Newspaper Page Text
8 GEORGIA BULLETIN, THURSDAY, APRIL 25,1968
PARIS (NC) - The controversy over
priestly celibacy is only a symptom of a
more profound problem, the
unsuitability of the “ecclesiastical
system,” according to Father Marc
Oraison, French priest-psychiatrist.
Father Oraison, who has written a
number of books on sex, morality and
psychoanalysis, expressed his views on
celibacy in two articles in Le Monde,
Paris daily.
Father Oraison noted that there is a
great uneasiness among priests and that
the priestly state is being called into
question.
“At first glance,” he said, “one
might think that the principle cause of
the uneasiness is obligatory institutional
ecclesiastical celibacy.” Some people, he
went on, whether or not they are priests
or even believers, think that the
problem would be solved if priests were
authorized to marry.
HE OBSERVED, however, that
Protestants are experiencing similar
difficulties: ministers abandoning their
ministry, a decline in vocations to the
ministry. And for Protestants, he
pointed out, there is no institutional
celibacy 1 .
“Therefore,” he continued, “the
problem of this general unrest is much
more radical than one might think at
first... It would be an error- or an alibi?
Celibacy Issue Only A Symi
to reduce it to the problem of the
sexual life in the narrow sense.
According to the expression of Father
(Louis) Beirnaert (Jesuit
psychoanalyst), the question of
ecclesiastical celibacy is only a ‘point of
crystallization’ of a much more
profound problem: what does it mean
for a man of today, in the present
profoundly changing world, to be ‘the
man of God?’
Whether a priest is celibate or not,
Father Oraison said, “is, in a sense,
secondary.”
To understand the problem, Father
Oraison said, it is necessary to
understand the notion of “clergy.”
In the early days of Christianity, he
said, the persons, including the
Apostles, who served the communities
of believers did not regard
themselves-and were not regarded-as a
“sacred” group distinct and separate.
“It was only beginning with the third
and fourth centuries that a ‘sacralized’
sociological body was reconstituted,
through a sort of resurgence of the
Levitical organization of the Old
Testament and undoubtedly also
through the contamination by, or the
utilization of, the existing pagan sacred
structures.
“THEN, THERE was the
post-Constantinian confusion, the
crumbling of the Roman Empire and
the barbarian invasions. This ‘sacred
corps’ doubled to provide the
structuring and functions of political
and civilizing power whose effects were,
on the whole', very positive.
“Little by little, two ‘categories’
were distinguished: the clerics or
‘Church people,’ who knew how to
read, and the others, the ‘laity,’ who did
not know how to read. Thus was
constituted a system, called the clergy,
constituting a social class of the first
importance (with all the abuses,
naturally, that that could involve).”
The man who wanted to be a priest
of Christ, Father Oraison continued,
had no choice but to become part of
this ecclesiastical system, which from
the 11th century on, involved
obligatory celibacy.
The priest as such was “by obligation
and indistinguishably a cleric, an
‘ecclesiastic.”
The word “layman,” he said, is not
in opposition to the word “priest,” but
to the word “cleric.” A layman is one
who is not part of the “ecclesiastical
system.”
IT IS NOT the priesthood of Christ
nor the proclamation of the Gospel,
Father Oraison maintained, that is being
called into question, but this
“ecclesiastical system,” which no longer
has any function, because now laymen
are educated' 'arid ‘ are “ capable
managing the world’s affairs.
of
For more than 150 years the
“system” has been organized along
conservative and defensive lines, Father
Oraison said, and this has made it closed
in upon itself, immobile in its
theological thought and in its thinking
generally, and nostalgic for the past. It
became more and more irrelevant to the
world. “The ‘clergy’ as a system no
longer exists, except for itself, and
suddenly is tending to no longer exist.”
It is not astonishing, Father Oraison
went on, that a certain number of
priests, taken up into the “system” in
spite of themselves and wishing to be
preachers of Christ, experience an
uneasiness that they do not know how
to overcome.
Because the “system” is being
questioned, they feel themselves
misunderstood, unaided and isolated. It
is understandable that they seek in
marriage a fulfillment that they do not
find in the “system.” But this, he
maintained, is not a real solution to the
problem.
FATHER ORAISON then took note
of two observations of modem
anthropology with regard to sexuality.
“Neither from the psychological nor
from the physiological point of view,”
he said, “is the exercise of genital
sexuality obligatory for the
0
By RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE
The passage of a new, national law on civil rights and fair housing
represents a triumph for America’s religious bodies. The Churches
were by no means the only group working for the passage of the law,
but they were the largest and among the hardest-working.
Churches P layed Major Role
While they welcomed it,
however, even the most vigorous
proponents of the law were aware
that its passage will not solve
America’s racial problems.
Passed by the House of
Representatives as, in effect, a
tribute to the late Dr. Martin
Luther King, it has been
described by Dr. King’s successor
and long-time associate, the Rev.
Ralph Abernathy, as not very
important for Negroes.
ITS HOUSING provisions
closely parallel scores of laws
which have been passed on the
city or state level and which have
been proven largely ineffective.
It comes at a time when many
Negro leaders have virtually
abandoned the drive for
integrated housing as
unattainable or even undesirable.
Quite possibly, the law’s chief
beneficiaries will not be Negroes
but rather American Indians, who
have their “bill of rights”
established in a special section
unrelated to the problems of
Negro housing.
The most controversial section
of the law, and perhaps the
section which will be most
effectively enforced, is
interpreted by some Negroes as a
gesture of hostility, balancing the
conciliatory gesture on open
housing.
This section forbids organizing
or inciting to riot across state
lines and demonstrating the use
of explosives or other material
with knowledge that this
instruction will be used in riots.
Dr. King was jailed repeatedly
under local or state laws against
inciting to riot. It is not
inconceivable that, had he lived,
he might some day have fallen
victim to the new law.
IN THE minds of most
legislators who approved it,
however, this part of the law was
probably not aimed particularly
at the non-violent movement. Its
chief target seems to be the
young militants who preach
violence and who were
increasingly alienated from Dr.
King before his death. From this
viewpoint, the law may be
considered a back-handed
endorsement of non-violence.
Although its provisions will
extend to an estimated 80 per
cent of housing in the U.S. by
1970, none of the law’s
proponents realistically expects it
to result in large-scale integration
soon.
At least two extra-legal factors
are involved in the housing
problem and both have
functioned throughout the U.S.
to maintain effective de facto
segregation in communities which
were subject to fair housing laws.
One factor is economic, the other
emotional.
AS LONG as the average
American property-owner resents
or fears the presence of Negroes
in his building or neighborhood,
ways will be found to evade fair
housing laws with relative
impunity.
In a sense, therefore, the
passage of a national fair housing
law marks the beginning, not the
end, of a long struggle.
America’s Churches, already
deeply involved in the struggle,
are moving into its new phase
with economic and educational
projects.
Projects tackling the economic
aspect of housing problems have
been announced and started by
Churches in many parts of the
U.S.
SOMETIMES such projects
encounter controversy from
Church members, who oppose
the use of Church funds to build
housing for the poor. One
unusual case occurred in
Rochester, N.Y., when Bishop
Fulton J. Sheen offered the
property of an inner-city parish
to the federal government to
provide housing for the poor. In
this case, the poor people of the
parish persuaded the bishop that
the church, its school and its
activities were more valuable to
them than public housing would
be.
Elsewhere, however, many
Christians are asking whether
large church buildings should not
be sacrificed to help house the
poor. Few new church building
projects in the.last few years have
been exempt from such criticism,
but the one that has attracted the
most widespread attention is 'the
new Roman Catholic Cathedral
of San Francisco.
The $8.5 million building is
being constructed at the edge of a
Negro ghetto area. It replaces an
earlier cathedral which was
destroyed by fire. An organized
drive began in 1967 to have work
on the cathedral stopped and the
money diverted to housing or
other facilities for the poor. After
Dr. King’s death, it was suggested
that the money be used for a
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Community Center.
DIOCESAN officials insist that
they are “morally and legally
bound to spend the money for
the purposes for which it was
given.”
A dramatic response to this
sort of challenge has been made
by Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle,
Archbishop of Washington, who
has declared a temporary
moratorium on church and
school construction. The purpose
of the moratorium will be to
divert the money to aid the poor.
An important aspect of this
anti-poverty activity will be a
project to rehabilitate housing in
slum areas, using Negro
contractors and apprentices.
An estimated $3 million to $5
million have been spent on new
church construction in the
archdiocese during the past five
years. The archdiocese is also
participating in housing efforts
under ecumenical auspices.
Catholic integrated low-rent
housing programs have also been
started in Detroit, Newark and
Cleveland. Elsewhere, many
dioceses are sharing programs
with other Churches.
MAJOR AMERICAN cities
where such projects have begun
during the past year under
ecumenical auspices include: New
York City, Miami, Atlanta,
Harrisburg, Pa., Rochester, N.Y.,
Grand Rapids, Albuquerque and
Des Moines.
Among Protestant Churches,
the one with the greatest
commitment is housing and also
the largest owner of non-profit,
government-subsidized housing, is
the American B a p t i s t
Convention. Other Protestant
Churches involved in aid to
low-cost, integrated housing
development include the
Episcopal, Methodist, United
Presbyterian and African
Methodist Episcopal Churches,
the Presbyterian Church, U.S.
(Southern), the United Church of
Christ, Disciples of Christ and
several Lutheran denominations.
Some of the Churches are
involved in activities other than
the sponsorship of housing. The
United Church of Christ, for
example, is helping to subsidize
research and development on new
building materials which may
substantially reduce the cost of
house construction.
Other groups distribute “good
neighbor” cards which pledge
residents to support integrated
housing or maintain agencies
which compile lists of homes
available without discrimination.
IN THE PAST, church
organizations have frequently
been active on the local as well as
the national level in promoting
fair housing legislation — not
always successfully. The drive for
a national fair housing law failed
in 1966, giving an impetus to
much voluntary Church activity
in the field. Within the past year,
similar bills have been defeated in
areas as diverse as the State of
Delaware and Toledo, Ohio. In
Milwaukee, after more than 100
demonstrations under the
direction of Father James
Groppi, the city council passed a
watered-down fair housing
ordinance which Negro leaders
dismissed as “tokenism...too little
and too late.” Similar criticism
was made by Negro leaders
o