Priestly eros

[Sojourner]

Richard John Neuhaus posts the following on the [url="http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/?p=119"]First Things blog[/url]:
[quote]Michael Foley teaches patristics at Baylor University and is an exemplary alumnus of our annual Tertio Millennio Seminar in Krakow, Poland. A model of clarity is his letter to the [i]Wall Street Journal [/i]in response to Kenneth Woodward’s confusing column on the recent instruction from Rome on homosexuality and the priesthood:

[quote]In characterizing the Vatican’s instruction on homosexual candidates for the priesthood as “shoot first and ask questions later” (”Ungracious Instruction,” editorial page, Dec. 2), Kenneth Woodward paints a misleading picture of an important and fair-minded directive. We will never know how many ordained priests today have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, but we do know that 82% of the recent sexual abuse cases were not acts of pedophilia involving small children of both sexes but acts of homoerotic ephebophilia by priests attracted to teenage boys. Put simply, the clerical scandals were predominantly perpetrated by gay men, not clinical pedophiles.

In response to this glaring fact, the Vatican could have barred anyone with the slightest homosexual proclivity from the priesthood, but instead it showed moderation and prudence, allowing bishops and seminary directors some wiggle room in deciding what constitutes a “deep-seated homosexual tendency” or support of “gay culture.” The Vatican is to be commended for such restraint, which will mitigate against witch-hunts while still addressing a scandalous problem.

Moreover, Mr. Woodward fails to see that the priesthood requires more than “affective maturity.” It demands that the protective and procreative zeal that a man would have had toward his wife and children is transposed to his spiritual family, his parish. As early as the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325), which forbade the ordination of voluntary eunuchs, the church has very much relied on the spiritual exercise of its priests’ heterosexually oriented eros. For the priesthood is husbandry in the strict sense, not mere celibacy: it is spiritual fatherhood, not professional bachelorhood.[/quote][/quote]

[url="http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/mirrorofjustice/2005/12/priests_heteros.html"]On Mirror of Justice[/url], Rob Vischer comments on Neuhaus's post, posing the following question:
[quote]I've never heard the case for the instruction put in quite these terms; is it true that the Church has traditionally relied on priests' "heterosexually oriented eros?"  I understand the focus on spiritual fatherhood, but I'd welcome additional explanation of the heterosexual dimension of the role.[/quote]

I'm also interested in hearing y'alls thoughts on this topic.

[philothea]

I always assumed priests were in some way motivated by a "heterosexually oriented ethos" though I didn't internally use such snazzy words.

It's part of why the idea of female "priests" weirds me out so much. Femininity does not seem to suit that role at all.

Sorry, not very useful insights.

[Sojourner]

New post by Foley in response to Rob's question (totally fascinating, IMO, and I'd love to hear others' thoughts on it):

[quote]Rob Vischer is certainly right to want to hear more about my thoughts on the relevance of heterosexuality to the exercise of the priesthood, since the constraints of a letter to the editor did not allow me to elaborate. While I am still not sure I can do justice to this important topic, let me at least offer a few more grains for the mill:

Essentially I am contending that heterosexuality (or for that matter, homosexuality) is far more than a desire for sexual union of a particular kind; it is an orientation that affects one’s appropriation of interpersonal responsibilities. Specifically, male heterosexuality at its best seems to me to involve a custodial yet selfless desire to protect and serve those to whom one is naturally united in a family bond.  In other words, it is not sexual intercourse but virtuous fathering that is the natural perfection or end of a man’s basic heterosexual impulses.  As Aquinas notes, one of the most basic precepts of the natural law is not just the begetting but the providing for and education of offspring.

It seems to me that the Western tradition of a celibate priesthood shrewdly denies a priest a corporeal family so that the zeal he would have exercised on their behalf is devoted exclusively to his ecclesiastical family. This transfer of familial allegiance is more than just a horizontal act of “time management”; it is a vertical transformation of a man’s attention and effort from a family born of the flesh to one born of the spirit. (I hesitate to use the word “sublimation” here, for though what I am talking about does indeed make sublime a man’s basic orientation, the word has unfortunately been kidnapped by Freud and thus carries a number of connotations that I do not believe are generally true.)

I should add that my basic inspiration for my remarks here and in the WSJ letter is Fr. James McLucas’ provocative essay, “The Emasculation of the Priesthood,” presciently written before the sex abuse scandals in this country ever broke. Though Fr. McLucas is primarily critiquing the effects of contemporary liturgy on the manliness of priests, I believe his argument has broader implications that could be developed in any number of different directions.[/quote]