By Crispin Sartwell

Many people have responded to the ferocious scandal concerning the sexual abuse of children committed by Catholic priests by suggesting that priests be allowed to marry, that the vow of celibacy be removed from priestly orders.

In fact Luther, in rebelling against many things Catholic, explicitly allowed ministers to marry to prevent sexual temptation, and he pointed out that there was essentially no scriptural prohibition on sexuality in the priesthood.

But let's think about this for a moment. The worst (though not the only) abuses involve homosexual pederasty: they involve the abuse of boys. It seems to me that men who are thus disposed are unlikely to marry anyway, and that if they do marry, that is unlikely to change their sexuality in any profound way.

For such men a vow of celibacy is neither here nor there; indeed, celibacy and marriage are both twisted or dishonest ways of dealing with a twisted sexuality. Marry them off, bombard them with supermodels, make them swear to renounce all things sex, and you will end up with the same person you started with, only he'll have more secrets.

Nevertheless, the vow of celibacy contributes to the creation of the abusive atmosphere. It doesn't make people pederasts, but it does attract people who hate their own sexuality, who have a reason to repress or try to destroy it. A man who detects in himself a twisted sexuality may try to treat it through celibacy, but that may only intensify it, because people show an inveterate tendency to desire what is forbidden.

At any rate, the problem, we might say, is not with the vow itself, but with the antecedent sexuality of some of the people who take it.

I am not a Catholic, and I don't pretend to dictate or interpret Catholic theology. But I can see the value of a vow of celibacy. It is a supreme display of personal self-control. It distinguishes the priesthood from the runofthemill believer. It expresses a dedication to spirit through a renunciation of the flesh.

If it can be carried out voluntarily and successfully, it is deeply admirable: not because sex is wrong or unholy, but because command of the self is the mark of an outstanding personality.

And so I could understand if the Catholic Church thought it was important to retain a celibate priesthood.

But of course, it is also important that children not be sexually abused. That is liable to drive them from the church, to say nothing of distorting their entire lives. And the concealment of these acts has displayed the profound corruption of the church hierarchy at the expense of the sanity of kids all over the country.

So I would suggest that the vow of celibacy can be retained only under these conditions: First, an absolute commitment to the public revelation of truth and compensation to victims. And second, a serious program of sexual counseling for men contemplating the priesthood.

These would not prevent all abuses, but then again the abuse of boys by men is a problem much wider than the Catholic church. But these steps might prevent a lot of the abuse.