest s p o k e o f the " u n d e v e l o p e d a r e a " o f feeling in his life and o f t h e need for close a n d d e e p relationships. No s u r v e y or c o m m i s s i o n can t a p this n e g l e c t e d area o f feeling in t h e lives o f A m e r i c a n priests or m e a s u r e the n e e d t h e y h a v e f o r f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h w o m e n . T h e r e are small b u t revealing signs of this neglect, signs familiar t o a n y o n e w h o a t t e n d s p r i e s t s ' gatherings, e.g., the e x t e n s i v e , s o m e t i m e s crude, sexual h u m o r . T h e r e are d e v e l o p i n g life styles t h a t c i r c u m v e n t or ignore the rules s u r r o u n d i n g celibacy. F a t h e r D u r y e a ' s m a r r i a g e was one a n s w e r ; o t h e r priests settle f o r s t e a d y f e m a l e c o m p a n i o n s h i p . T h e r e is t h e w e l l - k n o w n b u t little discussed f r e q u e n c y o f h o m o s e x u a l i t y w i t h i n t h e p r i e s t h o o d , w h i c h offers, in m y j u d g m e n t , n o real o b s t a c l e to t h e p r i e s t h o o d w h e n p r o p e r l y c o n t r o l l e d , b u t w h i c h causes o n e t o w o n d e r a b o u t t h e t r u e e f f e c t s o f a celibate p r i e s t h o o d . A s u r v e y c a n n o t ask h o w a p r i e s t relieves t h e inevitable sexual t e n s i o n s and t h e inevitable p e r i o d s o f loneliness. F r o m m y e x p e r i e n c e , w e r e such a s u r v e y possible, the results w o u l d o f t e n give the lie t o t h e i m a g e o f a c e l i b a t e m a n f o r t i f i e d against sexual longings b y p r a y e r a n d w o r k . We c a n n o t m e a s u r e t h e d i s r u p t i o n t h a t celibacy has c a u s e d in t h e lives o f priests, b u t t h e N F P C v o t e s h o w s t h a t A m e r i c a n priests, w h o b e s t k n o w t h e price t h e y h a v e paid, w a n t t h e f r e e d o m to d i r e c t their sexual energies a c c o r d i n g t o their p e r s o n a l decisions. Finally, it is i m p o r t a n t to s p e a k of t h e love o f a m a n f o r a w o m a n . I t r e m a i n s t h e finest h u m a n e x p r e s s i o n of t o t a l caring a n d sharing t h a t w e k n o w . In love a p e r s o n can reveal his i n n e r self w i t h o u t fear a n d k n o w ,
206
Journal of Religion and Health
w i t h o u t the a b s t r a c t i o n o f b r o t h e r h o o d , w h a t is is to e m b r a c e a n o t h e r i m p e r f e c t h u m a n being. T h e love o f a m a n and a w o m a n brings us to the f l e s h - a n d - b l o o d c e n t e r o f things. T h e cynics a m o n g us, b o t h cleric and lay, m a k e it difficult t o s p e a k of this love. T h e y p r e t e n d t h a t m a r r i a g e is b e i n g p r o p o s e d as a c u r e for all t h e ills o f the clergy. T h e y p o i n t to the harsh realities of daily living, t o t h o s e m a r r i e d professionals w h o c o n t i n u e to have p e r s o n a l p r o b l e m s , to the w a n i n g o f sexual a t t r a c t i o n , and t o a m y r i a d o f other obstacles that every sensible human being already knows exist. Every sensible human being (including priests) knows that another person is simply a sharer, not a solution; a filling thing in itself, not a crutch. Archibald MacLeish would have us think of the force of love in this way: Man can live his truth, his deepest truth, but cannot speak it. It is for this reason that love becomes the ultimate human answer to the ultimate human question. Love, in reason's terms, answers nothing. We say that A m o r vi~cit omuia, but, in truth, love conquers nothing--certainly not death--certainly not chance. What love does is to arm. It arms the worth of life in spite of life. T h e r e are priests w h o see this love t h r o u g h celibate eyes. So be it. T h e r e are o t h e r s w h o see it e n r i c h e d a n d s t r e n g t h e n e d b y the p r e s e n c e o f a w o m a n . T h o u s a n d s o f A m e r i c a n priests desire f r e e d o m of choice. T h e y desire it n o w , f o r themselves. It is a q u e s t i o n o f f r e e d o m , n o t of faith or fidelity. T h e A m e r i c a n Bishops, "in a land w h e r e f r e e d o m has b e e n given u n i q u e e x p r e s s i o n , " h a v e b e e n called u p o n t o a c k n o w l e d g e this f r e e d o m . If t h e y do, t h e p r i e s t h o o d will b e on its w a y t o regaining its sense o f f r e e d o m . If t h e y d o n o t , m o r e and m o r e priests will be faced w i t h a painful choice. M a n y of these priests will leave. F r e e d o m u n f o r t u n a t e l y has b e e n k n o w n to e x a c t a great price.