"Marriage may often be a stormy lake but celibacy is almost always a muddy horse pond." Thomas Love Peacock, 18th Century English poet and novelist.
Celibacy has been dragged through the mire again this week, following the spectacular fall from grace of Cardinal Keith O'Brien. His admission that his "sexual conduct" fell below the standards expected of him, amid allegations of "inappropriate behaviour", has unleashed a predictable outburst about the impossibility of clerical celibacy.
In our sex-drenched age, the very notion of celibacy is alien. Some academics even question whether celibacy in its strictest definition is physically possible. The Oxford Professor of Endocrinology, John Wass, dismisses celibacy as "a totally abnormal state", given that men are driven by testosterone to want sex.
In her book, A History of Celibacy, Elizabeth Abbott observes: "In our sex-dominated society, people tend to view celibacy as a form of sexual anorexia–- a sad and lonely state at best, unnatural at worst." Perhaps we forget how quickly and how utterly Western society has been transformed by reliable contraception and the rise of a sales-based culture in which sex is used to flog everything from lipstick to cars.
Only a few decades ago the criminalisation of homosexual activity, the stain of illegitimacy and the requirements of an economy based on industrial production and agriculture forced celibacy on a large part of the population, whether gay or straight. And even today, many people choose to become or remain celibate for various reasons. Sometimes they simply haven't met "the right person" yet. As we get older, it becomes easier to imagine a celibate life that could also be enjoyable and fulfilling.
Even so, at one extreme celibacy is dismissed as quaint, amusing, irrelevant or eccentric and at the other a deviant perversion or some sort of cruel punishment. In today's Viagra generation, those who admit to being celibate are objects of derision or pity.
As neither a biologist nor a Catholic, I can only comment on what I observe. As with most human attributes, the distribution of libido covers a wide spectrum from those who seem to think of little else but sex to those who never think about it at all.
From this second group, two of the three male friends I'm thinking about became Catholic priests. Neither was a closet homosexual and both made wonderful priests. It's not just that they are free from family constraints to rush off and comfort the dying at 4am. In a very real sense, they have been able to give all of themselves to God, to those they serve and to the least fortunate in society. Neither of these men felt repressed. On the contrary, their celibacy freed them up to love others in a different way.
It must appear odd in a culture where there is a false equation of sexual activity with being human but, looking at the lives of these two men, I can appreciate Pope Paul VI's description of celibacy as a "dazzling jewel" in the crown of the church.
The problem, as Cardinal O'Brien perhaps hinted in a recent interview, is that it is a comparatively rare one. That is why a future Pope should heed the words of St Paul to the Corinthians about it being "better to marry than to burn". After all, St Peter, regarded by Catholics as the first Pope, appears to have been married.
Besides, as Anglican converts to the Catholic church can bring their wives with them, imposing priestly celibacy seems increasingly anomalous. And condemning parish priests to perpetual loneliness is cruel and unfair to the many who must yearn for companionship. But just because most of us would find celibacy difficult, let's not dismiss it as either impossible or outlandish. It is neither.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article