Perverts Love Modesty: A Memoir
Before I begin in earnest, I suspect that my title may already have some people’s panties in a wad (pun definitely intended). Chill out. That’s a part of my point. Furthermore, I also understand that the “world” I speak from will be foreign to some, if not many, Catholics. In order to avoid hasty generalizations, I limit my views here to personal recollections, confessions, and memory. Nothing more, nothing less.
For about 8 years of my childhood and early adolescence, my family was an associate member of the Bread of Life Charismatic Covenant Community based in Akron, Ohio. We joined while living in Lorain, Ohio and eventually moved to Reynosa, Mexico with the self-appointed missionary group from the community’s inner circle (Servants of the Cross), after their first mission failed in Honduras. In Mexico, my family was among the founding members of Seguidores de la Cruz and El Rancho Nazaret, new titles applied to the group’s reinvented identity by Dick Herman (who also led the controversial and officially disaffected from the Diocese of Cleveland Bread of Life community).
This community was certainly the exception to other similar communities that existed, and continue to exist, in the Catholic Church or within the ecumenical group The Sword of the Spirit. Its greatest, defining characteristic was its fierce independence contained to a group of relatives: the O’Connor family. (Dick’s wife is an O’Connor as is Sister Casey and their resident priest, Fr. Tim, and a few more.)
There are hundreds of thousands of words I could type—both beautiful and ugly—about this group but they are only relevant to this post because this was where I first heard the words ‘modesty,’ ‘chastity,’ ‘purity,’ and alike. (If you want to see some more testimonials about the community, here is a link to the Facebook group started by children of Bread of Life members.)
Something I learned very quickly was that, amidst the constant talk and attention about modesty, there was a thriving subculture of sexual repression that bred an intense, sexually inflected, and oftentimes extreme and explicit “naughty” discourse among the boys and young men. Adolescent boys talked about sex constantly when left alone. (And, perhaps, the older men too?)
This is not very surprising. To any outsider, it is rather expected and hum drum. All the same, this rather extreme context has a direct—and oftentimes identical—carry-0ver into the more common, albeit still obscure, culture to be found at places like Franciscan University of Steubenville, Christendom College, EWTN, Catholic Radio, Ave Maria, and all the affiliated conferences and literature. Again: this, too, is a culture I has been immersed in and know intimately.
One clear example of this was, and I suspect still is, the sexually repressive subtext of youth ministry.
I’ve been a participant, chaperone, leader, “young apostle,” organizer, keynote speaker, and music minister at countless retreats, conferences, and parish programs. Just about any adolescent—and youth minister—knows about the strange sexual tension that you can find in these places.
In the course of a weekend you can: piously have and listen to conversations about tales and exploits (called testimonies) about sex, masturbation, and pornography; experience a wide range of therapeutic/spiritual emotions that create a true feeling of existential release and euphoria and even sexual arousal; participate in a series of innocent and licit physical intimacies that are particularly present during the rituals of these events that are carefully planned by a team experts, a “core team.” (As we will see, in certain limited cases, you can just have sexual encounters with attendees or, more commonly, on the bus ride there and back.)
These is a deep beauty to these erotic events. I have had truly moving, liberating, and important experiences at these places. After the rigid and prescriptive life we led in the community, I was able to embrace my father and mother and say “I love you” in a way I had not done before during an “exercise” at a youth retreat. There is unquestionable, lasting value in that.
Also: I was an earnest, pious kid. I knew others who didn’t suffer from my own repressive anxiety and were able to go through these weekends and evenings in at least two different ways: (1) without sexual pretense whatsoever (or so it seemed to me) or (2) with an explicitly sexual pretense (they just openly came to retreats to try and get laid, pure and simple).
This is but one example, but I could name many others. The point to it all is that, within a Catholic culture that invokes the grammar and doctrine of modesty, there is a predictably hidden potential for sexual and erotic desire. These are not bad things in and of themselves; indeed they are actually quite beautiful. But they can also become nasty and crass—perverted, in other words. At the very least, they are spiritually and psychologically complex to deal with.
The bottom line is this: in my experience, perverts love modesty. And we already knew this: Puritans love modesty, Catholic Puritans included.
Especially men. Men in these sorts of circles love to talk—especially to each other, in special homoerotic man-on-man talks—about the swimming suit we don’t need to see and the temptations we avoid and, while doing so, indulge in a sort of Catholic karma sutra. It provides a subtext for men to relish in the repressed desires pent up by the discipline and shame of certain masculine religious dispositions to the body and sexual passions. All the while, it feeds their Puritanical delusions of piety, driven home by an entire specialized discourse about the body.
(Please note: Not only men; I know more than a few women chastity speakers who do not meet their own criteria in many, explicit ways.)
It allows someone who is governed by the Apollonian to satisfy the Dionysian in a single, psychoanalytic stroke.
Where this leaves us is not clear to me. I doubt it is entirely different, better, or worse than other places. I don’t think anything should be done or “fixed” necessarily. After all, if Freud was right about anything–and I think he was—he surely showed that sexual repression is more prevalent than we often like to admit—and that’s the point! (Surely he is wrong that everything must be sexualized to be understood correctly.) This comic strip rightly shows how secular US culture is uniquely inclined to problematic Puritanisms of and about sex, parallel to my Catholic memories.
What I can say is that, when people try and go on rants about modesty (like this link shows, shared by my friend John Lopez, about the petty dogma of Sola Skirtura), I am not circumspect for no good reason.
Trackbacks
- “Sola Skirtura (oh how I wish I had invented that phrase!)” Simcha Fisher « Faith, Hope, Love
- “Sola skirtura” and Sexual Woundedness | Faith, Hope, Love
Comments are closed.
I dunno. The “erotic” elements of youth ministry doesn’t correspond with my experience. Nor have I noticed the repressed sexual undercurrent of modesty or chastity teaching. To be sure, fixation on the topic of sexuality, even under the guise of talking about modesty, is a danger; and as fallen human beings, sexual sin is always a temptation. But in my experience, talk of modesty and chastity is a welcome check to the other sexual extreme that bombards us from every side in modern culture.
Oh, I should add that I haven’t really seen the “men love to talk about dealing with sexual temptations” either. Maybe I’m suffering from different type of repression? :)
Thales,
I don’t dispute that you haven’t seen this. But I also can assure you that my experience is not limited in these circles and what I reveal here from that extensive cache of memory and experience. If you want to hear men talk about sexual temptation, then go to just about any Steubenville youth conference morning men’s session.
Thanks for reading,
Sam
Sam,
Like you, I consider myself someone who is very familiar with the world of high school Catholic conferences, pro-life conferences, highschool and College-age bible studies and youth groups, chastity talks, the culture of “Steubenville, Christendom College, EWTN, Catholic Radio, Ave Maria, and all the affiliated conferences and literature”, as you put it. I’ve been involved as a participant, organizer, leader also, and many of my families and friends have been similarly involved. Of course, I’m not minimizing your experiences at all or disputing that what you’ve experienced, but what you’ve described (a sexual-tension-filled, sexually-repressive environment, with events of euphoria and sexual arousal, culminating in sexual encounters with attendees at the conference or on the bus ride home) is just so far from my personal experience.
I guess I’m with what Agellius says below: in any large group of young people, there is going to be some sexual tension or occasion for sexual temptation; there are going to be perverts and hypocrites; there are going to be those who succumb to the sexual sin.
But take a group of Steubenville/Christendom college age students at a pro-chastity conference, and take a similar group of University of State college students at homecoming weekend— and which group do you think will have more sexual tension, more “extreme and explicit “naughty” discourse”, more talk about sex, and more actual sexual immorality among the group?
Thales,
You are missing two important things: (1) the descriptive case I am sharing here follows a particular progression from the charismatic community to the youth ministry domain, but could be talked about elsewhere. The experience of euphoria and such things in the “movement” is not uncommon and has been there from the start. If you ever went to the Steubenville youth conference in the late 90′s and early 00′s—especially on campus or at South—you would have seen this on grand display on Saturday night. The genealogy I am offering follows from this in a way that is clear to anyone who has been in the “movement” through community life (especially BOL) and into the intersection with Catholic culture at large. Nonetheless, when you’ve been flown in to play and speak for conferences, led diocesan wide retreats, and taken bus loads of youth, along with being a participant in all of the above and raised in a family dedicated to full-time ministry for your entire life and educated at FUS, then, you may be able to begin to resonate a dismissal of my view. I hate to pull rank like this, and it in no way forces this to be your experience, but even if you look below to John Lopez’s experience: ask him who he cut his teeth in ministry with (guess who?), and I had already been working in the movement doing adult ministry (in Life in the Spirit Seminars and other such courses and retreats) before that.
Furthermore, you have over dramatized the way I am describing things here, and this leads to the second point: (2) The difference between an orgy at homecoming or whatever and the clean-cut exterior of a pro-life conference is EXACTLY the point I am drawing at. In the former, the culture is explicit and, sometimes, calloused and disenchanted towards sex. In the latter, there is clearly less sex at the quantitative level, but there does exist a qualitative subtext of repression that festers deep inside of it. In my experience of both (homecoming charades and pro-life retreats) there tension is different. Again: find yourself any “all guys” session at these types of conferences and you will quickly find the testimonies I described here. I am not saying one is better and the other is worse, nor am I equivocating between them. I am simply pointing out a real, descriptive thing that exists in this culture that comes, in many ways, out of the genealogy of the charismatic renewal movement and more.
To dismiss my account here as idiosyncratic would be a huge mistake. I am sure you are very familiar with this world, but, in this case, I have lived in that world exclusively for most of my life. Nonetheless, I share none of this to leverage an excuse for the state school nor to try and abolish the youth conference. I simply share it to show what is the case and show how complex it is to deal with. The only effect should be to be more serious—not less serious—about how we think and talk about modesty.
If you cannot take these points seriously, then, we are an impasse, at least for the moment.
Pax,
Sam
PS: My passion in this post stems from the fact that I rarely share or leverage this part of my life to make a point. The one time I do, I feel strongly about making sure I am not understating the extent to which I have lived through and in this culture—not as a side activity or a part of being a parishioner: it was full time, 24/365.
So what exactly happened on these bus rides?
Brian,
What happened was the same as what happened on school buses on coed trips—except these trip were explicitly invested in NOT doing that in their modesty emphasis (dress codes, preparation sessions, and sometimes even sitting rules [no mixed seating]).
Thanks,
Sam
Sam,
All I can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for so clearly and succinctly describing what so many of us who grew up in that same kind of “Catholic” environment have experienced. Our family was a bit of a Catholic cult unto itself, and I went to what is considered one of–if not the–most conservative Catholic colleges in the United States. And I have many friends and family members who have attended the other conservative colleges you mention. Many of my girlfriends and I have experienced exactly what you are talking about—the people who spout modesty the most are usually the biggest perverts around.
Like you, I’m not sure exactly what it means or what to do about it.
I’m also convinced this crazy dichotomy exists in all sorts of religious groups—this conservative Catholic subset just happens to be the group I grew up with.
One of the many good qualities that attracted me to my husband (whom I miraculously met at same uber-conservative college) was that unlike 90% or more of the other male students there, he was comfortable with going to a beach full of swimsuit-clad (yes, that includes bikinis!!) women. He is not ignorant or unaware of temptation, but he is very well-balanced and can handle it without getting scrupulous or judgmental or misogynistic. I knew he was much more sexually mature and just overall more well-balanced than most of the other “Catholic” men I was meeting in that environment, and now that we have been very happily married for nearly 20 years (sad to say, unlike so many other marriages that resulted from same college), I realize that although I was probably unable to articulate it or even understand it at the time, I thankfully had a deep-down notion that the pious perversity was a sign of some sort of unhealthy repression. I don’t attribute bad intention to most of the repressed “perverts”—I think most of them were just trying to be “good”, but decades later, the results of that unhealthy attitude have resulted in many unhappy marriages–and even some divorces. Twenty years later, they still love piously talking and debating about illicit sex acts among themselves (my husband clues me in). Being behind the scenes of the conservative Catholic environment all my life has taught me that much of what appears to be is not and many of these couples are living some pretty tough marriages, at least partly due to same unhealthy attitudes. (and there are plenty of unhealthy sexual attitudes among the women, too, I hasten to add—don’t want to suggest this is all a male problem).
Modesty is never mentioned in our home because of associations of it with unhealthy sexual attitudes. Time will tell if this was a good decision, but it was one that was pretty much inevitable given my revulsion to the term based on personal experience with people who love to use it. Instead, we have tried to teach our sons and daughters (not surprisingly, we have quite a few of them) respect for themselves and for others and that one big sign of this respect is dressing “appropriately”.
Thanks again for the breath of fresh air and reality, and the cartoon is priceless!
Diamonds,
I have some very sensitive stories I could tell, but would rather not in the interest of friendships and such. But you are very right about this aspect of marriages in this bubble of Catholic culture.
Thanks for reading,
Sam
Modesty is never mentioned in our home because of associations of it with unhealthy sexual attitudes. … Instead, we have tried to teach our sons and daughters (not surprisingly, we have quite a few of them) respect for themselves and for others and that one big sign of this respect is dressing “appropriately”.
Diamonds, I’m missing the distinction that you and Sam see. So it’s bad to teach about (A) “modesty,” but it’s good to teach about (B) “having respect for themselves and for others and that one sign is dressing appropriately.” Isn’t (B) what modesty is?
Thales,
That is exactly the point. Again, I can only speak from my own experience, but like Sam, I do have extensive experience in this “conservative” Catholic world (for lack of a better term). I grew up in it and through many of the movements within in—starting out from the charismatic and eventually moving into a cult-like family situation in which finally some of the family members ended up going SSPX.
I personally believe that what I am teaching my children probably is what modesty truly means. I am repulsed by the word because the people who used it most in my life have been the ones most hung-up on sexuality and have used “modesty” as a kind of weapon to keep others in line. Because of this visceral disgust I have for the word, I never use it with my children. Again, time will tell if this was wise or not. So far they seem to be growing up with a much healthier attitude toward the body than many of my friends’ kids who are extremely scrupulous about the whole issue.
Echoing Sam’s sentiment that I would in no way want to discount your experience, I also want to make clear that what I speak of is MY experience. And since my world still consists mostly of people who live in these circles, I see much of what goes on behind the scenes, and fellow conservative Catholics (women in particular) tell me things they would never tell an “outsider” for fear of causing scandal and not setting a good example for others.
My comment expressing gratitude to Sam was simply that. You may have no idea what a relief it is for me to hear from another person who has lived through an experience very similar to my own and has made some of the same observations I have noticed for decades but have pretty much kept to myself because nobody in my circle wants to hear it.
The results of these repressed attitudes and other negative and unhealthy undercurrents that seem to underlie at least some of the conservative Catholic culture bubble are quite ugly—but that is a story for another day. The bottom line is that I believe that if the conservative Catholic world ever truly hopes to inspire the culture at large, these aspects will need to be investigated and addressed, because when “outsiders” get a glimpse inside and see the unhappiness, it is unlikely that many of them will want to give up their contraception and start embracing the life of NFP and large families. Just my own .02.
This is a fascinating piece. Recently I was informed about a charismatic ecumenical community here in Georgia called “Alleluia!” On one hand, it has received some glowing reviews from those who grew up in it, and it apparently has been the source of many priestly vocations. But some disaffected former members have claimed that they witnessed among the younger men exactly the sort of sexual obsessions and acting out that you describe here. You suggest that the culture-of-repression is widespread outside of intentional communities as well, and I was thinking of my own reaction when I see displays for a group called “Pure Fashion” at local Catholic events; their focus on “modesty” (and their understanding of it) seem almost bizarre.
However, the flip side is the pop culture with which our children are bombarded. Without support from some group that consciously tries to put a countervailing sense of propriety into practice, it’s almost natural for our kids to see MTV and its many media copycats as representative of normality in sexual behavior. I would bet most Catholic parents today see that as a far more worrisome problem than raising kids who are sexually repressed.
ron,
I know quite a few people in this community and, as far as I can tell, they are VERY different from Bread of Life. Although, I has also seen some similarities where they intersect with the general Catholic culture I describe here.
About pop culture: I think there are ways to combat it without buying in the to rhetoric of “modesty.” For instance, I don’t own a television—there goes MTV. Also, there is more one can do by fostering a “classy” (for lack of a better term) aesthetic. I can think of more things, but none of them would need to be one or the other, I think.
Thanks,
Sam
There are perverts everywhere. There are also hypocrites everywhere, people who pretend to buy into the program at serious Catholic colleges (and high schools and elementary schools), but actually do not. I know this from experience.
There are also people everywhere who are weak in one way or another. There is also “sexual tension” (though I’m not sure precisely what that refers to) any place where young people gather together in large numbers.
But generally speaking (not necessarily arguing with anyone here), I think it would be absurd to suggest that an emphasis on modesty breeds perversion, sexual tension, immorality or even immodesty, in greater quantities than it would exist elsewhere. On the contrary, I’m quite certain that the best way to avoid or resist sexual temptations is to get one’s mind off sex; and one of the best ways to do that is to avoid looking at exposed or tightly wrapped body parts.
It may be that some men can look at women in bikinis all day long and be “fine with it”, i.e. not feel constantly tempted (either that or they’re fine with being constantly tempted). But that ain’t me, brother.
In fact this may explain some of what has been said here: Maybe some of the men who strenuously emphasize modesty do so precisely because they know how weak they themselves are. And so, when these guys end up getting caught in some scandalous behavior, everyone says “He’s the one who was emphasizing modesty so much!” Well yeah, he emphasized it because he knew from his own experience how dangerous immodesty can be. I think it would be perverse to conclude from such occurrences that it’s bad to emphasize modesty.
Agelius:
I know you’re not necessarily arguing with anyone here, but, to be clear, allow me to repeat myself:
“Where this leaves us is not clear to me. I doubt it is entirely different, better, or worse than other places. I don’t think anything should be done or “fixed” necessarily.”
Thanks,
Sam
Sam:
I did take note of that statement of yours. In fact that is why I felt the need to state that I was not necessarily arguing with anyone here. But thanks for pointing it out anyway.
Sam,
I would like to echo Diamonds, “All I can say is THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU”
This is a great piece and thank you for writing it.
This piece brings so much truth into the light. I say this with personal experience in having attended one of the conservative colleges you mentioned, but when I attended I was already married and had five children (we now have eight). We met many amazing families and had some great fellowship with them and those friendships are still growing. We also met some families that definitely lived in a Catholic bubble mentality.
While in college, I was also the Catholic youth minister in the city. I have been a full-time youth minister for thirteen years in the Catholic Church and have ministered to many teenagers in different parts of the country that have dealt with such experiences you have personally mentioned. I have also taken teens to many youth conferences, as well as spoke at, and They have all been great experiences, but I have to agree with you about this “sexually repressive subtext of youth ministry”. I also have to confess, that in a youth ministry setting I have contributed to this pedagogy of teaching modesty.
After fifteen years of marriage and thirteen years of full-time youth ministry experience and being in and around many Catholic family circles, I have been challenged as a husband, father and youth minister to rethink some things about this topic of “modesty”. Not only myself, but my wife as well. In our family, my wife and I are striving to raise good moral children that will also love their Faith, but we have also seen the importance of how we need to be aware of not to take it to the extreme and especially not to fall in the trap of this “sexually repressive subtext” while we move forward with raising our kiddos. We strive to help our children respect themselves and others and help them realize the beauty in how God has created them. Like I said before, we are striving to raise children that love their Catholic Faith with a profound reality that ordinary moments are filled with God’s extraordinary grace. Of course all this is rooted in Sacramental living. This process is not easy, but man we are so up for it.
As a family we have grown tired of all this petty, surfacy, talk by some circles of what’s modest and what’s not. We have often asked the question to these Catholic bubble circles, “What ever happened to the reality of striving to be a holy family in the midst of culture?”
As a family, we are striving to be the best school of love we can be and by far it has been the hardest thing we have ever done, but it’s all worth it.
Great piece brother!
Finally someone saying worth listening to on this topic of “Modesty”. Families, parents and youth ministers can learn much by reading this piece.
Keep the fresh air coming…much love!
Thanks, John.
Since Dad was always about the “essential content” I never really got into the modesty thing, but I certainly fed the pedagogy in other ways that I am still unsure about—especially when it comes to music. I may write my next confessional post about that: confessions of a expert emotion manipulator, er… music minister. It really grafts on to this point. The sexuality of the concert is surely present at the P&W session done in front of 8000 teenagers. By the way: I play now at church again, but its very different than before… More to come!
Thanks for reading,
Sam
Thank you so much for your honesty Sam.
I’ve always been a suspicious type in such contexts and usually spent my time at such events brooding and grilling the organizers about emotional manipulation or some such. I never really got to experience what went on behind the scenes because I was an outsider, but this is not at all surprising. It may be part of what made my spidey-senses tingle.
Sam,
A thought just occurred to me: do you think that JPII’s Theology of the Body (and related talks, readings, study, etc.) is a cause of the sexually repressive subtext to youth ministry, or an antidote?
I think the rhetoric of it—something that Brett has keyed into here in the past—does share similarities. But the TOB was coming on strong just towards the end of my time, in this respect I have very little of a sense other than the generic sort of talk I would hear at conferences when it was just getting around in a bigger way. My opinion is that it could be both. I really think you fail to see the heart of this matter which is not about supporting or reject modesty: it is a cultural matter, an expression literally cultures inside of social movements and ideologies and makes itself explicit in complex ways. “Modesty” talk is one of them, but what that means exactly and what to be done is beyond me. Again, Freud certainly shows us that this business is virual and tough to analyze, psychoanalytically or whathaveyou. I do think that people who become “sex experts” in these religious circles are not unreasonably held circumspect by those who have come out of these long, lasting experiences, wherever they happen.
Sam
Sam,
I’m not dismissing your points as unserious, and I wasn’t trying to “over dramatize” the way you were describing things (I was trying to use your own very own descriptions and phrasings). I truly appreciate your views and experiences. It was just that it was very different from what I had experienced.
After more thought, and after reading Diamonds and john lopez, I think that I’m not understanding the very valid and very important issue that you are all addressing. I suspect that I’m just a little bit younger than all of you, and that I’m a few years removed from the excesses of euphoria and emotionalism that was more prevalent in the early years of the charismatic renewal movement. So I think that I don’t have the experience of the phenomenon that you’ve all experienced and that you’re all thinking of.
One reason why I think I’m missing the issue is because of your talk about modesty. You, Diamonds, and john lopez all say that there are problems of thinking and talking about modesty. And then Diamonds contrasts modesty with “having respect for themselves and for others and that one sign is dressing appropriately” and john lopez contrasts modesty with striving “to help our children respect themselves and others and help them realize the beauty in how God has created them… rooted in Sacramental living.” To me, I don’t understand the distinction, because it sounds like Diamonds and john lopez are describing what I would define as modesty.
So I wonder whether I’m coming from a slightly older generation that is a little bit removed from the pure euphoria — and knee-jerk and possibly immature reaction to sexuality –of the early charismatic years. And I wonder whether I’m lucky to have encountered and been involved with youth groups, conferences, etc., that have approached the topics of modesty and sexuality with a little more maturity, a maturity that john lopez and Diamonds describe and which I think is found in the TOB.
Let me end by repeating what I said at first: that fixation on the topic of sexuality, even under the guise of talking about modesty, is a danger; and as fallen human beings, sexual sin is always a temptation. Sam, I agree that how we think about and talk about modesty is a topic we should take seriously. And though I think the TOB is a great help in addressing the topic of sexuality with maturity, I recognize even the TOB suffers from the question about how to discuss it properly (consider the recent debate between West-and-supporters and Von Hildebrand-and-supporters).
Since I think that I haven’t experienced the of the phenomenon you’re all describing, I’ll withdraw from making observations about it.
Fair enough Thales, and thanks for your careful reply.
I think the issue is not with what “modesty” is or is not. It is a cultural question. A question of how the term gets used and what it is used for, especially what unintended uses occur.
I am an odd duck: I was raised in a very radical group that allowed me to experience the “old school” version of the charismatic renewal well into the 90′s. I’m only 28, but lived directly through the community and then into FUS with all the ministry that went into those years before, during, and after.
I began to realize this in a conversation with ***** (I removed his name, in case this would hurt his work) who told me how he came to these conferences (as I did) and thought they were bullshit. We both agreed that a lot of the content then was the same now, and we both even hinted as some shame for being involved in them. But we also talked about how we needed to help the movement get out of the Steve Angrisano generation and into our own. (I really like Steve, by the way, he’s legit musician and I loved playing with him in Milwaukee a few years ago)
Anyhow, I suspect a lot of this is more clear to people in full time ministry or who grew up in a family that was doing this sort of thing all the time. For others, they may have been the cases I mentioned.
Anyhow, modesty for me is not the issue: it’s really about how that can become a disciplinary discourse within a culture that creates deep seated issues of repression and even perversion—or at least a disharmony of some kind.
Thanks for your time here, peace,
Sam
My family had moved through and out of the charismatic movement by 1980 or so—by that time, we had become too conservative for the charismatic movement and started getting quite cultish living out in the sticks waiting for the great chastisement. So while my experience with Catholicism began in the charismatic movement, I also have experience with a range of other movements within the Church (my husband and I were closely connected to the Legion of Christ for nearly 15 years, to give one example).
The underlying similarity in all of the movements in my personal experience was manipulation and control. The point is that use of the the term “modesty” was just one aspect of that manipulation.
As a side note, I am feeling quite old here, having turned 41 not too long ago. But I do have the perspective now of having seen so many of my friends from college who married around the same time we did struggle and suffer due to some of these issues. There are some aspects of this bubble of Catholic culture that are just plain ugly. But like I said, I think a lot of this exists in many other religions and groups; I just happen to have grown up in this particular bubble, so this is my experience.
AN interesting post.
I do wonder if , and I am not that familiar with the communities your were a part of , if the Charismatic /Pentecostal aspect is what play a big role perhaps more than “modesty” though modesty is at play there.
In the State where I live the Charismatic renewal is pretty big among Catholic but not in the Diocese where I live. So my experience is with the traditional United Pentecostals and their cousins the Assemblies of God. When I was much more engaged on ground politically and visiting these Churches one was struck with the modest theme but an undercurrent of raw sexuality that was in the services. One reason I suppose sometimes I think sex scandal issues pop up there (in my opinion). SO I wonder as to them if modesty is the issue or something else.
I have never had much contact with Catholic groups of other bents where modesty is a major theme. It would be an interesting compare and contrast too examine them all as to these issue too see how they compare
jh,
I do think you’re on to something here…
Sam
Count me among those who’ve never seen anything like what Sam is describing. Different circles, maybe.
What an interesting post! You are a reader between the lines for sure! Everything you describe goes double, in my experience, in the seminary. I feel like I could write pages and pages, often tawdry, about this matter. Instead I will just say this. All the surreptitious talk in such environments is based on the vastly unspoken human need to make sex more than it is. Please don’t take me to be aiming straight at the Theology the of the Body trend, though I admit I am a complete skeptic about its wonders. Rather I am making the simpler common denominator observation that the way to create sexual obsession is to create fanciful limits on it. Nota bene: Love and prudence are NOT fanciful limits. But the notion that “I can be celibate or chaste because of thus and so very holy” is entirely fanciful. Again, nota bene: chastity and modesty because it is congruent with one’s deep nature is an utterly different thing. By this logic, in my experience, about 95% of the people in seminary and priesthood have no conceivable reason to be there. And their wisdom and sermons on human relationships are like taking business advice from a complete ne’r- do- well. All this is again NOT to say that there are not moments of wisdom in the lives of saints and sundry priests who have lived. I think of a certain Father Escala at my seminary in MIami who was the most peaceful natural celibate I encountered. He stands as a witness in memory that life is not controlled by passions. It is controlled, if that is the word, by the potential of peace, peace with yourself, not with passions.
But for the vast majority of the human race there is, to my mind, only one real usable lesson to take from the Father Escalas of the world. And it is not a lesson a la the Theology of the Body!!! It is simply the shopworn wisdom that sex is not what people like to think. The best way to know sex’s limits is just to understand your own quirky self sexually. That means experiencing it. There is not short cut. That is what leads to real prudence and a kind of chaste engagement even in sexuality. That is the real antidote to perversion. As you noted hyped-up holy modesty tends in the opposite direction. Catholic cultures had a lot of the wisdom for centuries, often in de facto wisdom. Now that is gone, and what is left is a quasi-positivistic doctrine of sexual delusion utterly at odds with the Catholic wisdoms of the past. It is a recipe for disaster in many people’s lives. Instead, the Curia sees devils in the Vatican. The devil is an inhuman trend in their thought. Very sad for all involved.
On the TOB track, I just stumbled across something interesting. As readers might be aware, I am a bit of a skeptic about Christopher West and other “popularizers.” One of the issues I have had is the overly emotional presentation (I get ribbed by some for having called West “hokey” here at VN).
That said, I went to the recent 3rd International TOB Symposium with eyes wide open and was actually quite impressed with what much of West had to say. Just this morning I was sorting through my papers and found this quote written at the bottom of Mr. West’s handout (in my own writing. i.e., I was writing down something he said in his talk):
“Modesty can be used as an excuse not to look at our issues.”
I am going to update this onto my post, okay?
Thanks!
Sam
Dear Sam,
Thank you for this post. May I ask a question? When you write “perverts love modesty,” I think that we can interpret it two ways. As you seem to suggest, we can identify a relishing in “repressed desires pent up by the discipline and shame of certain masculine religious dispositions to the body and sexual passions.” That might be the case, although I can’t claim to have evidence for it.
I wonder if there is another, simpler explanation. When discussing just war, Rowan Williams suggested that pacifists and exponents of a “pagan ethos” shared something in common – they both considered war to be “some monstrous aberration in human life, for which all standing orders are suspended.” War was not a activity among others with a “ethical structure.”
For some Catholics, sexual desire before marriage is a realistic possibility might be a “monstrous aberration.” There is no real language for it, and, insofar as every concession to this desire seems to be “gravely contrary to chastity” and totally destructive, it has no real ethical structure. It is like war for a pacifist – it is simply monstrous and no distinctions can be made.
Therefore, if we think about any non-procreative marital form of sexuality, some Catholics are oddly similar to libertines – the sex can have no meaning whatsoever. It exists in some outer darkness. The sexual desire behind such acts can’t be contextualized, and, given the stakes, can only be the source of anxiety.
In comparison, we can imagine perhaps a mainline Protestant who doesn’t have as rigorous of a sexual morality as his Catholic friend, but a greater degree of self-awareness. He allows himself more liberties but asks himself, “Does my sexual desire affect my attentiveness? Do my sexual practices affect my hospitality to other people?” At times, he realizes the need for serious asceticism, but at other times he takes an ironic attitude and just laughs at himself.
(I don’t mean to suggest that self-awareness about desire can’t exist among Catholics, but, to be honest, you mostly see it in monastic writing. Could a Catholic bishop write a more conservative version of Rowan Williams’ “The Body’s Grace” and make any sense of The Raj Quartet?)
Neil
Neil,
I am think your interpretation here merits attention and interest. My own account here, based the rhetoric I am attending to, is less about avoiding pre-marital sex (although that is huge part of the issue in youth ministry), but is more about a general, disciplinary structure. The “Sola Skritura” bit attests to that. Its more about lifestyle, than avoid this or that particular sexual temptation. But your own point here actually extends my own experiences into a domain that might be more generally applicable.
Thanks,
Sam
The more comments I read, the more I’m at a loss. At first, I confess I thought what Sam and others were doing was taking a jab at conservative Catholics by saying that when a bunch of trads and conservatives get together to act all prim and holy, they are secretly getting down and dirty. So they’re hypocrites. The more one talks about modesty, the more likely he’s actually a pervert. That kind of thing.
Having seen more people agree with Sam’s observations, I’m trying to be more openminded, but I’m still confused.
I’m hearing that “modesty talk” is used to control people, but I don’t understand what that means, specifically. How do you control people by urging them to be virtuous?
I am also hearing that it leads to “sexual repression”, which is assumed or understood to be a bad thing. What exactly does that mean (a nutshell definition will suffice)? And is the solution to *not* talk about the need for modesty?
In my experience, modesty is virtually never talked about in Church environments, and I have often been frustrated at the fact. Girls come to Mass in mini skirts and skin tight jeans, which I find a genuine distraction — not just at Mass, but Mass is where I find it most incongruous with what I’m trying to keep my mind on. Yet priests never, ever say from the pulpit, “You know, you girls should try to exercise a little modesty now and then, especially in church.”
Do Sam and those who agree with him, think that my attitude and frustrations concerning modesty indicate repression or perversion on my part? I don’t really believe you think that, but your answers to this question might help me to understand what you’re driving at.
Interesting discussion.
Agellius,
Those are all good questions, but I think the main reason you’re confused is that you haven’t been exposed to these strange circles of Catholics. What I have learned here thus far, is just how limited these outlying cases are in some ways, and also how they might be extended (with certain qualifications) in others. I am not suggesting that we stop talking about modesty in a strict, prescriptive sense (again, I said very clearly here), but I do think that those of us who have seen the culture that can come with the constant, and oftentimes draconian, talk about modesty, we might have good reason to be suspicious. I am ALL for telling guys and girls to put on some clothes, or to not look trashy—I believe a rhetoric of beauty is desperately needed—but that is not the issue here. The issue is a subculture of “modesty talk” that comes out of a genealogy that is multiplex and, to many of us, deeply troubling. A subculture that is rare, except for those who have been immersed in it.
And no, I don’t think you’re a pervert or repressed. But why do you seem so defensive? ;)
Peace,
Sam
I think your purpose is becoming clearer to me. Thanks.
I can imagine how constant and draconian talk about modesty could have bad consequences. As I said before, the best way to resist sexual temptation is to get your mind off sex. Constant anti-sex talk is not the way to get that done.
The very fact of thinking about sexual sins will tend to produce more of them. In this regard, a certain laxity is to be preferred to a certain scrupulosity. And that actually is the dominant strain of Catholic praxis on this point.
I find this discussion very interesting. I have not been exposed to the circles Sam, et al. have been talking about, though I think I have brushed against them in other contexts—mostly discussions of NFP—and I found them creepy. There is a word that I want to introduce that may be helpful: prurience, which is what I believe Sam is referring to.
To move in a somewhat different direction: in the contexts in which I have been exposed to discussions of modesty, I have always been vaguely disturbed by the highly gendered nature of what was said. It always seems to boil down to telling girls to dress modestly so that they are not distracting or tempting to boys, and telling boys to to not stare at girls “with lust.” There is never any suggestion that the boys should dress modestly, though I see plenty of examples of guys dressing in subtle but explicitly sexually provocative ways: tight jeans, muscle shirt, a gold chain, hair just so. I imagine this is because all talk of modesty, even by women, is framed from a masculine perspective, and to discuss men dressing sexually would be a bit too homoerotic. In the same way there never seems to be acknowledgement that women are sexual beings, and therefore subject to temptation as well. Rather, again from a male perspective, they are viewed as objects of “purity” that must be protected from male desire.
I would be very interested in seeing a treatment of these ideas that broke free from the gender stereotypes of the larger society: that really was counter-cultural, instead of, in Zizek’s terminology, upholding the law while preserving its perverse underbelly.
DCU writes, “There is a word that I want to introduce that may be helpful: prurience, which is what I believe Sam is referring to.”
Thanks for that!
DCU writes, “I have always been vaguely disturbed by the highly gendered nature of what was said. It always seems to boil down to telling girls to dress modestly so that they are not distracting or tempting to boys, and telling boys to to not stare at girls “with lust.” … In the same way there never seems to be acknowledgement that women are sexual beings, and therefore subject to temptation as well.”
I think it’s simply that more men are concerned about it. I have heard various men complain that modesty is never preached from the pulpit, but don’t recall ever hearing a woman complain about it.
Of course I realize that women are sexual beings. But of the women I have known personally, none of them has complained of being so easily distracted or so sorely tempted by merely looking at someone dressed immodestly, as I know men to be. In fact it seems to me that the way the majority of women dress in modern Western society, is evidence that they are not as visually distracted or as easily tempted as men are. For an elaboration on this, see http://agellius.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/33/ . In a nutshell, if women reacted to visual stimuli the same way men do, then most of them would not dress the way they do (the exceptions being the ones who positively want men to look at them that way).
It’s well known that women aren’t nearly as stimulated visually as men are. Most women couldn’t care less if a man is wearing a tight shirt (and are probably more likely to be repulsed by it rather than attracted). That’s not true of men.
I asked my wife about this and she said something very rude that boiled down to “you are making an unjustifiable generalization.”
This was pretty much my response to my husband the other day when we were talking about one aspect of marriage being a remedy for concupiscence, and I asked, “Well, when using NFP, many women are never able to have sexual intimacy with their husbands when they are actually subject to concuspiscence (i.e. many women are much more interested in sex during ovulation)–quite possibly for the rest of their lives (if they have serious reason to avoid any more pregnancies), so how can marriage be said to be a cure for it for those women when the couple is using NFP?”
His response, “Are you kidding me? Don’t you realize concuspiscence doesn’t have anything to do with women? It’s always about the man!”
Yeah, my indignant response was probably just a bit rude—and then we both had a good laugh over the whole subject.
I don’t know that it’s so much a matter of “agreeing” with Sam (other than to agree that I’m not sure what, if anything, can or should be done about this pious pervert phenomenon and also to agree that I give anybody who is claiming to be a sexpert in the latest fad/book/what-have-you on sexuality in the Church the hairy eyeball based on my own past experiences). For me, reading this post was simply, “Oh, this guys GETS it. He’s been through some experiences very similar to mine and isn’t afraid to talk about it. What a breath of fresh air!”
I’m afraid I am probably not going to be very good at articulating just how these types of virtues can be used as forms of manipulation and control; what I can say is that growing up, “modesty” was pretty much beaten in to us as part of an overall view of sex as a bad thing (even when lip service was given to it being a “beautiful” part of God’s plan). It was a negative, not a positive—e.g.”Don’t wear pants, shorts or swimsuits because that will lead a guy into sin” rather than “Respect your body as a temple of the Holy Spirit and treat it as a thing of beauty not to be draped in clothes unworthy of it”. I can’t speak for anybody else here, but in my authoritarian upbringing, fear of being unvirtuous (and thus unworthy of love and acceptance of the group) was used to manipulate people into certain behaviors. Modesty (perhaps because of its connection to sex) was one of the major virtues treated in this way in my own experience. It also went hand in hand with repression that led to the prurient kind of talk and behavior that Sam has also experienced. My husband really related to the part about a whole subset of youth going to these retreats and youth conferences in the hope of “getting laid” (not that he was one of them, just to be clear! but he knew a lot of them). I myself did not have much experience with youth retreats as by that time in my teens our family cult had reached a point of isolation from such events.
If you have never experienced this bubble of Catholic culture, be glad for it. It’s not really a happy place to be. I credit my husband’s common sense approach and belief in a truly loving God with saving me from perpetuating that culture bubble in my own life.
Peter Paul’s post above resonated for me in the sense that I have a gut feeling that some kind of Church wisdom has been lost in these matters over time and that placing too much emphasis on sexuality (even as it is presented in TOB) also has it hazards. Personally, I find that accepting it as a wonderful gift from God without reducing everything else in the world to it seems like a pretty reasonable place to be. When I die, I want to be able to face God and tell Him I enjoyed all the gifts He gave me here on earth, and while I was not perfect and may have even screwed up some of these gifts here and there at times, I lived and loved what He gave me and didn’t spend my time agonizing over minutiae. (I speak as one who suffered extreme scrupulosity in my past as a result of my upbringing).
It will take much greater minds than I to figure out both what has caused the lost wisdom Peter Paul speaks of and to figure out what to do about it. What does seem clear to me is that many people these days are pretty messed up when it comes to having a healthy understanding of sexuality and being able to integrate that understanding into real life while keeping it all in perspective–and that this is part of the cause of many unhappy marriages in the conservative Catholic culture bubble. Again, just my .02.
Diamonds:
Thanks so much for explaining, I appreciate it you trying to help me get it.
“I find that accepting [sex] as a wonderful gift from God without reducing everything else in the world to it seems like a pretty reasonable place to be.”
Totally in agreement.
Diamonds,
What has been lost is the cumulative effect of being the sole arbiter of a culture, which the Church was for centuries. When you are the basic arbiter you have to account for the broad panoply of human tendencies. Thus, you get get commonsense wisdom. Now the Church is freed to be an utter “hothouse plant” and yet combine that hybrid quality with a philosophy developed long ago when it was a “universal” — that is, when it was a culture- defining organism. It breeds a very potentially toxic hybrid. This is how foppish types like Robert George can imagine themselves defenders of he-man marriage. Through the bizarre prism of Thomistic preciousness. Incredible.
Well, Sam, I’m a few years older than you, so I was wrong to think that I wasn’t relating to you because I was from a later generation than you. It’s not a generational difference. So after more thought, I wonder whether it is, instead, a subculture thing. In your response to Agellius, you mention exposure to “strange circles of Catholicism.” That’s probably it. You apparently grew up and was heavily involved in a strange circle of Catholicism that had underlying problems. Fair enough; I can understand that. In Catholicism, there is unfortunately many similar “strange circles” or “bubbles”, and I have friends and associates who have been involved in other “strange circles”, have left them, and are very wary of the errors they see in the wacky-ness they used to be a part of.
Consider all these wacky “strange circles” in Catholicism: the “I must retreat from the world and raise a family in a Catholic commune”; the “homeschooling is the only way and every other education form is evil”; the “girls should never wear pants”; the “if you don’t wear a mantilla, you are violating Church law”; the “all natural, no medications, lotus birth is the only way God intended things to be”; the “Vatican II is illegitimate and the seat of Peter is vacant”; the “charismatic gifts are the only way to truly knowing God” vs. the “charismatic gifts are hokum and possibly from the Devil”; the “you’re not a good Catholic if you like the New Mass” vs. “you’re not a good Catholic if you like the Old Mass”; the “if you don’t have an emotional connection to Jesus, you’re a bad Catholic” vs. “emotional connections are a sign of a bad Catholic, an intellectual faith is what matters”; the “guitar music in Mass is from the Devil” vs. “guitar music in Mass is the only way to properly praise God”; the “Fr. Maciel did great things and if he’s attacked, that means he’s holy and the Devil wants to destroy him” and now the “Fr. Corapi did great things and if he’s attacked, that means he’s holy and the Devil wants to destroy him”. I see David identifies the NFP subculture. You’re identifying another subculture, one of “modesty” obsession (if I can call it that). So I appreciate your wariness. I agree that one should be wary.
Now even though there may be great good in some of these subcultures, sometimes these subcultures have an undercurrent of “extremeness” that sometimes leads to error– spiritual or intellectual pride, or emotionalism, or knee-jerk reaction-ism, or scrupulosity, or haughtiness, or immaturity, or imprudent obsession– even as the members are honestly trying to do good and seek God. To avoid the pitfalls of these subcultures, I think moderation, calmness, thoughtfulness, and prudence are needed – and not flirting with extremes regardless of whether it’s in the “liberal” or the “conservative” direction.
Final thoughts:
-I re-read your original post, and I realized that I have no understanding of your definition of “erotic.” I have no idea what you mean when you talk about the virtues of a youth conference and then say “There is a deep beauty to these erotic events.” Maybe you are equating euphoria and extreme emotionalism with being “erotic” (which is a use of language that I’m not familiar with). Or maybe you truly saw a sexual aspect to the euphoria and extreme emotionalism (which you perhaps see as possibly good and beautiful in some ways, even though there are excesses?) and if so, then I think we run in different circles, because while I can see sexual tension in “modesty” talks, I didn’t see sexual tension in your typical youth praise-and-worship Eucharistic adoration night, for example.
-In re-reading your post and your comments, I understand that I tapped a nerve because you were sharing a very personal part of your experience, and you thought that I might be dismissing it. I apologize for the offense – I didn’t intend it; I honestly appreciate your experiences and insights, and I don’t intend at all to dismiss them. But I think I was bothered in a similar way as you were because I felt that you were extrapolating your experience to a larger portion of the Church’s life and dismissing what is my personal experience. Your main post seems to say that just about every youth ministry program or conference or parish program has a problem with sexual tension, and that adolescents and men involved in these programs talk about sex all the time, and that this tension is found in the culture at places “like Franciscan University of Steubenville, Christendom College, EWTN, Catholic Radio, Ave Maria, and all the affiliated conferences and literature.” To me and many of my family and friends who have been touched by such ministry and have touched the lives of others by such ministry work, leading to a deeper life with Christ, it sounded like an unfair generalization of what we found to be meaningful experiences.
A quick note, Thales:
You’re right. I am using the term ‘erotic’ in a rather loaded way. I understand and use it in a very broad way that begin with the Symposium and goes from there. So, for me, the instance of telling my parents “I love you” was erotic int he sense I mean it. Anyhow, I should say more sometime about this—I think I am going to do a follow-up about music ministry, especially at the adoration-type places you find in FUS conferences, Life Teen, and such (all which I’ve played at many times)…
Thanks again,
Sam
Sam, fantastic post! First, I am not as familiar with the modesty talks here in the States. However, I was on a retreat team back in my early 20s and we traveled all around speaking about the Faith and repentance. Turns out the majority of the team later left the Church over sex issues, many of the guys were repressed homosexuals & one lesbian on the team. The others just couldn’t live the life that Peter Fuchs notes is not real.
But where I can completely relate to your post is my later experience as a missionary in Latin America. I was stunned to learn that the very outwardly conservative and Orthodox priests were actually living blatant sex lives. I learned that the Church truly believes that the laity should do one thing while the hierarchy is exempt. This goes for nuns, too! It was extremely shocking for me to realize that things are not always as they appear. When I came back to the States I just could not relate to conservative Catholic newspapers or magazines because they seemed like they wanted to perpetuate a myth that just does not exist. I am glad that Peter brought up seminaries because I heard some wild stories from priest friends and ex-seminarians about what it was *really* like in the seminary and I cannot help but wonder if Church teaching is contributing to such cognitive dissonance.
Quickly here too, SLW:
Without going into too much detail, for the sake of the people who I know and love in this, the homosexuality aspect of this is another way of seeing it—in good and bad ways, I think—and VERY real in the very fact that I am skating around sharing quite recent anecdotes…
Thanks!
Sam
Diamonds,
What has been lost is the cumulative effect of being the sole arbiter of a culture, which the Church was for centuries. When you are the basic arbiter you have to account for the broad panoply of human tendencies. Thus, you get get commonsense wisdom. Now the Church is freed to be an utter “hothouse plant” and yet combine that hybrid quality with a philosophy developed long ago when it was a “universal” — that is, when it was a culture- defining organism. It breeds a very potentially toxic hybrid. This is how epicene types like Robert George can imagine themselves defenders of he-man marriage. Through the bizarre prism of Thomistic preciousness. Incredible.
This is an interesting thread and makes me grateful for my own parents; who were just good garden-variety mainstream Catholics and not a part of any funky subcultures, unless you count being a Nebraska farm/ranch family as one of those. I have always been a little leery of para-church, “church within the church” movements.
I appreciate Diamonds comment that…”I find that accepting [sex] as a wonderful gift from God without reducing everything else in the world to it seems like a pretty reasonable place to be.” And I also agree with Thales that it’s not fair to put all youth ministry outreach efforts in one basket. It pretty much boils down to who is doing it and how they are carrying it out.
Having been involved in bringing teens to Steubenville Youth Conferences and youth ministry at our parish with a gifted youth director who has been formed, influenced and heavily involved in LifeTeen and the Charismatic renewal, this post has articulated for me what I have been struggling with for about 10 years. Thanks so much…I will continue to follow your posts!
Everyone:
I just returned from some fishing, reading, and play. I do intend to reply or write a follow-up post in the near future, but please know that I am grateful for ALL of your thoughtful and probing comments posted here thusfar. I have so much to say about many of them—agreements, disputes, clarifications, and the rest—but am mostly experiencing a certain cathartic joy that I am very thankful for.
Blessings,
Sam
Looking at this post again stimulated a memory for that I think may be informative. When I was kid, for a number of years I went weekly with my aunt and some others to the meetings of the Charismatic Catholic community which met in the cafeteria of Chaminade High School located a bit above Miami. Of course most of the meetings were taken -up with “speaking in tongues”. After which someone would “translate” the meaning of the gibberish.( As a side note, I still wonder if anyone has ever analyzed why speaking in tongues always seems to start with the “words” something like “A shambala”. Is it some sort of Ur-language, or Ur-gibberish ingrained in our psyches?? I do wonder, for I still hear it on TV when evangelicals “speak in tongues” ) Anyways, the part of the meeting that seemed relevant to this post was the before and after the actual prayer meeting. I do not think I got so many effusive, extremely tactile “hugs” in my life from middle- aged ladies, and some sort of confirmed- bachelor types as well. Or maybe they were all younger, just seemed middle-aged to me at that point. Of course at this point I can’t imagine “hugging” any stranger that way in public. And I dare say, given all we know now about abusive habits of some, such “hugging” would be considered just that — abusive. Of course there is a very ambiguous cultural judgment in there somewhere, and I don’t deny it. But the very fact that I had sort of blocked the memory till now tells me something. With all the insanity of “translating” gibberish for hours on end — for the meetings were at least two hours long — all sorts of boundary-crossing in that environment seemed quite de riguer. A tangled sense of “eros” for sure!
Peter P. Fuchs:
Your memory shared here is precisely the sort of thing I am alluding to—and myself remember very well.
Sam
Sam:
It would be instructive to contrast your experience with someone perhaps twenty years older who grew up in the immediate post-Vatican II era. I did. The era of “The Sexual Celibate?” When clergy used loosening restrictions both in the culture and in the Church to exploit young people? I knew those people. Growing up in the 70′s most of the younger priests I knew were involved with young males or females (or with one of them – both) and were vigorously exploiting the sensibility that preached that love and friendship could be expressed in sexual ways that didn’t violate celibacy (because they said – celibacy is a promise not to MARRY) and was helpful and life-expanding to the young person. Because it was all about love.
People will use whatever ideology is at hand to satisfy their darkness.