|
the Church has never really found the right way of dealing with human sexuality. And I have to say, it is a very tough question.
There have been many scandals over the centuries, not least Alexander VI (Roderic Borgia), with his mistresses and children, but the Church rationalises this by saying that their shortcomings are a personal matter for them to work out with God, while their priestly/papal role is quite distinct, and they can still be effective ministers of the Word. I find that concept very difficult to accept; I think they must lead by example.
There's also the question of how many humans are really suited to celibacy - both physical and mental, because someone can be physically celibate but play all sorts of games with other people as a way of releasing sexual tension - physical abuse being one aspect. In Australia at least, many Catholics have horror stories of physical punishment, especially boys who were routinely beaten quite savagely by the brothers who were their teachers.
I think few of us are really suited to the celibate life, and that's probably part of the reason for the decline in the numbers of priests and religous today, when there are so many other options.
But again, I also think it would be difficult for a married man to serve his community and his family equally well - I wonder how many Protestant ministers are worn to a frazzle, and end up doing neither job well? But at least they have the option of limiting their families - pity the poor Catholic priest who would be forbidden to practise birth control and had a dozen children, while simultaneously trying to be a good pastor - a tough call, I think.
The whole question of sexuality and marriage does need to be revised, but I sure don't know what the answer is. But less hypocrisy would be a good start.
|