0 - Eureka Street

Thi s special gift
Like Andrew Hamilton (Summa theologiae,
September- October 2005) I am
reluctant to be the fool who rushes in,
especially as his column is the first thing
I read in each issue, and I am conscious
also of Henry Beard's warning, Et casu
Latine loqui cum sodale societatis [esu ne
umquam conaris (May you never try out
your Latin [or anything else] on a Jesu it ).
Like Hamilton, I have some questions to
ask of Jan Anderson's report of her research
in her book Priests in Love. They are centred
on the theme of justice. I am deeply
sympathetic to the plight of those men
who, in good faith, answered a call to ministry
and find themselves unable to meet
the celibacy conditions. Sometimes this
is the result of some very unenlightened
training processes in days gone by and lost
opportunities to begin the development of
a mature personality, or of heavy demands
m ade and not supported. I am conscious,
too, of how easy it is to practise self-deception
in these circumstances. In particular,
I am conscious that the partners of the
priests in this study are vulnerable because
of the inequality of their positions and the
impossibility of public recognition.
While Anderson and her interviewees
address these issues and she accepts that
the committed relationships are responsible,
I believe the issues must remain relevant.
The thrust of her argument, it seem s
to me, is that these priests and their partners
do not simply see themselves as victims
in a sad tale, as Hamilton puts it. They
have taken responsibility to m aintain their
commitment to ministry and also to follow
a path to becoming authentically human;
in other words, to find a solution to the
problem . (It is difficult to consider these
untested ideas without resorting to cliche.)
H amilton makes it clear from the
beginning that he is responding to an
argument about compulsory celibacy for
Catholic priests. Anderson and her interviewees
also m ake it clear that the gift of
celibacy can and has been a source of grace
for the Church over its history, although
they also m ake the point, I believe, that
the two calls, to ministry and to celibacy,
are not necessarily tied together. They
also draw on the human history of the
Church to suggest that compulsory celibacy
has a non-graced story as well.
Hamilton is correct to point to the deep
earthing of clerical celibacy in Catholic
history. I believe that Anderson and her
interviewees do see this as well, but that
her argument points to an equally important
issu e, which is simply the social reality
that for a very large proportion of the
Church earthing is largely not providing
nourishment, and that it is nourishment
that is the central issu e.
It is in his final sentence that I believe
Hamilton shifts the terms of his contract
with his reader. His 'splendid foolishness'
is reminiscent of som e of the writing of
A parting word
L_ letters
G. K. Chesterton, especially his biography
of St Francis. While we need reminding that
it can be gloriously human to have such
heroic generosity, we must also rem ember
that this was a special, and not compulsory,
gift. In these times it is di ffic ult for any
organisation to justify a request for heroism
. People are too suspicious and mindful
of past betrayals to hand over what is now
seen as their own responsibility.
Times, and the sign s of the times, have
changed and so h as the Church, particularly
in its recognition of the vocation of
the baptised and the call to be fa ithful in
m arriage or in partnersh ip. These might
be the splendid foolishness that fertilises
these challenging new times. To read the
signs of the times does mean reading with
the analytic tools available in these times,
and I hope Anderson is widely read.
Martin N. White
Prospect, SA
Eureka Street welcomes letters from our readers.
Short letters are more likely to be published,
and all letters may be edited. Letters must be
signed, and should include a contact phone
number and the writer's name and address .
Send to: eureka@jespub.jesuit.org.au or
PO Box 553, Richmond VIC 3121
When I first became editor of Eureka Street, m y
predecessor, Morag Fraser, left me a book as prescribed reading.
It was James T hurber's The Years with Ross. It described
the early years of The New Yorker u n der its fou n ding editor,
Harold Ross, and t h e peculiar brand of managerial madn
ess h e pion eered th ere. H is system of payin g writers was
notable. H e created a sch edule that only h e u nderstood, and
made payments only when h e remembered to. His exam ple
h as b een infectiou s in publishing h ou ses since.
In her ode to grammar, Eats, Shoots and Leaves, Lyn ne
Truss describes an argum ent b et w een Ross and Thurber
abou t t h e proper use of the Oxford comma. It ended in fisticu
ffs . Thurber in sisted that the only acceptable u sage was
'red, w h ite and blue', Ross that it was 'red, w h ite, and blue'.
I tell these stories of quirky passion because I sh all treasure
sim ilar stories of the passion for truthful writin g and of human
vagary as I leave Eureka Street to take up a new role w ith the
Australian N ursing Federation. N o doubt the m ovemen t from
Church to Trade Union spon sorsh ip will generate more stories!
I would like to thank you wh o form th e Eureka Street
communit y. You h ave en cou raged me most deeply when you
h ave t old m e that Eureka Street publishes views and argu ­
m ents t h at others do not . It is preciou s because it hosts a
foru m for public conversation in Australia, on e in w h ich
n ew writers can join . It h as been my privilege to en able t h is
conversation bet ween writers and readers.
I would like to thank particularly M orag Fraser, Andy Hamilton
SJ, Jack Waterford, M ich ael McGirr, Anthony Ham and
Robert Hefner. I am grateful to them as mentors and friends.
Robert H efn er h as k in dly agreed to act as editor of Eureka
Street fo r the coming issu es. H is sen sitivit y and ex perien ce
will en sure that you will continu e to enjoy Eureka Street
and to b e drawn into t h e conversation it represents.
- Marcelle Mogg
NOVEMBER- DECEMBER 2005 EU REKA STREET 5