Australian Bishop Hits the Trail with Message Against Celibacy

ASJ responds to a maverick Australian bishop's assault on celibacy.

A retired Australian bishop, Geoffrey Robinson, has created a media splash lately in promoting his provocative book Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church. Robinson wrote the book after resigning his see amid disillusion over what he claims is reluctance in the Catholic hierarchy to get to the true root of the child sex abuse scandals that affected both the Australian and the U.S. Church. To add to the drama, many American bishops, citing doctrinal concerns with some of Robinson’s positions, have exercised their right under canon law to prohibit him from speaking publicly in their diocese. But Robinson has stated he has no intention of complying. He’s convinced in conscience of what needs to be done, and he’s taking his message straight to the people.

It’s hard to see why, as a bishop, Robinson felt so deprived of voice or authority that he had to resort to disrespecting American bishops with his outright disobedience. Robinson could have implemented the policies he thinks are needed in his own diocese. Then, he could have written a book hailing his success and gone on an American tour. But on the other hand, some feel that anyone with anything to contribute to fixing this problem should be heard even if every valid point comes wrapped in a hundred heresies.

In this vein, Robinson brings up many legitimate if left-wing issues in his book. He questions the extent of papal infallibility, wants more roles for laity in decisions that affect the Church, and urges greater respect for the role of conscience in morality. On some issues he broaches topics on which ASJ can be supportive. For example, he would like more clarification on what exactly are the essential truths of the faith. On other issues Robinson simply loses it, as when he suggests that maybe some forms of extramarital sex are okay. These ideas don’t deserve our time.

But the bishop picks a fight with the Apostolate of St. Jerome with a core message of his book claiming that many of the problems in the Church that led to the sex-abuse and the cover-ups have to do with celibacy. And here ASJ feels the time is right to broach an accusation that we have hitherto refused to dignify with a response. This accusation is made in Robinson’s claim that celibacy needs to be re-examined in light of its contribution to a culture of sexual abuse in the Church. On this point we intend to fight back vigorously, and we hope Robinson is ready for the fight. The bishop has chosen to try celibacy in the court of lay opinion, and ASJ appoints ourselves lead counsel for the defense. We intend to acquit celibacy on each of his charges.

ASJ can certainly have more formidable opponents than Bishop Robinson. Richard Gaillardetz, a theologian for whom ASJ has few warm fuzzies, in a review of Robinson’s book in America magazine, laments that precisely because he has great sympathies with Robinson’s positions he, “[has] to confess a deep frustration with the shoddy argumentation that is marshaled in defense of many of his proposals, arguments that lead him to unnecessary positions.” To be fair, a good bishop need not be a Gaillardetz-caliber theologian. But even “shoddy” theologians can levy harmful charges.

Robinson lays out his case against celibacy with three areas in which he believes it contributed to sex-abuse.

His first example is that of priests whose pastoral relationships with adult women become sexualized, often consensually. He states that “It is hard not to see celibacy as contributing to these cases of abuse in adult women.” But this does not follow in the least! Any professional relationship between men and women has a risk of becoming sexualized, even abusively so if the man holds the more powerful position. It is a perennial risk between professors and grad students, bosses and secretaries, doctors and patients. The list goes on through every profession known to man. There is no reason to think that if priests were married these abuses would cease. Other religious bodies with married ministers have these problems as well.

His second point is less illogical, but by his own admission only accounts for a slight fraction of cases: people are taken into celibate life too young, as mere adolescents. For reasons he does not explain, their psychosexual development is stunted because of their environment, and they end up stuck with the psyche of a mere teenager. Thus they desire other teenagers even into adulthood. In this very bizarre Neverland-like seminary, it seems like the candidate’s peers never mature. Fifteen year-olds do not become sixteen year-olds, and so on. How these cases constitute a clear indictment of celibacy like Robinson claims is anybody’s guess. Clearly, the issue here is that the candidates too young, not that they are celibate. If Robinson wants to argue that age fifteen is too young to vow celibacy, we agree. But opposing early vows does not argue against requiring celibacy for those who desire holy orders any more than opposing early marriage argues against requiring marriage vows for those who want to start a family.

At this point ASJ is thinking that if this is all Robinson has against celibacy, we should sign him up as our spokesman. But the bishop shows how low he is willing to punch to discredit celibacy with his third argument—abuse happens when priests and religious are crushed beneath the weight of “obligatory” celibacy.

Now his point here is hard to follow, so bear with us. Robinson argues that in the same way heterosexual prisoners copulate with other men because that’s all that’s available, it is also possible for celibate men with no attraction to children to have sex with minors when no adult women are available. We note in passing that this is strange because if true, Robinson is saying that the perpetrators of these crimes weren’t really pedophiles. But then why does his book dedicate so much to explaining the pedophile mind?

Anyway, perhaps anticipating the obvious objection that the Church does not lock its celibates in a five-by-eight cell, Robinson gets ultra-creative trying to save his thesis. He insists that these celibates “claim that celibacy applies only to relations with adult women, so they claim in all seriousness that they have not broken their vow of celibacy.” So, he concludes, in the minds of these perps, it is true that the only people available to them are minors, even if, objectively speaking, it is not the case. Of course, his point requires us to believe that these celibates gone bad have little qualms with raping a child, but get all scrupulous when it comes to honoring their vow of celibacy. Jesus’ millstone-laden words scandalizing children apparently don’t weigh so heavily on their consciences as a vow (which is really just a promise for priests) that Jesus never explicitly demanded. But if these cases do exist, the problem here is not celibacy but a total misunderstanding of the vow celibates take. Vowing celibacy merely renounces the right to marry; technically it does not promise abstinence. Sexual abstinence—including from children—is assumed for Christians under the more general baptismal vow which prohibits genital contact with anyone other than a spouse. The celibacy vow can’t be held culpable for those who so gravely misunderstand it any more than the pro-life movement is to blame for clinic-bombing extremists.

Yet Robinson isn’t done. The fourth of his three [sic] ways in which celibacy contributes to abuse, in his opinion, happens because celibates, since they don’t have kids of their own, do not act as fiercely to defend the victimized children as a parent would. Besides the fact that Robinson doesn't know which celibates are fathers, there is so much wrong with this. First, it is utterly absurd and offensive to think that someone who does not have children is less angered to action than a parent. In fact, it may be the other way around. Celibates can often be of more help to children because they do not have to worry about their own children. For example, a mom might think, “If I accuse this creep for what I saw, he could harm my child to get even.” But second, in many of the cases in Boston, parents of the very children who were harmed often refused to seek police or media attention, not wanting to injure the Church’s reputation. The very parents of the victims were often just as passive as the bishop!

Robinson returns to his claim that often celibacy is not the problem per se, but rather “obligatory celibacy.” But this is absurd; celibacy is never obligatory. Robinson struggles to make his point. “The law of celibacy assumes that everyone who is called by God to priesthood is also called by God to celibacy and given the divine assistance necessary to lead a celibate life.” But this conclusion simply does not follow. Let us grant for the sake of argument Robinson’s view of celibacy as a “calling,” a concept with which we have recently expressed disagreement, rather than a “gift” like St. Paul says. Even so, the Church’s present policy of reserving priesthood to celibates need only assume that there may be men who have received the priestly call, but who are disqualified from service since they lack the gift of celibacy. So all the Church assumes is that “many are called, few are chosen.” If Robinson doesn’t think this is a gospel concept, it’s only because he hasn’t read the gospel. Besides, the Council of Trent has taught on this topic, and precisely in this context of those under vows who later feel they cannot be chaste. Trent says that God does not fail to supply the gift of celibacy to all who ask for it. Robinson apparently doesn’t believe this. Anathema sit.

But here again, how is Robinson’s gripe about celibacy any different from marriage? What about husbands vowed to someone they no longer love nor feel attracted to? Should the Church not require “obligatory” fidelity? Clearly, Robinson’s real gripe is with vows in general, not with celibacy. This is a recurring theme in his criticism of celibacy: most of these problems apply in marriage as well! For example, he says that many celibates, after some time “can find that priesthood or religious life still looks attractive, but celibacy does not.… If the pope were to ask for a disclosure ‘before God alone’…there might be...surprise...at just how large is the number of those who are genuinely dedicated to the priesthood or religious life but are living it in an unwanted, unassimilated and, therefore, unhealthy celibate state.”

But this proves nothing against celibacy. How many married couples continue to find the idea of stable family life and frequent intercourse very appealing, while becoming less enamored with the idea of fidelity? From the divorce stats, quite a few apparently. If the pope were to ask veteran married couples “before God” if they’d rather be hitched to someone other than their current spouse, what does Robinson think the answer would be? The very point of making a vow in marriage or in celibacy is that it is widely expected that years from now a person’s heart may have different priorities. Otherwise, why make a vow?

Furthermore, we doubt people would be all that shocked to hear about priests who felt overburdened by celibacy. If celibacy weren’t hard, then Jesus wouldn’t have said, “This saying is hard.” We contend of course that very often the low morale of celibates is caused by the continual undermining, to which Robinson contributes, of the need for and glory of the celibate sacrifice that countless saints have offered to God since the beginning of the Church. ASJ urges celibates and virgins to be inspired by our presentation of celibacy, and to turn a deaf ear to the discouraging lies that Robinson hisses.

To wrap up. The danger ASJ has always seen in the ridiculous notion that celibacy contributes to child abuse is that it perpetuates a view of celibates as ticking time bombs, or walking aneurisms that can burst unannounced at any time and start sodomizing youngsters. This unfairly forces all celibates to carry an aura of suspicion. And since most people do not have experience with long-term celibacy, they might think it is true simply because they don’t know any better.

Therefore those who advance this theory have to explain one thing in order to have the moral right to levy this offensive charge. That is, if a celibate man desires gratification, can he not just avail himself of a consenting adult or masturbation? But, as we have seen, Robinson’s answer to this is not convincing in the least.

So Bishop Robinson can lament all he wants over Rome’s reluctance to name celibacy as a suspect in the sex abuse scandals. But his problem is that he offers no clear proof at all that (1) celibacy really does cause the effects he claims, and that (2) these problems would go away if priests could marry. Absent this proof, or even a “probable cause” to suspect celibacy, why should the Church allow him to cast aspersions at celibacy, which is rooted in the teaching and practice of Christ and the apostles, and bears an abundance of fruit for the Church?

Robinson’s rebuttal to this is as poorly-reasoned as the rest of his points. With the overconfident flair of a prosecutor who thinks he’s sending the jury off with an airtight argument, Robinson writes, “Some may speak all they wish of the benefits of this celibacy...but others will not stop asking, ‘How many abused children is celibacy worth?’”

But in fact, he has failed to give even the slightest demonstration that celibacy is causally related to abuse. His question is as absurd as asking how many more 9-11s we need before we start sending all Muslim-Americans back to their homelands. It is not enough to show that crimes were committed by Muslims; one must show they were committed because they were Muslims. And this is the point no one will grant since the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. Similarly, Robinson can’t just prove kids were molested by celibates, but rather that they abused kids because they were celibates. But since he offers no proof of this, his message is intellectually insignificant.

Robinson’s accusations against celibacy are so devoid of truth they are silly. If his three points can be likened to exhibits A, B, and C in a trial, this jury of Robinson’s celibate peers is not only unconvinced by his specious charges, his case is so weak that we’re outraged he ever indicted celibacy to begin with. Absent a clear reason why he places celibacy under such unjustified suspicion, one is left to suppose that he is just foisting his own internal difficulties with celibacy onto the whole Church. He needs to pipe down until he has some serious ideas for helping the Church fix this serious problem of sex abuse.

 This article appeared in the June 25, 2008 issue of The Loyal Lion.