The eminent theologian Hans Kung holds that “The struggle against pedophilia in the Catholic Church begins with the abolition of celibacy as a condition for the priesthood“. Interestingly, one could agree with Kung that celibacy should not be a requirement for priesthood and yet think that he has arrived at the right conclusion by way of defective reasoning.
At the heart of Kung’s line of thinking is that intense sexual desire without relief is the primary explanation for pedophilia among priests. While this thought might have some initial plausibility, a bit of reflection suggests that matters are more complicated.
Consider sex among unquestionably heterosexual males in prison. The explanation for this is none other than intense sexual desire without relief (with a female). With a certain viciousness, straight men turn to other men for sexual relief in prison. Ironically, this reality supports Thomas Nagel’s view in “Sexual Perversion” that things have to be pretty bad before we opt for no sex at all. What is more, there is little evidence that male-male sex in prison results in “converts” to being gay, especially in the case of dominant males in prison. And given the horrendous way pedophiles in prison are treated, there is little reason to believe that pent up sexual frustration would take the form of rampant pedophilia were that a possibility.
Well, the scandal in the Catholic Church is about priests having sex with boys—and not priests having sex with one another. Thus, the question that immediately arises is the following: Why did the pent up sexual frustration on the part of priests manifest itself with sex with boys rather than sex between priests?
After all, the pedophilia is generally shrouded in secrecy. All sorts of people know about it and say and do nothing stop it. Obviously, the sex between priests could have been just as shrouded in secrecy as was the sex between priests and boys. And prison stands as a very poignant reminder that pent up sexual frustration can express itself in male-to-male sex between men who are straight, albeit the sexual expression takes a violent turn.
Hans Kung line of reasoning is that the pent up sexual frustration on the part of priests is what occasions their pedophilia. This, I am afraid, is to miss the quite sobering truth that adult men who find pleasure in having sex with boys are adult men who are already warped in terms of the expression of their sexual desire. To put the point rather crassly: Your typical horny adult, be the individual straight or gay, is not looking to have sex with someone who is not capable of having some appreciation for the character of sex itself. In having sex with boys, then, priests are having sex with individuals who are not much capable of appreciating the character of sex and the symbolic significance of this and that body part. This might hold for a14 year old, but surely not a 10 year old. And while this may hold for a 14 year old nowadays, 14 year olds were much, much more innocent a few decades ago. Yet, sex scandals between priests and boys have been going on in the Catholic Church for generations. And again, one has to ask: Why not between priests and priests, instead, and with the same shroud of secrecy?
Recently, a priest in France was arrested for downloading pictures of boys and trying to have sex with a boy. Again, why not pictures of some “hot babe” and a secret liaison with some “chick”? For the record, there are priests who have illicit relations with women—nuns, in particular.
At any rate, Kung seems to think that celibacy is something of a catalyst for pedophilia. And it is this line of thought as such that I am questioning. It would, of course, be foolish to deny that the lifestyle of celibacy has been a contributing factor for some. After all, human beings are malleable enough. Still, things might be the other way around, namely that people who opt for celibacy as a lifestyle are more likely to be pedophiles. Why? Because it is very, very difficult to make sense of someone actually wanting to give up sex, however fascinating an idea it might be. For this is tantamount of giving up one of the extraordinary richness of sexual affirmation; and it is a defining feature of pedophilia that the richness of sexual affirmation is of no importance at all for the pedophile. The affirmation if so wonderful on several fronts that choosing to forgo that affirmation is a most extraordinary decision and is perhaps at odds with the very majesty of the human experience. If a person wants to give up that affirmation, it is not unreasonable to wonder how psychologically healthy is such a person.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, I am not challenging the nobleness of giving up sex for religious devotion. Let me concede the spiritual majesty of that calling. Rather, my point is that a lot of people who think that they can answer that calling are apt to have deep psychological problems with regard to sex as a result of which they down play the tremendous significance of the affirmation afforded by sex.
Kung is right that giving up celibacy would pretty much put an end to pedophilia in the Catholic Church. However, this is not because celibacy promotes or triggers pedophilia, as Kung seems to think. Rather, it is because many who are willing to opt for celibacy already have a psychological predilection for non-affirming sex; and that kind psychological predilection meshes ever so well with the activity of sex with boys.
My argument presupposes that our psychological make-up is such that it is far, far easier to go from straight (gay) sex to gay (straight) sex if over the years that is the only way to have sex than it is go from having reciprocal sex with an adult to having sex with a child if over the years that is the only choice that one has.
