The priest as matinee idol.
Objectifying men in Holy Orders.
Catholic news is often full of stories about liberal nuns who want greater equality in a male dominated Church, along with reports of their counterparts who either lobby for female ordination or go ahead and have themselves ordained.
Then there are the periodic reports of the occasional scandal involving a priest leaving orders to marry a parish worker or some Camille he may be counselling. Media, including Catholic bloggers love to exploit these stories. Such stories also provide an excellent opportunity for uber-Catholics to proclaim their orthodoxy and fidelity to everything traditional, while condemning the heretics. It’s something to blog about.
However, I find it curious that women, like gay men, seem to have an inordinate attraction not only to the priesthood, but to priests themselves. I’ve heard some very traditional women say they think the priest is sexy in his cassock - even if he may have ho-hum looks.
Of course, Donatella Versaci has been rather vocal about her attraction to Monsignor Ganswein, the Pope’s secretary; last year she based a portion of her men’s collection on clerical wear because of him. The Monsignor also seems to be popular with female bloggers - Catholic and non-Catholic, and as one would expect, gay men seem to have the hots for him as well. The poor Father is just too sexy for his cassock.
Respecting boundaries.
Fatal attractions for priests and religious are nothing new, the movie, “The Devils” based upon the book by Aldous Huxley, ”The Devils of Loudon”, contains several scenes of Vanessa Redgrave’s character lusting after the local parish priest. She was especially turned on by her fantasy of him naked beneath a lacy alb. I don’t really know what it is that women find so attractive about priests and seminarians - and although I have a few ideas, I won’t go there. (Photo: Oliver Reed from “The Devils”, Ken Russell, 1971. Shown here is his scene as a fantasy of Christ for the prioress [Redgrave] who lusted after him.)
Even the most devout and sincere woman can mistake attraction for devotion and dedication to her faith or position in the parish, although in many instances, she is most likely in denial. I expect that must be the case when it leads to a priest leaving ministry for the woman he either worked with or counseled. There are all sorts of situations which can befall a priest, and although it takes two in cases involving romance, the woman may indeed have greater responsibility in the affair. Why? If, as studies suggest, women are more intuitive than men, they ought to be more sensitive to the onset of infatuation and lust. Men, ordained or not, often just don’t see it until it happens.
In such cases women would do well to recall the old saying; “Where there’s smoke there’s fire.” Although before it gets that far, they ought to keep in mind the other saying; ”Where there’s fantasy there’s desire”.
It may be better to pray for priests, rather than to foster crushes on them.
Links:
Priests and Emotional Love, by Rev. Thomas G. Morrow - A very good article on the subject.
[Top photo: Monsignor Ganswein with another prelate.]
February 16th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Hmmm…I don’t think I would ever describe a priest in a cassock as “sexy.” That just doesn’t work. “priest” and “sexy” don’t go together at all. Yuck. These women surprise me. (No offense to priests….it’s just that priests are not available, akin to being married men. Thus I say “yuck” to married men, too!)
February 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Oh, Terry–those lace Cassocks are beautiful. I suppose men in military uniforms–all dressed-up is just as attractive as men–all dessed-up in cassocks. Even if the man underneath is somewhat plain–the attraction is in the clothing.
Same as when a woman wears jeans and a shirt–no makeup–she is not as attractive as when she has on a beautiful dress, heels, does her hair and wears make-up.
There are many good looking priests out in the world–to say that because they are a priest–we should automatically not be attracted? If he is a handsome man, and wears handsome clothing–it seems natural to be attracted.
Now, what you do with the attraction–well, while there are a few “fatal” attractions–I would say they are few and far between.
February 16th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Women are attracted to that aura of the forbidden. Priests are hit on all the time and need all our prayers.
February 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Terry said: “I find it curious that women, like gay men, seem to have an inordinate attraction not only to the priesthood, but to priests themselves.”
I’m curious as to how you can justify such a sweeping and, well, simplistic generalization.
I mean, you’ve just lumped all women and all gay men together! I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but not all gay men are attracted to the same type of things - be it music, movies, clothes, or men. And I’m sure it’s the same for women and straight men.
And besides, as a non-Catholic friend of mine is fond of asking me: Why are Catholic male priests always trying to be like women? I mean, what’s with the long flowing gowns, pretty lace, etc.?
He’s got a point, you know. For a lot of folks - Catholic and non - the sight of a guy in a dress instructing people on the rights and wrongs of gender and sexuality - not to mention banning women from “the club” - is a total joke.
I definitely believe that the culture of the Roman Catholic priesthood - including dress and ritual - has, over the centuries, been shaped by gay men - or, to be more precise, a certain type of gay man. (Andrew Sullivan has written about this in the past.)
And, to be honest, I see this as a problem. Why? Because today, the type of gay men who are running the show are deeply closeted and in many ways acting out in dysfunctional ways - and not just in sexual ways, but also in ways related to the misuse of power. There is a dangerous “homosexual subculture” in the church, but the problem isn’t homosexuality, but the fact that it’s a repressed and thus unhealthy type of homosexuality.
I’m not saying that the only “healthy” expression of homosexuality is one that involves sexual activity. I mean, straight priests can be comfortable and honest about their heterosexual orientation without being sexually active. Why can’t it be the same with gay priests? We all know the answer to that, and, no, it’s not to do with some bullshit about gay men being by nature more promiscuous. Rather, it’s to do with the Church’s impoverished and dysfunctional teaching on human sexual - especially as it relates to God’s gift of sexual diversity.
Peace,
Michael
February 16th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Sorry Michael, those stupid sweeping, simplistic generalizations I make trip me up every time. I have to always remember to use “some” when referencing different classes of people and sexualities. And I’ve been trying so hard to be politically correct this Lent, and to especially refrain from the “G” topic.
I have honestly made up my mind not to write about “G” priests or the so-called “homosexual subculture” in the Church - I learned my lesson there. When I write that stuff, everyone comes out of the closet to protest what I write. (And I mean everyone. people I know and like - I can’t turn my back on these any longer! And although I don’t agree with them, they do not need me pointing out what I believe the Church teaches as the error of their thinking. The Magisterium does that.)
Listen - I have decided this stuff is none of my business. Today, I was simply commenting on how “some” Catholic female bloggers have been swooning over Georg. I thought it would only be fair to mention that “some” gay men do so as well, just so the Catholic ladies wouldn’t feel singled out or get mad at me for exposing their adolescent crush on the man. I think it is beneath the dignity of the priesthood to make a big deal over his handsome good looks. But thanks Michael for your comments and taking this post seriously enough to respond to it. And thank you for calling me on my stupid generaliztions. I stand corrected. I sincerely apologize.
Remember your comments always have pride of place here, and they are always welcome.
God bless you!
Terry
February 16th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Michael:
Who’s being simplistic with their generalizations? Have you seen the dresses men wear in all parts of the world–to think that only women wear dresses is very stero-typical of a male with disordered and narrow viewpoint. Men have always worn what you would term “dresses” since the beginning of time–this is nothing new–gee–I think Jesus might have even worn a “dress.”
Your friend who always says to you, “Why are Catholic male priests always trying to be like women? I mean, what’s with the long flowing gowns, pretty lace, etc.?” How absurd! This statement in itself shows a contempt for Catholic priests.
Perhaps in your rule book–it says that lace is only for women–wooo–how sterotypical is that?
Instead of attacking the Catholic priesthood and by your statements trying to perpetuate the “gay” stero-type–perhaps you should overlook your prejudices and listen to what they are saying–this is God’s church–no matter what the priest and relgious wear–have a little respect!
February 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Michael,
Again I apologize, I got so caught up in being called on the carpet, that I forgot to acknowledge your commentary on liturgical dress for priests and bishops. I once read an excellent study about this, but the author’s name escapes me, I’ll look for it. It was written as a help for non-Catholics to understand the rubrics and tradition of ecclesial and liturgical clothing - something so misunderstood by modern descendants of the Reformation. Interestingly enough, even the altars were garbed in the old days, as they continue to be in Traditional churches, and these often in lace. Many customs associated with lace and sumptuous fabrics have their counterpart in royal, courtly vestments, appropriate to kings and princes, and their use would have had no feminine connotation whatsoever.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Some timely refections, Terry. I think that with the vernacular Mass, especially in some sanctuaries where the presider’s chair is placed in the center of the altar, there is SO much emphasis put on the personality of the priest. They become superstars to some women. Not that that sort of thing did not happen before….
Lace was worn as part of formal attire for many centuries in Europe by ALL men, not just priests. At Versailles, most gentlemen wore satin, velvet, powder and rouge on formal occasions, it was par for the course and not seen as being effeminate, as strange as it seems to us. It was not until after the French Revolution that the tailored look became the custom for men.
February 16th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Tara,
If you think for a minute that the historical Jesus walked around in the elaborate and often frilly outfits of today’s Roman Catholic bishops and priests than you’re seriously mistaken.
It’s these frills and adornments, rather than the “dress” shape itself that, for many modern-day people, are problematic and, rightly or wrongly, viewed by some with derision.
Terry’s got a point about how such rich adornments and frilly garments reflect the regal outfits of monarchs, and certainly aspects of the Church co-opted the trappings of empire at the time of Constantine. I don’t think such trappings are essential to the faith. They certainly stand in stark contrast to the simple life and message of Jesus.
Peace,
Michael
February 16th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“Of many Arts, one surpasses all. For the maiden seated at her work flashes the smooth balls and thousand threads into the circle, … and from this, her amusement, makes as much profit as a man earns by the sweat of his brow, and no maiden ever complains, at even, of the length of the day. The issue is a fine web, which feeds the pride of the whole globe; which surrounds with its fine border cloaks and tuckers, and shows grandly round the throats and hands of Kings.”
- Jacob Van Eyck, 1651.
http://pix.popula.com/items/0224/vintage/lachist.html
“… However, true lace, meaning an openwork fabric made by tatting, crochet, needlework or bobbin, twisting, knotting or braiding individual threads, to be distinguished from cutwork made by cutting or decorating a fabric after weaving, is universally acknowledged to be a European invention.
Lace effects range from plain net with regular meshes, to animal and human or conventional figures, in close texture and contrasting sometimes with net ground, sometimes with open ground that is intersected only by the slender “brides” that hold the motifs together.
The creation and development of lace is principally due to Italy, just as entirely as was the development of picture tapestries due to the French Netherlands, of Gothic architecture and stained glass windows to France, and of silk to China. The development began in the fifteenth century, as illustrated in the paintings of the period and occasionally referred to in wills and inventories, and reached its height in the sixteenth century. Venice, perhaps inspired by primitive laces and trimmings of the Roman Empire of the East, and of Sicily, led in the development of lace made with the needle, but was soon outstripped by Genoa in the production of lace made with bobbins …”
February 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
The entire society is too sexualized. If a man is ever so slightly effeminate (which can mean he enjoys talking to women, occasionally flips his hand, etc) he is branded as gay.
We feel a constant need to sexualize everything.
The macho, uncivilized version of the man is a relatively modern invention. Well-heeled men in other centuries would have been branded gay for sure.
George Washington wore a fair amount of lace in his day, I’m sure.
I wonder if the same people who call cassocks “dresses” do the same to judges’ robes, and call the magistrates in England “cross-dressers.”
Nawwww, I didn’t think so.
February 16th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
By the way, “sexy” and “yummy” are words which should never be used to describe ANYONE except perhaps your spouse during pillow talk, and even then only sparingly. Ew.
It is wrong to objectify anyone, particularly a man of God, whom you know would be greatly offended/embarrassed.
That sounds self-righteous, and Lord knows I’ve been guilty of objectifying the pinnacle of His creation in my life. And I certainly think many people are handsome - some of them are religious.
But most of them are Swiss Guards.
February 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
michael:
“If you think for a minute that the historical Jesus walked around in the elaborate and often frilly outfits of today’s Roman Catholic bishops and priests than you’re seriously mistaken.”
“Frilly outfits”–Wow–you really twisted that! What I said, was Jesus would have worn what you would call a dress!
And by using the terminology “frilly” indicates that you believe–in the Michael law book–that lace is for “frilly” girls–and everyone should adopt your stereo-typed interpretation–only girls should wear lace–wrong!
There is nothing too good for Jesus’ church–that would include clothing–lace and all!
February 17th, 2008 at 8:18 am
When I see a priest in a cassock it doesn’t make me all ga-ga. In fact, for myself personally, it is quite the opposite. Monsignor Schuler in his cassock with the fuscia piping always looked stunning; his “uniform” created that sense of awe and respect due his office. There is an incredible dignity in the way he, and many other cassock-wearing priests, look(ed) compared to wearing street clothes. To make a generalization, I doubt that to many Catholics, items like cassocks and lace worn by priests and religious are seen as effeminate. It’s always the extremes that get notoriety while the rest of the population is left shaking their heads wondering what all the fuss is about.
Monsignor Ganswein is a handsome man, whether he is in a cassock or covered by “frilly lace. Doesn’t mean I have pictures of him hanging in my bedroom!
And, some women may be predatory, just like women who chase after wealthy men or movie stars. But, to say that every priest who leaves his vocation because he fell in love is the unwitting dupe is a tad extreme! Don’t priests get this little talk in the seminary? From the few priests I have known, they are well aware of the dangers of placing themselves in a situation where their actions could cause scandal or lead them astray. I think it’s a very hard line to walk, and I’m not denying that we all are human with a great many weaknesses, but to suggest that these men are easily led away from their vocations by a pretty face forgets that they are sustained in their vocations by God’s grace.
Isn’t there a saying that we are not tempted beyong our ability to resist since it would take away our free will?
February 17th, 2008 at 8:22 am
And Ma has a point about the Swiss Guards
February 17th, 2008 at 8:58 am
Monica - I had to leave the seminary, and then the monastery, because I was tired of being treated as a sex object by both men and women on account of my manly good looks. I wanted people to respect me for who I am and not what I looked like. (The most humiliating experience was the wet habit contest, at a fundraiser - that is when I knew the time had come for me to leave. I felt like Elizabeth Taylor in “Suddenly Last Summer”!)
ROFLMAO!!!!!!
(I’m still in this mood?!)
February 17th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Monica - seriously - did you check out the link I provided?
Priests and Emotional Love, by Rev. Thomas G. Morrow
It is pretty good.
Have you read a recent item from the Vatican on how priests are becoming too worldly or secular?
Bourgeois Values
Did you know that if Eve hadn’t eaten the apple we wouldn’t be in this mess?
LOL!
(I’m still in this mood?!)
February 17th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Terry:
You know I respect you for your mind, although I would like to see some pics of the wet habit contest!
And it was the “sin of Adam” that got us in this mess. Eve was more like Tammy Faye…that mean ol’ devil just was offering her a nice apple! She wasn’t about to decline his nice hospitality.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
That article by Fr. Morrow is excellent!
February 17th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
A lot of Protestants and dissenting Catholics have problems with the vestments of the clergy because they say: Jesus did not dress like that. Well, Jesus did not wear jeans a Hawaiian shirt and a rainbow pin either.
The vestments of the clergy that we see today have evolved gradually over centuries. No, I don’t think St. Peter wore a roman embroidered vestment but to make a claim that because he did not our priests shouldn’t either is ridiculous. The Catholic Church has three planks: Scripture, Magisterium, Tradition. I consider vestments to be part of the organic Tradition or Holy Church.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Whenever someone says how sexy a priest is I get away from them. Lusting after a cute priest is the same as sneaking a drink of coca cola from the chalice or daring to eat a peanut butter sandwich off the altar. That priest and his good looks belong to God, period. Anything else is sacrilege.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Since I am the guilty party, with my recent Ganswein pictures on my blog, I’ll offer my reasons…
I want to show that Catholic men can be MANLY, that a priestly vocation is not hippy or sissy.
A man who dones the armor of God and gives himself fully to Christ is a man to admire.
If these attributes are seen in a single man (non-religious) as well then yes, he is sexy (jim Cavezal) or that young man at mass each week praying the rosary.
It has nothing to do with ‘forbidden fruit’ as some have commented and everything to do with a *visible devoutness and sincere love of Christ.* Those qualities should be as attractive to women as a full set of teeth and a good sense of humor.
February 19th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
KAT! LOL! It took you long enough to get here. Of course no one believes for a minute you were lusting after Monsignor - I just took what was going to be a comment on your blog and made a post out of it. (Some people do lust after him though.)
I was just trying to get your attention but Michael bit instead - which was good for another post.
I agree with you that Ganswein is a manly man and an excellent role model for priests.
My apologies if you felt this had been a snark attack.
February 20th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Well, bottom line, if a good-looking guy walks by, whether he be in priestly garb, firefighter uniform, or a tight pair of 501’s, I will turn my head and say a silent prayer of thanksgiving to the good Lord for such a gift to the eyes. Doesn’t mean I’m lusting after him, but as a heterosexual woman, I can appreciate a well-turned out male form. And what gives me a little sly smile might not be what gives the next gal one - beauty is in the eye of the beholder!
And Msgr. Ganswein, let’s just say his cassock suits him nicely . . .