ATm‘U DE OF PRIESTS Tux-1313 FOR:- M..A.'DEGREE I MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY moms A. BUTLEDGE u. A. 19469 ' t.1‘u§llo‘”u‘”‘l ' 5. LI BEAR 5‘ l\v‘lic"*5f5an §mm 580 *“fsmmm ATTITUDE OF PRIESTS TOWARD CELIBACY BY Thomas M. Rutledge A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Psychology 1969 Q, (0/43” :3 L.) ,— C. a" -- ‘7 ,3 ABSTRACT ATTITUDES OF PRIESTS TOWARD CELIBACY by Thomas M. Rutledge This study was conducted to investigate some of the variables associated with discontent with the celibate life style and flexibility toward changes in the celibate status of Roman Catholic priests . Two scales were constructed to measure discontent and flexibility concerning celibacy. The Interpersonal Check List was also administered to obtain descriptions of the Self, Ideal Priest, Self as husband, Ideal Husband and Average Priest. Discrepancy scores were also obtained between pairs of these descriptions. There were five main hypotheses . (1) Religious priests would be more content with their celibacy than would Diocesan priests . (2) Older priests would be more inflexible about a change in the celibacy policy than would younger priests. (3) Those priests who see themselves at a greater distance from their concept of an Ideal Priest will be more inflexible about a change in the celibacy policy. (4) Priests who think they would be more loving as husbands than they are now as priests will be more discontent with their celibate status . (5) Those who see large discrepancies between their concepts of Ideal Priest Thomas M. Rutledge and Ideal Husband will see large discrepancies when they compare the description of Self with Ideal Priest, Ideal Husband and Self as husband. Ninety-eight priests responded to the questionnaire . The first and third hypotheses received no support from the data. The second, fourth and fifth hypotheses were substantially supported by the evidence. The general conclusion was that while considerable information can be gathered by a '1ow-key' approach to the study of celibacy, the phenomenon itself, because of its relavance to the understanding of human sexuality, deserves much greater scrutiny from the behavioral scientists . Thesis Committee: Gary E. Stollak, Chairman APPROVED / / John P. Mckinney DATE /aj/? W Lawrence A . Messe To: All priests - their combination of human foibles and soaring ideals make them the most fascinating and most noble group of men I have known. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks are due first of all to the Passionist Fathers of Holy Cross Province who gave me the opportunity for advanced studies in Psychology. Their trust and encouragement was expressed to me primarily through Fathers James Patrick White, Paul Ignatius Bechtold and Paul Boyle . My academic committee proved a successful troika due to their trinity of virtues . Dr . Stollak used patience and respect to extract scholarship. Dr. Messe teased out a number of meanings by his prodding for the meaning of numbers . Dr. McKinney shared and sustained my interest in the topic itself. Paul Weisbord was a much-needed guide in the labyrinthine path to meaningful computer output. Finally, I wish to thank Mrs . Carmen Alioto for her conscientious clerical work. Thomas M. Rutledge iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION O0.0.0.000...O.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 00.0.0000.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO iii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION.............................. 1 Celibacy................................... 3 TheDiocesanClergy........................ 4 TheReligiousClergy....................... 4 II. HYPOTHESES 6 III. METHODOLOGY 9 Formulation of Celibacy Attitude Measures 9 Use of Interpersonal Check List.............. 11 The Sample ... 12 Procedure ................................. 12 IV. RESULTSANDDISCUSSION.................... 15 Results concerning the sample distribution . . . . 15 Discussion concerning the sample distribution . 17 Results concerning the choice of priesthood. . . . 18 Discussion concerning the choice of priesthood. 22 Results concerning the first hypothesis . . . . . . . 23 iv Chapter Page Discussion concerning the first hypothesis . . . . . 25 Results concerning the second hypothesis . . . . . . 28 Discussion concerning the second hypothesis . . . 31 Results concerning the third hypothesis . . . . . . . 34 Discussion concerning the third hypothesis . . . . 35 Results concerning the fourth hypothesis . . . . . . 36 Discussion concerning the fourth hypothesis. . . . 38 Results concerning the fifth hypothesis . . . . . . . . 40 Discussion concerning the fifth hypothesis . . . . . 40 Results and Discussion concerning the Average Priest 0.0.000...OCOOOOOOOOCOCOOOOOOOOOOO 41 Further exploratory results and discussion . . . . 43 V. SPECULATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Sublimation as an explanation of the celibate's abstinence O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 47 Other explanation for a celibate's abstinence . . . 48 conCIUSion O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 49 APPENDIX A -- Questionnaire with ICL and Thirteen Statements......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 53 APPENDIX B -- Interpersonal Check List Computations . . . . . . 64 APPENDIX C -- Intercorrelations of Thirteen Statements . . . . 66 APPENDIX D -- Correlations of Six ICL scores between SelfandSelfasHusband................ 68 APPENDIX E -- Correlations of Six ICL scores between Ideal Priest and Ideal Husband . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX F -- Means and Standard Deviations of ICL scores ......OOOOOOOOOOO00.000.00.00... BIBLIOGRAPHY ............O.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...... vi 70 72 74 10. 11. 12. 13. LIST OF TAB LES Page Means and Standard Deviations of the Age Variable . . . . 15 Means, Standard Deviations , and Standard Scores of the ICL Self score on the two main scales, DOMandLOV......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.0000... 16 Means and Standard Deviations on each item of the Thirteen Statements............................. 1? Classification of responses to item 'why did you become aprieSt?' 0....O...O0.00.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 20 Classification of responses to item 'why did you choose the diocesan clergy over the religious clergy or Vice-versa?'0.00.00.0000.......OOOOOOOOOOOOO... 21 Correlations of relevant sociological factors with type of priest 00............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0....0...... 22 Means and Standard Deviations on the Discontent Scale ofthe appropriate subgroups ..................... 24 Correlations of relevant variables with Discontent scaleO'OOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO 25 Means and Standard Deviations on the Flexibility Scale ofthe Appropriate subgroups ..................... 28 Correlations of relevant variables with Flexibility scaleOO00......00......00.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOO 29 Correlations of Thirteen Statements with age variable . 30 Correlations of Seven Self-Ideal Priest (SIP) discrepancy scores with the Flexibility scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Correlations of three Self-Self as husband (SSAH) discrepancy scores with the Discontent scale . . . . . . . 37 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In recent years the study of sexuality has accelerated immensely. Many behavioral scientists seem to have come to the conclusion that 'the proper study of mankind is man' - and woman. The spectrum of human sexuality of course, contains many shades and hues . This study concerns itself with one hue that has received scant scrutinizing . One Option open to man in dealing with his sexuality is celibacy, or abstinence from sexual intercourse. In view of the contemporary sexual revolution it seems more an anomaly than ever. But the view has been maintained by some (Callahan, 1968) that celibacy has always been present among highly developed cultures . There are in fact many examples of celibates throughout history. The Essenes, a second Century Jewish sect were a monastic group. At least some of them were celibates .1 Buddhist monks continue a long tradition of celibacy.2 The Vestal Virgins of ancient Rome were influential members of society, served a ceremonial role and were supported by the society.3 They were allowed to marry after thirty years of service but their marriages were considered unlucky . 2 The Roman Catholic Clergy in some ways parallel the role of the Vestal Virgins . They are supported by the Church members, serve a ceremonial role and are frequently very active social leaders. By most standards they qualify as productive, influential members of society, serving as counselors, administrators, educators, etc. They have a long tradition and at the present time, as reported by the National Catholic Almanac, 1968, they number 430,000. They are bound by the law of celibacy, i.e . , they may not marry if they wish to continue functioning as priests . There has been almost no psychological research published on the subject of celibacy. There have been studies on the personality traits of priests and seminarians (e.g. , Murray, 1958) but nothing relating these traits to the celibacy factor . Several writers have discussed the celibacy of the priest from a psycho-theological viewpoint (Eickhoff, 1967; O'Neil, 1965; and Rosenbaum, 1967). None of these studies pretends to be working from hard data. Holt (1966) uses anecdotal material in describing the existential analysis of a priest. It was desired to get hard data on some of the psychological factors involved in a celibate life. This would involve several difficulties. In June of 1968 Pope Paul (1968) issued an encyclical on the subject of celibacy for the Roman Catholic Clergy. Not only did he rule out the possibility of change at the present time but he tried to discourage studies that were not promoting the present practice. "It would be much better to promote serious studies in defense of the spiritual meaning and moral value of virginity and celibacy."4 In an attempt, then, to get a broad sample of priests in good- standing, this experimenter adopted a 'low-key' approach. Information about sexual histories was not requested. Threatening projective techniques were judged unsuitable. The Interpersonal Check List developed by LaForge and Suczek was adopted. It is an established clinical tool which provides some reliable personality variables. It also has a "low-key” appearance about it. Ne ce 8 sarLDefinitions Celibacy Celibacy explicitly requires abstinence from marriage. Almost as explicit is the total abstinence from sexual intercourse. Immedi- ately inferred from this and from traditional Catholic morality is the abstinence from any overt sexual activity. Like other instances of celibacy the motivation for the discipline has direct religious significance. Pope Paul enunciates several in his encyclical, the example of Christ, total dedication to the service of God, stimulation to a love open to all without reservation, "maximum efficiency and the best disposition of mind, psychologically 5 and affectively for the continuous exercise of a perfect charity." 4 The crux of the matter is that in spite of all the explanations given, it has never been denied that a relaxation of the law is possible. This is true even after the Pope's statement that "we consider that the present law of celibacy should today continue to be firmly linked to the ecclesiastical ministry."6 Having introduced the possibility of change, it is necessary to take note of the division of the Roman Catholic Clergy into two distinct groups, the Diocesan clergy and the Religious clergy. The Diocesan Clergy This group, except for celibacy, generally parallels the Protestant clergyman. They most often provide pastoral care to a local parish. They are expected to live modestly but are not required to live by a vow of poverty. They are subject to the Bishop but do not take a vow of obedience. They are bound by the law of celibacy when they are ordained. They do not take a vow of celibacy. If the law were changed by Church Authorities, the Diocesan Clergy would be free to marry. The Religious Clergy These are priests who are not assigned to a Diocese and a Bishop but belong to an Order. The Jesuits and the Franciscans are among the more popularly known. These priests may be involved in the usual parish work the same as a Diocesan priest. More typically they will be involved in other forms of the ministry, e.g . , teaching, preaching, monastic labor, etc. The Religious is distinctive by reason of his vows and his community life. A vow of poverty is taken whereby the priest lives off the resources of the group. He takes a vow of obedience whereby he is subject to his superior in a more concrete manner than is the Diocesan priest to his Bishop. Finally, the Religious priest takes a vow of celibacy. These vows are taken generally a number of years before ordination to the priesthood. By reason of these vows, he becomes incorporated into the group. All the members of the group take the same vows even though some of the members, called 'brothers' , are never ordained priests . The crucial point is that if the law of celibacy for the clergy were changed, these Religious priests would still not be free to marry because of their 3235; of celibacy. They could perhaps become Diocesan priests themselves through some ecclesiastical legal procedure but this would explicitly involve leaving the group of which they were members . Community life includes the sharing together of funds, ministerial work and religious or monastic practices . Members of a Religious Order live together subject to a superior. This community life is, after the vows, the second major distinction between Religious priests and Diocesan priests . It is on the basis of these definitions that several predictions are made concerning attitudes toward the celibacy issue. CHAPTER TWO HYPOTHESES This research was undertaken to investigate five hypotheses . These are now presented. Each is followed by a description of the rationale which led to the hypothesis . 1. Religious priests will express greater contentment with the rule of celibacy than will the Diocesan priests. Rationale.--For the Religious priest celibacy is presented as a distinct religious value, distinct in time and theology from ordination. For the Religious priest celibacy is not merely a concomitant of ordination. It can also be assumed that the community life of the Religious priest provides opportunities for greater companionship than is available to the Diocesan priest. Community life in the monastery is designed to provide more of a substitute for a family than the usual Diocesan life style. Finally, since a change in the rule of celibacy for priests would not immediately effect the Religious priest, it is predicted that Religious priests will express more satisfaction with their life style. 2. Older Diocesan and Religious priests will be more inflexible about a change in the celibacy policy than will younger 6 priests. Rationale .--Each generation has claimed that the older generation is too wedded to habitual ways of doing things . This view has been supported by research (Weir, 1961; Chown, 1960). Older . people do tend to be more rigid and more dogmatic in their views . This hypothesis predicts that this will be evident also on the matter of priestly celibacy. 3 . Those Diocesan and Religious priests who see a greater discrepancy between themselves and their concept of an ”Ideal Priest" will be more inflexible about change in the matter of celibacy. Rationale .--This is based primarily on the notion of Rogers (1955) that the better adjusted person sees himself as closer to his ideal. At the same time such a person tends to be less dogmatic and more open to change. Tenbusch (1967) added support with evidence that showed that the lower the discrepancy between perception of the real and the ideal self the lower the Rokeach dogmatism score . 4. Those preists who see themselves as more "loving” at present than they would be were they husbands will be more content. with celibacy. Those priests who see themselves as more ”loving'I were they husbands than they are at present will be less content with celibacy. Rationale.--This is based on the assumption that "love" is a positive trait. Using the Interpersonal Check List (ICL), Kaplan (1968) found the ICL LOV scale correlating positively with a Happiness scale he developed. A positive LOV score on the ICL for the self- ideal corresponds to a standard score of 38 and up. The priest who sees himself as more loving as a husband sees marriage closer to an ideal than celibacy. A priest who sees himself less loving as a husband than as a priest sees the celibate state as closer to an ideal. 5. Priests who see the Ideal Priest and the Ideal Husband as similar will tend to see more similarities between their self and their self as husband, their self and their Ideal Priest and their self and their Ideal Husband. Rationale .--This is again based on the Rogerian notion that greater flexibility and openness are concomitant with better adjustment. Traitwise, the Ideal Husband and the Ideal Priest could be described identically, i.e. , there need be no contradictory factors. Those who project wide discrepancies between the two roles would seem likely to project discrepancies when comparing themselves to other roles. Those who see less rigid role distinctions between Ideal Priest and Ideal Husband will have greater fluidity in portraying themselves in other situations . CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY Formulation of celibacy attitude measures . The first question was: how to scale satisfaction with celibacy? A straightforward approach was used. Thirteen statements were assembled, each one getting at some aspect of a celibate life style without explicit questions about sexual activity. They are as follows: 1. 11. I have been lonely. I am lonely. I feel celibacy is difficult to adjust to. I favor allowing priests to get married. I have thought of being married myself. I would make a good husband. I can understand those who leave the priesthood to marry. I doubt that I was ready to choose celibacy when I did . I would make a good father for a family. I am satisfied with my friendships and acquaintances with women. I am personally content with my life as a celibate . 9 10 12. I would marry if the Church permitted. 13 . If the law had been Optional earlier, I would be married now. Subjects were asked to indicate their attitude to each of the statements according to Likert-type scales . (See Appendix A for a copy of the questionnaire). Subjects were also requested to make personal reflections on each of the statements. Subjects responded to this request often enough to provide further insights but not consistently enough to use the information statistically. From the Thirteen Statements nine items were selected by the Experimenter at face value as touching upon discontent with the celi- bate 1ife style. These items were: 1, 2, 3, 5, 8,10,11,12, 13. Six items were selected as touching upon flexibility about celibacy. These items were: 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13. The items were arranged such that the most discontented priest would assign himself a five on each of the items involved with discontent. This involved reversing the Likert scales on items 10 and 11. Therefore the highest possible discontent score was 45. The highest possible flexibility score was 30. Items 6 and 9 were not used in the two attitude scales but were correlated separately with other variables for possible significance. 11 Use of the Interpersonal Check List The ICL is a check list of 128 items which combine into a number of scales and subscores. (See Appendix B) It provides four subscores: dominance, submission, hostility and love. It provides two main scores, LOV, which is a combined love-hostility score, and DOM, which is a combined dominance-submission score. Subjects were asked to go through the check list. On the first column they were asked to describe themselves . On the second column they were asked to describe the Ideal Priest. On the third column they were asked to describe themselves ”as if” they were husbands. On the fourth column they were asked to describe the Ideal Husband. In the fifth column they were asked to describe the Average Priest. The two celibacy attitude measures and the ICL are basically self-descriptions. A possible fraud or faking good factor is difficult to control for. It was felt, however, that the attitude measures and the ICL can get at more than surface data. One example of this was seen in an intercorrelation matrix of the responses to the Thirteen Statements . (See Appendix C). Item #1 speaks of the past. 'I have been lonely' . Item #2 speaks of the present. 'I am lonely' . As will be discussed the responses to all the other items except #10 correlated more highly with item #1 than with item #2 . It would seem a fair assumption that the subjects are less defensive when speaking about the past than the present. Loneliness, then, is seen as more 12 of a factor in their present attitudes, than statement #2 implies. As used in this study, the ICL resembles a projective technique. There are no correct or incorrect responses. Fantasy responses are evoked in the description of the two 'Ideals' and most especially in the subject's description of himself as husband. The Sample: The sample is made up of 98 priests. An attempt was made to have a balance of young and old, Diocesan and Religious. This involved a certain amount of recruitment, especially of older priests, to complete the sample. Each of the subjects was a priest in good standing. Eighty-five percent were contacted personally and asked to participate. Fifteen percent were contacted through the mail in a somewhat random fashion. Through the use of the Catholic Directory 1968, the pastors of 60 parishes in the Midwest were selected. They were selected because there were three priests assigned to the rectory of the parish. It was felt that there was a better chance of getting a response from one of the three priests. Of these 60 mailed responses, some 15 returned completed forms, another eight returned empty forms. All the responders knew this experimenter to be a priest in good standing. An attempt was made to record instances of refusal to participate. This proved unfeasible. Procedure Each subject was given the Interpersonal Check List as 13 described above. They were also given the list of Thirteen Statements. Subjects were also requested to give information such as age, occupation of parents, number of siblings, social status, relatives who are priests . They were also asked to say in their own words why they became priests and why they chose one type of priest rather than the other . All were given written instructions and were asked to complete the forms at their convenience. Envelopes and postage were provided for returning the questionnaires . Each of the five columns of the ICL were scored according to the formula given in Appendix B. For each column there were six scores, four minor and two major. Discrepancy scores were gotten in the following manner. On each of the six scores, column two was subtracted from column one, yielding discrepancy scores for Self-Ideal Priest (SIP) An overall discrepancy score was computed by taking the absolute difference on the DOM score and adding it to the absolute difference on the LOV scale. This same procedure was followed for six other pairs of columns, yielding discrepancy scores on the six scores and the overall discrepancy. Thus scores were provided for the following pairs, subtracting the second from the first: Self-self as husband (SSAH), Self-Ideal Husband (SIH), Self-Average Priest (SAP), Ideal Priest - Ideal Husband (IPIH), Ideal Priest-Average Priest 14 (IPAVP), and self as husband-Ideal Husband (SAHIH). CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results concerning the sample distribution An attempt was made to get a representative corss-section of priests. On the age variable forty years of age was selected as the boundary point between the young priests and the old priests . Table 1 gives the breakdown of the age variable among the various sub-groups. TABLE 1, ---- Means and Standard Deviations of the Age Variable. X s N+ Overall 41.60 10.49 96 RELIGIOUS 39 .91 9 . 57 53 Young* 33.63 3.34 32 Old 48.48 7.90 21 DIOCESAN 43 . 70 1 1 . 19 43 Young 34.37 3.39 19 Old 51.08 9.57 24 All Young 33.90 3.39 51 m 50.33 8.86 45 +Tota1 N is less than 98; not all priests completed all items . *Young = below 40 years of age; old = 40 years of age and older. 15 16 The ICL main LOV and DOM scores were given selective attention. When the subject describes his Sflf these scales can be compared with other groups of subjects . In this way some Standardization is possible. Table 2 gives the breakdown of the various sub-groups on the Self score accompanied by standard scores. TABLE 2, -- Means, Standard Deviations, and Standard Scores>l<+ of the ICL Self score on the two main scales, DOM and LOV. ? s N— Standard score Overall DOM 3.35 5.74 90 58 LOV 4.55 7.89 90 53 Young DOM 4.29 5.89 49 59 LOV 4.23 7.58 49 53 Old DOM 2.44 5.29 39 57 LOV 4.51 8.17 39 53 Religious DOM 4.04 5.67 50 59 LOV 4.35 7.33 50 53 Diocesan DOM 2.50 5.70 40 57 LOV 5.13 8.33 40 58 iTotal N is less than 98; not all priests completed all items . +Standardized on a Kaiser Foundation Research Sample (Leary, 1956) Each of the 'Ihirteen Statements was followed by a response scaled from one to five. Means and standard deviations were compiled for the total group on each of the statements . These are given in Table 3 . 17 TABLE 3, -- Means and Standard Deviations on each item of the Thirteen Statements for the total sample . Statement 3(- 5* 1 . I have been lonely. 3 . 02 1.20 2. Iam lonely. 2.36 1.19 3 . I feel celibacy is difficult to adjust to. 2.82 1.27 4. I favor allowing priests to get married. 3 .50 1 .50 5. I have thought of being married myself. 2.77 l .43 6 . I would make a good husband. 3 .43 1 .26 7. I can understand those who leave the 3 .88 l .31 priesthood to marry. 8 . I doubt that I was ready to choose 2 .23 1 .48 celibacy when I did . 9 . I would make a good father for a family. 3.54 1.26 10. I am satisfied with my friendships and 3 .39 1 .05 acquaintances with women . ll . I am personally content with my life as 3 .94 1 .16 a celibate . 12. I would marry if the Church permitted . 1 .88 1 .17 13. If the law had been optional earlier I 2.31 1 .27 would be married now. *All scores are for N = 98. Discussion and analysis of the sample distribution. It is a reasonable suspicion that the request to fill out a questionnaire about celibacy immediately selects a group of priests whose distribution is different than the general population of priests . There are, however, internal indications in this present sample 18 which suggest that it is a reasonable cross-section. The age variable as seen in Table 1 seems fairly well distributed. The standard scores in Table 2 range from 53 to 59. These are the only scales whereby this sample can be compared with a general population. And the present comparison suggest this sample is a typical cross- section. Table 3 gives further evidence that the sample is not from a fringe element. The mean score on item #4 is 3.50. This represents a point mid-way between 'somewhat agreement with statement' and 'definite agreement with statement' . The mean score on item #12 is l .87. This represents a point just below 'minimal agreement with statement '. In general then, it can be said that the group represented in the sample tends to be in favor of allowing marriage in the priesthood. At the same time this group of priests do not seem desireous of changing their own celibate status. In this experimenter's judgement this sample represents a moderate cross-section of active priests . Results concerning the choice of priesthood. Subjects were asked to say why they became priests. These responses were then classified according to five categories: 1 - personal fulfillment. Under this category were placed responses such as 'all I ever wanted to do' , 'what I felt I wanted to 19 to do' , 'to do the best thing with one's time' . 2 - personal salvation. Under this category were placed responses such as 'to save my soul', 'personal holiness', 'win salvation' . 3 - example of others . Under this category were placed such responses as 'example of my pastor' , 'priests in my parish' . 4 - God's will. Here were placed responses such as 'God's will for me', 'God was calling me', 'to serve God' . 5 - service of others. Here were placed responses such as 'to help others', 'to save souls', 'to lead men to God' , 'to be of service to others' . The frequency of response to each of these categories is found in Table 4. A chi—square test was run on that data to see if there were any differences between Religious priests and Diocesan priests . A chi-square of 5.96 was obtained with four degrees of freedom. This was not significant beyond the .20 level. 20 TABLE 4, -- Classification of responses to item 'why did you become a priest' . frequency/ frequency/ Category Religious Diocesan percent #1 personal fulfillment 10 8 18 #2 personal salvation 4 10 14 #3 example of others 2 3 5 #4 God's will 15 10 25 #5 service of others 12 22 34 Subjects were also asked why they chose the type of priest they eventually became. Responses were classified into four categories . 1 - essentially negative reasons. Here were categorized those responses that expressed principally a dissatisfaction with the other type of priesthood . 2 - essentially positive reasons. Here were classified responses that expressed one or more positive reasons for the choice, e.g. , a particular type of work, community life, etc. 3 - the example of the local priests or the group with whom they were most familiar . 4 - financial reasons . 21 The frequency of response to each of these categories is found in table 5. Of the 26 Religious priests who gave a positive reason for their choice, in 17 cases the positive reason was 'community life' . These represent the largest group to express a radical life style as the basis for their choice of a type of priesthood. For this reason these seventeen, or 33 per cent of the Religious priests will be scrutinized more closely with regard to hypothesis one . TABLE 5, -- Classification of responses to item 'why did you choose the Diocesan clergy over the Religious clergy or vice- versa?'. frequency/ frequency/ Category Religious Diocesan percent #1 negative reasons 12 7 20 #2 positive reasons 26 7 35 #3 example of familiar group 11 27 41 #4 financial reasons 2 1 4 In addition sociological variables were compared with the type of priest. Social status was divided into five categories . Occupation was categorized into blue collar, white collar and professional. Table 6 indicates some tendency for Religious priests to describe 22 their parental status as somewhat higher than that of the Diocesan priests . In a consistent pattern Religious priests also indicated a higher classification in the job description of their parents. The fourth correlation of Table 6 indicates that Religious priests are more likely to have relatives who are Religious priests than are Diocesan priests . This was not paralled by a like tendency for Diocesan priests to have relatives who are of the Diocesan clergy. TABLE 6, -- Correlations of relevant variables with type of priest. Occupation of father r = - .20 Occupation of mother r = - .20 Family Social Status r = - .27 Having Religious priests as relatives r = - .21 Discussion concerning the choice of priesthood. The results seen in Table 4 suggest that the basic decision to become a priest was not different for the Religious or the Diocesan priest. From Table 5 we see that 41 per cent of the total sample gave as the reason for their choice the example of the group with which they had the most contact. This is more true of the Diocesan priests, 64 per cent of whom gave this as the basis for their choice. 23 The social status correlations of Table 6 might be explained by the increased mobility that accompanies higher social status . The local parish clergy are more commonly of the Diocesan clergy than of the Religious clergy. Those of the lower social status are more likely to have their contacts with priests limited to Diocesan clergy. With the somewhat higher social status of the Religious clergy would come greater mobility and increased contact with both types of priests, Diocesan and Religious . Results concerning the first hypothesis . It will be recalled that hypothesis one predicted that Religious priests will express greater contentment with the rule of celibacy than will the Diocesan priests . The Discontent scale was compiled and broken down into each relevant subgroup. The means and standard deviations for these groups are seen in Table 7. Between these various sub-groups t-tests were run. Only one was found significant. A t-test between the young Religious and the old religious yielded a t = 2.17. At 48 degrees of freedom this is significant beyond the .05 level. The 17 Religious that gave community life as the reason for their choice of a type of priest were matched for age with 17 Diocesan priests . A t-test for matched pairs on their Discontent scores yielded a t = .61 . This was not significant. 24 TABLE 7, -- Means and Standard Deviations on the Discontent Scale. 3(— s N+ Overall 21.81 7.49 98 DIOCESAN 22 .36 8 .08 44 Young* 22.16 6.72 19 Old 23 .46 9.14 23 RELIGIOUS 21 .34 6 .73 53 Young 22.90 6.33 31 Old 19 .24 6 .78 21 All Young 22.51 6 .48 51 All Old 21 .07 8.29 45 +subgroups total sometimes is less than group total due to incomplete data . *Young = below 40 years of age; old = 40 years of age and older. The Discontent scale was correlated with other variables . Table 8 shows four correlations relevant to the hypothesis. Age, number of siblings and social status all correlated significantly with the Discontent scale . The predicted high correlation of Discontent with type of priest did not result. 25 TABLE 8, -- Correlations of relevant variables with Discontent scale. Type of priest r = .08 Age r = -.30** Number of siblings r z: ,33*** Social Status r = .24* *p < .05 **p < .005 ***p < .001 Discussion concerninthe first hypothesis . The hypothesis was not supported by the data. The correlation of .08 between Discontent and type of priest suggests considerable independence of the two variables . The data of Table 8 show that age is a significant variable . The older priests expressed less Discontent than the younger priests. This is possibly explainable by dissonance theory. The older priests have made a greater investment than the younger priests . Or perhaps the older priests are a more selected sample with the possibility that some of the discontented younger priests will yet leave the priesthood. Somewhat less clear is the correlation between Discontent and the number of one's siblings . It may be that those from larger 26 families find the life in the parish rectory or even the monastery more lonely. In fact or in fantasy those from larger families may see celibate life in comparison with family in more stark and solitary tones . The opposite trend may be operating in those priests with fewer siblings . Perhaps the frequent company of even a few peers in the priesthood is seen as more favorable than the memories of a more isolated childhood . Two explanations present themselves to the solution of why this hypothesis received no support from the data. The most obvious is that the scales used need far more scrutiny and research to be considered adequate instruments . The other explanation preceeds from the presumption that the instruments used have some validity. The explanation is this: in spite of th: cogent reasons given in the rationale for hypothesis one, the state of being a 'priest' is much more significant in forming a life style than the distinctions between Religious and Diocesan priesthood. However radical the differences look on paper, e. g., the vows of obedience, poverty and celibacy of the Religious plus the apparent advantages of 'community life' , being a Religious or a Diocesan is a very minor variable compared with simply being a 'priest' . This was most evident in the comparison of the 17 Religious who gave 'community life' as the basis for their choice with 17 Diocesan priests. These 17 Religious verbalized a root factor as the motivation for their choice . Yet they 27 were not significantly any different on the Discontent scale. It must be noted in all this discussion that the mean score on item #11 is 3 .94. Item #11 is 'I am personally content with my life as a celibate' . This 3.94 is the highest mean score of any of the Thirteen Statements. While this research refers to greater or lesser Discontent, the sample of 98 priests, in fact describe themselves as rather content with their celibate state. As reported in the National Catholic Reporter, July 9, 1969, the Vatican has released figures indicating that more religious priests are asking to be released from their ordination vows than Diocesan priests . From 1963 to 1968 they report that 3,330 Diocesan priests asked for dispensations. This represents 1.28 percent of the 260, 051 Diocesan priests of the world. In the same period 3,807 Religious priests asked to be released from their vows. This represents 2.31 per cent of the 164,832 Religious priests of the world . Such figures, of course, cannot be used to suggest that Religious are more discontent with celibacy than Diocesan priests . The figures do not reveal why these priests asked for dispensations. Nor are the figures available concerning the number of priests who have left the ministry without asking for dispensation from the authoritie s . 28 Results concerning the second hypothesis. This hypothesis predicted that Older Diocesan and Religious priests will be more inflexible about a change in the celibacy policy than will the younger priests. The Flexibility scale was first compiled for the total group. These scores were then sorted into the various sub-groups. Table 9 displays these means and standard deviations. The Flexibility scale TABLE 9, -- Means and Standard Deviations on the Flexibility Scale of the appropriate subgroups. - - — m m m— X s N+ Overall 16.55 6.00 98 DIOCESAN 16.86 6. 53 44 Young* 17.58 5.49 19 Old 16.74 7.32 23 RELIGIOUS 16.13 5.45 53 Young* 17.19 5.30 31 Old 14.62 5.43 21 All Young 17.29 5.32 51 All Old 15. 64 6. 52 45 +N does not total for respective subgroups due to incomplete data *Young = below 40; Old = 40+. was also correlated with various variables. Table 10 contains five relevant correlations all of which are significant. The correlation of Age with Flexibility at r = —.35 is the most relevant to this hypothesis. 29 TABLE 10, -- Correlations of relevant variables with Flexibility scale. Age 1‘ = - .35** Number of siblings r = .28** Social Status r = .26 Statement Six r = ’ ,38*** Statement Nine r = ,38*** *p < .05 **p < .005 ***p < . 001 The influence of age on responses to the Thirteen Statements was of interest. Each item was correlated with age. These correlations are found in Table 11. The negative correlations indicate that there is less agreement with the statement as age increases. The correlations are highest on items #6 and #9. These are of interest but were not included in the Flexibility scale. 30 TABLE 11, -- Correlations of Thirteen Statements with age variable. Statement 3 Correlation with Age 1 . I have been lonely. .. , 34*** 2. I am lonely. - .24* 3 . I feel celibacy is difficult to adjust to. - .33 *** 4. I favor allowing priests to get married. - .41*** 5. I have thought of being married myself. - .32*** 6 . I would make a good husband. - .48*** 7. I can understand those who leave the - .24* priesthood to marry . 8 . I doubt that I was ready to choose - .13 celibacy when I did. 9. I would make a good father for a family. - .50*** 10. I am satisfied with my friendships and - .12 acquaintances with women. 11 . I am personally content with my life as a .08 celibate . 12. I would marry if the Church permitted. - .22 13 . If the law had been optional earlier I - .21 would be married now . *p < .05 ***p < .001 31 In addition the oldest 20 priests were compared with the youngest 20 priests on the Flexibility scale . The mean age for the oldest group was 58 .15 years with a standard deviation of 7.55. The mean age for the youngest group was 31 .12 with a standard deviation of 1 .57. The mean Flexibility score for the oldest group was 11 .90 with a standard deviation of 4.16 . The mean Flexibility score for the youngest group was 18 .60 with a standard deviation of 5.16 . A t-test computed on this data yielded a value of 4.41 (p < .005, df= 38) Discussion concerning the second hypothesis . The hypothesis is supported by the data. This is established by the first correlation of Table 10. To a significant degree as age increases, flexibility about the celibate policy decreases . Table 11 contains some fairly high correlations. Among the more notable is the correlation of age with item #4 at r = - .41 . The following are some of the personal reflections of priests over 50 years of age commenting on statement #4. This is a matter not to be decided by the beneficiaries but by the donor . If the Church decides to change her legislation on this matter that's fine with me . I don't subscribe to the current idea. that the Church is a democracy, that people will decide for themselves what they will do provided certain conditions are met . If priests want marriage let them seek a dispensation from celibacy and priesthood . under 32 I'm not in favor of allowing those who accept celibacy to marry and continue in the priesthood. There seems to be a character weakness . I feel that for those priests who find the celibate life too difficult, permission to marry should be given, after thorough investigation and psychiatric examination. Definitely not. Let them go to hell, they are no damn good. They want worldly pleasures . No self-denial. I am of a firm belief that the Church needs a celibate priest- hood for maximum efficiency in its work. The following are some of the personal reflections of priests 40 years of age commenting on statement #4. The fact that we are required to be unmarried has caused us to lose the witness value of the celibate life. In other words, our present celibacy says nothing to people, at least in this day and age. Freedom of personal choice is imperative. Where there is no choice there is little chance for choosing or not choosing in a mature way. Passive resignation is the tragic consequence. It is too major a choice, to attach it as a condition to another decision, i.e. , priesthood. I'm for total personal freedom. I do not believe that there is a necessary intrinsic connection between the priesthood and celibacy. There is between celibacy and community life . But even this could bear further investigation and experimentation . Statement #7 states, 'I can understand those who leave the priesthood to marry' . This correlated with age at r = - .24. The following are some of the personal reflections of priests over 50 years of age commenting on this statement. under 33 I cannot understand them; perhaps they never understood themselve s . They knew what they were entering into . They knew or should have known their mind at that age when being ordained . They think life as a married man is easy in the present world . They come to their senses but too late. Yes, (I understand) because they have lost their faith. Sex is uppermost in their mind . "understand' i.e. , see thru - Yes! Play with fire and you get burned! Take celibacy only_as law (sic) and you can't live with it. "understand' i.e., feel for - Yes! Love and Passion can be very strong. "understand' i.e. , approve and condone - not always, I think some as guilty as are some adulterers. The following are some of the personal reflections of priests 40 years of age commenting on statement #7. No problem at all. I think our teaching in the past deluded many into being function and task oriented instead of people oriented. So if one gave oneself to a high task or high function he was to consider himself justified. Things just don't work out that way in life . So often when priests left shortly after I was ordained I actually admired them for their honesty. The pressures of my own circumstances have caused me to remain in the priesthood . Particularly since I realized implications of celibacy only a few years after I was ordained. Too, when the machinery for laicization is set up - and ignored - the situation can be intolerable . Yes, because I fail to see the intrinsic connection between celibacy and the priesthood as such. Right now a man cannot have both, and some have needs that only marriage can take care of. Yes , I understand them. . .to be sick or crazy or brave. 34 I understand it, but I don't approve. I'll bet they won't like being married. Some people are never satisfied! It should be noted that these cormnents were selected not because they were typical but because they were graphic responses of high and low flexibility scores . Results concerning the third hypothesis . This hypothesis predicted that Those Diocesan and Religious priests who see a greater discrepancy between themselves and their concept of an "Ideal Priest" will be more inflexible about change in the matter of celibacy. There are four minor scores and two major scores available on the ICL. When these scores are compared between the description of Self and Ideal Priest six measures of discrepancy result. A seventh is obtained, as described earlier, by taking the absolute difference on the DOM score and adding it to the absolute difference on the LOV scale. These seven discrepancy scores were correlated with the Flexibility. The results can be seen in Table 12. The three major scores, DOM, LOV and the overall discrepancy indicate independence from the Flexibility variable. The four minor scores, dominance, submission, love and hostility, have correlations in the direction opposite to what was predicted. Only the 'dominance' discrepancy score correlated with the Flexibility scale to any significant degree . 35 TABLE 12, -- Correlations of Seven Self-Ideal Priest (SIP) discrepancy scores with the Flexibility scale . SIP dominance r = .25* SIP submission r = .19 SIP love r = .11 SIP hostility r = .15 SIP DOM r = .08 SIP LOV r = .04 SIP Overall r = .01 *p < .05 Discussion concerning the third hypothesis . The hypothesis received no support whatsoever. The hypothesis was based on a parallel with Rogers' self-ideal discrepancy findings . The present comparison of Self-Ideal Priest is obviously not an adequate parallel. It is unclear to what extent a description of the Ideal Priest represents the subject's self-ideal. A further study ought to include this variable specifically. It is difficult to explain the positive correlations of the four minor scores . They indicate some tendency for greater flexibility among those who see themselves as more distant from the Ideal 36 Priest. This tendency is most pronounced with the dominance subscale of the ICL. Perhaps the simplest explanation is that those who see personality traits in themselves that do not conform with their concept of an "Ideal Priest" can more easily entertain the possibility of change of role or status to something more amenable to such basic personality patterns . Results concerning the fourth hypothesis. This hypothesis predicted that those priests who see themselves as more loving at present than they would be were they husbands will be more content with celibacy. Those priests who see themselves as more loving were they husbands than they are at present will be less content with celibacy. The principal evidence regarding this hypothesis was found in connection with the discrepancy on the LOV scale between the description of the Self and the Self as husband. This discrepancy was correlated with the Discontent scale. The results are seen in Table 13. The correlation is in the direction predicted. The correlations with two minor scores, submission and hostility, further substantiate the hypothesis . 37 TABLE 13, -- Correlations of three Self-Self as husband (SSAH) discrepancy scores with the Discontent scale. SSAH submission r = .26* SSAH hostility r = .. .3432): SSAH LOV r = - .27>1< *p < .01 **p < .001 The hypothesis received support. As Discontent increases the priest sees his Self as husband as more loving than his Self. The two minor scores that positively correlated with the Discontent scale have negative valences in a masculine viewpoint. Submission and hOstility are not favorable traits . The correlations indicate that as the person sees hiInself as less submissive as a husband than as a celibate, his discontent with the celibate life increases. Likewise, if the priest sees himself less hostile as a husband than as a celibate, his discontent with the celibate life increases . Perhaps it is simply obvious but the results from this research substantiate the prediction that the priest who sees himself more loving, less hostile and less submissive as a husband than as a celibate expresses considerable discontent with his celibate life. 38 Discussion concerning the fourth hypothesis . There is a tendency for those with more discontent to see themselves as making better husbands than those experssing less discontent with the celibate status . Of the Thirteen Statements, item #6 states 'I would make a good husband' . Item #9 states 'I would make a good father for a family' . Discontent correlates with responses to item #6 with r = .27 (p < .005, df = 97). The priest who expresses more contentment tends to see himself as less suited for the role of husband or father. The implication is that in the process of adjusting to the limitations of a life choice one might come to view the alternatives as less viable. The priest who sees himself as successful in another life choice has to deal, in a sense, with more alternatives than the priest who sees himself as simply 'meant' for the celibate state. The following are some of the reflections on statement #6, 'I would make a good husband' . These are priests who rated themselves low. I would make a very average husband. I have to give further work to some of my own personality hang-ups before I could be the Ideal husband - providing leadership in the home, personal security for wife and family. It would be a terrific adjustment. It would require a heroic wife for a few years. Who knows? My life style is probably so set that I would be blind to many of the harmful bachelor attitudes I have developed. 39 I do not think I would qualify. I would make a nagging husband, demanding much from the wife and children, which would make life miserable for all. I get so involved that it would take an unusual woman to stand me . I think so, anyway, but this is a difficult question to answer. I wonder, for example, if many of us didn't choose the priest- hood because it was celibate, if there wasn't a psychological necessity to avoid the deep personal involvement marriage demands . In most cases I think I would - I consider myself to be a normal and average person - these usually make good husbands all things being equal. However, at present my independence is probably too strong and developed to make a good husband now. The following are some of the reflections of priests who rated themselves high on statement #6 . I think the virtues demanded by the priesthood are the same demanded of a good husband. It is hardly "modest" but I feel that I now understand better what marriage really means and how to achieve a successful one than many married men do. However, I am not at all sure that this would have been true for me if I had not had the training and experience of the seminary and the priesthood. I think the qualities that have made me a considerate and thoughtful priest would help me likewise to be a good husband . I think I would be unselfish enough to make a wife and children happy. I feel my character would assure this . With the personal growth I have achieved at the present time, I think I could make a good husband - for I do not see much difference between a good husband and a good priest - except husband gives to one - priest to many. 40 Results concerning the fifth hypothesis . Hypothesis five stated that Priests who see the Ideal Priest and the Ideal Husband as similar will tend to see more similarities between their _S_<_e_l_f and their Self as husband, their Self and their Ideal Priest and their §£l_f and their Ideal Husband . A three way discrepancy score was computed by adding together the overall scores for Self-Self as Husband (SSAH), Self-Ideal Priest (SIP) and Self-Ideal Husband (SIH). This three way score was found to correlate with the overall discrepancy score for the Ideal Priest- Ideal Husband (IPIH) discrepancy with r = .24 (p < .03, df = 84). The IPIH overall score was also correlated separately with each of H the overall scores that combined to make up the three way score. This IPIH overall score correlated with SSAH overall at r = .33 (p < .002, df = 84). IPIH overall correlated with SIH overall at r = .16 and with SIP overall at r = .11. Discussion concerning the fifth hypothesis . Hypothesis five received clear support. As priests see larger discrepancies between the Ideal Priest and the Ideal Husband they tend to see larger discrepancies between themselves and their conceptions of the ideal priest, the ideal husband and themselves as husbands . The .33 correlation with SSAH overall shows the tendency of a more rigid frame of reference. Here the ICL seems to be serving as a projective technique. Taking a random sample 41 of the general Catholic population in the United States there is no reason to predict that the description of the ideal priest would be significantly different from the description of the ideal husband . In this sample of 98 priests the six scores descriptive of the Ideal Priest correlate very highly with the six scores descriptive of the Ideal Husband. (See Appendix E) All but one of the correlations is above .80. In the correlations between the Seif and the Self as husband all of the six scores correlate above .60. (See Appendix D) Those who see differences would seem to be those with more rigid role expectations . It would also seem that they have more closely identified with that role . They find it difficult even to think of themselves as husbands without making many personality alterations . Results and Discussion concerning the Average Priest. Each priest was asked to describe the Average Priest on the ICL. This procedure was included by way of exploration to see if significant correlations might be found with age and type of priest. The results were rather inconclusive. The only notable correlations with the description of the Average_priest were between the submission subscore and age, r = - .21 and the submission subscore and type of priest, r = .24. The first correlation indicates that the Average Priest is seen as less submissive by older priests and more submissive by younger priests . The Average Priest concept is very 42 vague. Perhaps this correlation means simply that 'too many' priests are viewed by older priests as not submissive enough to authority and 'too many' priests are viewed by younger priests as too submissive to authority and the status quo. The second correlation indicates that Diocesan priests tend to describe the Average Priest as more submissive than do Religious priests. This may have something to do with the varying authority structures under which each type of priest operates . The most notable finding concerning the AVERAGE PRIEST was the mean LOV score of -.41 . (See Appendix F). This should be viewed in terms of two other scores, the mean Self LOV score of 4.55 and the mean Ideal Priest LOV score of 8.28. These subjects were explicitly asked to generalize on their knowledge of priests. These findings suggest that they saw their fellow priests as (1) less loving than themselves and (2) considerably more distant from the ideal than themselves. Perhaps the explanation for this is to be found in the priest's preoccupation with moral idealism. It is part of the priest's profession to both promulgate and live by the highest moral ideals . Very few manage noticeable success in this attempt. In himself the priest balances accomplishments with his strivings and his hopes. Therefore he tends to be less harsh with himself. 43 Further exploratory results and discussion. Discontent was found to correlate with social status at r = .24. One plausible explanation is that a higher social status is generally accompanied by a higher level of education and sophistication. Through reading, a broader range of acquaintances and travel, the higher social classes are familiar with more alternatives , are more "au courant" with progressive ideas, political and ecclesiastical. Hence this group might well tend to express discontent with a rigid policy of celibacy for all the clergy. One final serendipitous result is that the Diocesan clergy consistently see themselves more distant from the Ideal Priest and the Ideal Husband than do Religious clergy. The SIP overall score correlated with type of priest at r = .27. This suggests that the overall discrepancy grows larger with Diocesan than with Religious priests . The SIH overall correlates with type of priest at r = .30. The LOV score in the description of the Ideal Priest correlates at r = .21 with type of priest. In other words Diocesan priests describe a more loving ideal than do Religious priests . It is difficult to decipher the meaning of these correlations . Perhaps the priest who is engaged in daily parish work is confronted more frequently with the failure of husbands who are his parishioners. This may make the Diocesan clergy, who more typically operate from the local parishes, more aware of the difficulties of being a 44 good husband. Such a priest may also, in the day to day contact of the local Church, become more aware of his own shortcomings as a priest. On the other hand the monastery is more isolated from the constant demands of people for religious services . At least this is true in comparison with the parish rectory. CHAPTER FIVE SPEC ULATIONS AND C ONC LUSIONS This research has shown that considerable amounts of psychological data can be gathered on a delicate topic such as celibacy with a rather 'low-key' approach. This study has shown that fairly radical differences on paper between Diocesan and Religious clergy do not hold up in comparing attitudes toward celibacy. One conclusion of this would be that any change in the law of celibacy for the Diocesan priest ought to include some arrangement for Religious priests also. Age was seen as a pervasive factor on most of the dimensions of celibacy studied. Attitudes toward ideal figures of 'priest' and 'husband' were also seen as influential in reactions toward the celibate state. There were indicators that the sample seemed well-balanced and 'typical' . The use of a description of a 'self—ideal' would have provided a more standard measure of "maladjustment". Though speaking of levels of discontent several mean scores suggest that it would have been more proper to speak of the sample being more or less content. Madigan (1962) suggested that Catholic priests enjoy high role satisfactions . He based this conclusion on a comparative 45 46 study of mortality rates of a group of American white males and an Order of Catholic priests . Attrubuting mortality rates to role satisfactions, however, seems somewhat gratuitous. Block (1961) found that role diffusion related significantly to maladjustment or susceptibility to anxiety. Role rigidity did not. From this point of view role rigidity might account for lower mortality rates among priests . Rigidity and extreme interpersonal consistency might serve to reduce anxiety quite well. The current study did not utilize role theory. Future research would benefit from such an approach. It ought to be determined to what extent role rigidity and role diffusion correlate with the Discontent and Flexibility scales of the present study. Such an approach along with anxiety measures may tease out more basic motivational factors . This research attempted some answers to the question: why are some priests contented with their celibate status and some discontented? The answer perhaps interests only those personally involved with the issue . A related question might be asked: what do celibates do with their sexual drives and feelings? The answer to this question ought to interest all those concerned with the place of sexuality in the human condition. The first research step must be a thorough investigation of the actual sexual history and experiences of celibates . This, in itself, might prove as monumental a publication as the Kinsey reports . The 47 next step in the. research would be how to explain prolonged and permanent sexual abstinence. Sublimation as an explanation of the celibate's abstinence . Sublimation itself seems to require as much explanation as anything it explains. Sublimation is generally accepted as the process by which the ego changes the aim or object of a drive without blocking adequate discharge. There is, however, considerable disagreement as to whether Freud thought that genital sexuality could be sublimated. Hartmann (1964) notes that Freud sometimes spoke of sublimation as a consequence of sexual abstinence, iInplying genital sexuality, e.g. , the scientist. . In other places he implies that the greatest part of sublimation has its origin in pregenital strivings . Fenichel (1945) feels that any sublimation of genital sexuality is highly improbable since the genitals provide for achievement of full discharge. In fact Fenichel considers the attainment of genuine genital primacy as a requisite for the sublimation of any pre-genitality not discharged in forepleasure. Deri (1939) stated flatly that genital impulses could not be sublimated. Hartmann (1964) sees no reason to deny sublimation of genital libido. Such disputes need not delay research and may be solved by research. But Blum (1953) aptly notes that research on sublimation has been stymied by the elusive nature of an operational definition of 48 it. Experimentally sublimation would only be differentiated from displacement or reaction formation by the absence of countercathexis. This is very difficult to detect. For Melanie Klein (1930) symbolism is the foundation of all sublimation. One of the few attempts to research the concept of sublimation was done by Wallach (1960) who attempted to correlate a liking for esthetic materials with the degree to which symbolic expression of sexual arousal occured in response to the materials . Results were in the direction of his hypothesis but is seemed more like a study of displacement. Any study that viewed sublimation as an explanation of the celibate's adjustment would necessarily include a careful investigation into the forms and types of productivity of the subjects . This present research did not include data about the subject's work. Other explanation for a celibate's abstinence . It would be difficult to measure the effects of suppression and consequent sublimation. This would be a positive and productive method of dealing with sexuality in a celibate framework. We do have research tools to measure negative and unproductive methods of dealing with sexuality. Repression would be the most general method of dealing maladaptively with unwanted instinctual demands . Schafer (1954) notes the well established use of projective techniques 49 to uncover such repressions. The Rorschach can be effective in noting the derivatives of objectionable instincts . More recent approaches to sexual motivation de-emphasize the biological and stress the learned aspects. Hardy (1964) proposed a response-directed theory which sees the affective basis of sexuality as the pleasure following or associated with genital stimulation and climax. The sexual motive is based on a learned expectation of an affective change and the kinds of behavior required to bring about such a change. Whalen (1966) has more of a biological approach than Hardy but he too emphasizes prior experience and the feedback effects of copulation. Both of these approaches then could explain sexual abstinence without reference to deviations or psycho- sexual retardation. Here again we can see that any future research with celibates must begin with careful and detailed histories of the subjects' sexual experiences . Conclusion . It is less anachronistic to wait for the results to be compiled before giving an explanation for the data. But this impatience can be related to the popularized Freudianism that sees prolonged sexual abstinence as the inevitable source of frustration leading to neurosis . If this popular view is correct than the words of James Kavanaugh eloquently express the cry of a shackled psyche reaching 50 out for growth. Celibacy is my shield from reality, my protection from people, the wall that bars me from concern. . .1 must not walk among the people lest I hear their anguished cry. . .I must speak from a distance with words that only confuse . The ignorant do not answer strange to them. And when they do not heed me, I turn my back in smugness and pray for mercy on their soul. I am not a celibate, transformed by service and by love. I am a frightened legalist who made a promise he cannot keep. On the other hand, if sexual abstinence can be accomplished by true sublimation then celibacy can be a positive factor in a person- ality rather than a void. Callahan (1968) writes eloquently about these possibilities . Though within a clear theological framework, much of what she says can be distilled as ennobling human develop- ments . A celibate can become a 'communal man' , one whose dedication is totally involved in building up community. Without an individual family he is free to create a more 'inclusive' family, one that extends relationships beyond kinship ties . Mrs. Callahan foresees a 'demythologizing' of sexuality so that 'encounters' and relationships can go beyond sexual roles and identities. With the end of sexual polarity, men will be freed from the masculine mystique of virility, dominance, and aggression; women will gain a recognition of their value as human beings apart from giving men pleasure and producing progeny. The existence of celibates with a society would serve to remind mankind that each human person has value beyond the sex role, beyond their procreative potential. Furthermore, 51 When marriage and/or sexual fulfillment becomes mandatory for everyone, personal elements of choice and freedom deteriorate. Cultures in which celibate priests and men and women religious are uncomprehended or despised as half human often have a similarly inadequate ideal of the person, especially of women as persons . Such views may seem to involve some gratuitous assumptions. That may well be. But the social scientist has instruments to investigate such assumptions . Perhaps the reason that the celibate has not been the subject of previous research is the gratuitous equation of abstinence with frustration. The first step is clearly the thorough investigation of the personal effects of prolonged sexual abstinence in humans. After this might come attempts to research the 'communal man' described by Callahan. After that - it may be a trip of a thousand miles into new areas of human sexuality. It is hoped that this present study contributed to that first step. FOOTNOTES 1. Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 10, (New York, 1963) p. 55. 2. Ibid., V01. 5, p. 675. 3. Ibid., V01. 28, p. 56. 4. Pope Paul VI, "Priestly Celibacy", published in National Catholic Almanac, 1968, (Washington, 1968) p. 163. 5. Ibid., p. 165. 6. Ibid., p. 158. 7. Fr. James Kavanaugh, A Modern Priest Looks At His Outdated Church (New York: Trident Press, 1967) p. 12. 8. Sidney Callahan, "Sex and the Single Catholic", The Critic, February-March, 1968, p. 59. 9. Ibid. p. 59. 52 APPENDIX A Questionnaire with ICL and Thirteen Statements 54 Please fill in the following information: Age Age at entering the seminary Number of years ordained Please check one: religious diocesan If religious, age at first profession of vows Occupation of father (if deceased, former occupation) Occupation of mother Number of children in your family Your position (lst born, end, etc.) Family's social status when you entered seminary: lower-lower upper-lower lower-middle upper-middle upper Do you have relatives who are diocesan priests? Who? (cousin, uncle, etc.) Do you have relatives who are religious priests? Who? State briefly why you became a priest? Why did you choose the diocesan clergy over the religious clergy or vice-versa? 55 On the following Interpersonal Check List none of the information on the front page need be filled in. Please read the directions . On the inside on the top it is indicated that column 1 is to be a description of yourself; column 2 is to be a description of the Ideal Priest; column 3 is to be a description of yourself as a husband; column 4 is to be a description of the Ideal Husband; and column 5 is to be a description of the average priest. In column 1 fill in those circles in front of each iten which you consider to be generally descriptive of yourself at the present time. If an item doesn't describe you leave the answer space blank. In column 2 fill in those circles in front of each item which you consider to be descriptive of the Ideal Priest. In column 3 you are asked to describe yourself "as if" you were now a husband. Fill in the circles in front of those items which you feel would be descriptive of you if you were now a husband. In column 4 fill in the circles of those items which you feel would be descriptive of the Ideal Husband. In column 5 you are asked to generalize on your knowledge of priests . Fill in the circles in front of those items which you consider to be generally descriptive of the average priest. Note well that your first impressio\n is generally the best so work quickly and don't be concerned about duplications , contradictions, or being exact. If you feel much doubt whether an item applies , leave it blank . 56 The Interpersonal Check list Name Age__ Sex Date Testing if ‘ Address Education______ Occupation Marital Status oup , Other DIRECTIONS: This booklet contains a list of descriptive words and phrases which you will use in describing yourself and members of your family or members of your group. The test administrator will indicate which persons you are to describe. Write their names in the spaces prepared at the top of the inside pages. In front of each item are columns of answer spaces. The first column is for yourself, and there is another column for each of the persons you will describe. Read the items quickly and fill in the first cir’cle in front of each item you consider to be generally descriptive of yourself at the present time. Leave the answer space blank when an item does not describe you. (In the example below, the subiect (Column 1) has indicated that Item A is true and item B is false as applied to him. Item 1 2 e s s s t e A 00000000 welloheheved 1 2 s s s s 7 e 300000000 sesptclees After you have gone through the list marking those items which apply to you, return to the begin- ning and consider the next person you have been asked to describe, marking the second column of answer spaces for every item you consider to be descriptive of him (or her). Proceed in the same way to describe the other persons indicated by the test administrator. Always complete your description of one person before starting the next. Your first impression is generally the best so work quickly and don't be concerned about duplica- tions, contradictions, or being exact. If you feel much doubt whether an item applies, leave it blank. This booklet has been prepared by Timothy Leary, Pb. D., and published b: Unitas Publication, Psy- chological .Couultatioa Service, Box 68, Cambridge, Mass. 02138. (Tel. 17: 547-7244.) The later- persmsl Check List was developed by Rolfe LaForge, Ph. D., and Robert Sucsek, Ph. D., and other staff members of the Kaiser Fomdatlop Research Project in Psychology. Cd. 7 Col. 6 ideal husband average priest “.4 57 Col.) gglf as husband CeI.5 Cel.2 ideal priest SUBJECT'S NAME e h a . . M m u m .. u m h m u. m u m a a a m n H. . . .. . w m u a . m M . n m .n a u m . u n n u . m .. m w a u c m m n u MM“. “Am“ w....«. .m «M.Mm . v. I v. I I I. a manta o mm1mzma~4us a n m n m ...... u . m anion; 2 s 4m...” m ... u we“ 7»... vmvume. m mm weuahmmuum m mmauemonouomowo 9 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO 00 IO 00 a.O IO IO IO 00 IO IO IO IO 00 .0 IO IO IO IO IO IO .0 .0 IO IO 10 TO 10 7O 10 IO 10 70 70 10 10 70 70 1O 10 10 TO 10 70 70 1O 10 70 IO 10 10 7O 10 1O 70 10 GO GO .eO .eO .eO e0 ‘0 OO .eO IO OO 60 CO CO CO 60 e0 60 CO 60 IO 60 .eO .eO .eO CO CO IO do 60 ‘0 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 50 SO 60 SO c.0 .30 SO 50 IO SO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 20 ...O 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 ...O 20 20 20 20 20 :0 20 ...O ..0 s0 20 20 20 20 20 ..O ..O 10 ..O 10 ..0 ..O ..O ..O 10 ...O ..O ..O ..O 10 ..O ..O ..O ..O ..0 10 ...0 ...O ...O ..0 10 ..O ..O ..O ...O ..O u n m x. m m ”Hm h . M “W m a . “*m um .- . m. . " nu mum . w . a . - m m x...“ ..L n. a." e-.~... a e an. .a . .m m. n - a a m “ax_nmwuwm.m.n-a...awIw m» a: a a?» a. h .M m .uem m m M u. u n m nimz... 4...»...7... 9-0 1 Jam «.2... ....E w 3.13.3 ... ...”.TTYEEEJ. a. .. SOSOIOSOSOSOSO IOOOSOSO SO SO SOSOSOSOSOIOIOSO SOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSOSO ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o .o -o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o .o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o .o.o.o.o.o .o .o.o.o.o.o .o.o.o.o .o.o.o .o.o.o.o .o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o.o sOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsO sOsOsOsOso3030303030sOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsOsO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO e0 e0 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO In IO IO IO IO IO IO SO SO SO 30 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 30 SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 20 SO SO 20 2O 2O 2O 20 PO 2O 20 20 2O 20 20 SO SO SO IO SO 20 20 SO 20 SO 20 .(O 20 eso SO e.O ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o xo :0 ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o a m m u n m . m w M u . . M m m m . n u w .. m m L W - ... . . .m x a ... . m . a d .w a m M m M M u m d a m .— w n d d a . .. .... u r w.w-;mwmw.:.~.:.mm~m-wmm Mfmm - I m M .m t b h lh2m3e‘ 5 SW? 8 OHOMIM2ISWI 5 6 7M8 9e0 1.” 1i 2 3k A. I k D 1 t 1 1h 1 1h I n u .u 5u6M7be8m9m .m mlmlm m .n .«1W1m2m2 2&2 2M2e2~2 SMSMSMSh IO 00 00 IO .0 00 00 00 IO 00 s0 00 IO 00 00 IO 00 IO 00 00 IO 00 00 IO 00 IO 00 00 00 00 IO 10 10 ..O 10 10 70 70 70 70 ..O 70 70 70 70 10 70 10 ..O 70 10 70 10 10 10 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 GO 60 .eO 60 CO CO 60 GO 60 60 IO 60 60 CO 60 CO 60 60 CO 60 ‘0 60 60 60 CO CO CO 60 IO 60 CO .0 so so so so so so so so .0 so so so so so so so so .0 so so .o ..o ..o ..o ..0 so .0 ..o ..o .0 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO e.O 20 ...O 10 20 20 IO 20 20 20 20 20 20 IO ’0 ...O 20 ...O 20 20 IO 20 PO IO SO IO SO 20 IO IO 20 SO loo 10 10 10 IO .10 IO 10 10 lo 10 10 10 lo 10 1.0 10 .10 So 10 IO 10 10 SO SO SO .10 .10 SO :10 66 S I S S 7 I 000000 gheetreetyeleell PPAAIICCDDIIPPSOHHIIJJIKLLIIIIOO 58 Col. S :5... out-nail.rumud.ilv d r I. .. v a. a n M... m . m m. ... m m 7 rm.— P C E G t K M O V a .... . . . . . , . . m n W m . 1.. I. m m . ... W A m h S .m P c E G I K at o I W I. .n A B O F H J L N a m m— . .e I N V w. mu— m u m m m m .a. w w— m w. m e n ..." m ... m n ... L m a” m. u v W .m. m m M m m M “L w w‘ m I h .. u v M ..m n. M M m H M w m # m .m D S L H P P A A H I C C D D E I. I. F G G H H I I J I. S K L L I I N N o m n e m a .. n o u m k ... a m m a .. m 0 G O b m M m n m m .. W W . m u x a M m . l I.“ I S I can n... m Mm “Mumu.m..ma.mwm h u u m u m a .... .u .m. .m I m .. .m a .. m u h .m m. mu m m m m n n fl mlhv2m3fi4m5u%mmmmmw.m0e1h2u3 4n5u6m7H8NShOW-1e2 3....4 5u6n7m8 I no OIflbflnUdO I 1'1 1 I“... 1'1U1 1‘1 2'2 2 2 z 2'202'2 WkflMWWWelwld1tlilmlmlthlmlwluIMI-lhl ltlwli1M1fl1w1w1W1m1~1e1u1 . ... a . u u ... u . n u n u . x » .... u . a u . m . .o .o .o ..o ..o .0 so .0 ..o no .0 .o ..o .o .o .o .o .o ..o .o ..o ..o ..o .o .o ..o ..o .o .o ..o .o 7O 10 ...O IO 10 ..O 10 10 ...O 10 70 70 70 70 ..O 70 70 70 70 10 70 10 10 10 10 10 10 ..O 10 70 10 N 60 IO 60 IO 60 IO 60 IO GO 60 .00 GO IO 60 IO IO 60 60 IO 60 IO 60 SO SO 60 IO 60 IO 60 CO CO m SO SO sO sO sO SO 50 50 5O 50 SO sO SO 50 sO sO sO 50 50 50 sO 50 sO 50 IO 50 SO SO SO SO 50 IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO IO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO 20 20 20 20 20 2O 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 ...O 20 20 ...O ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o ..o I 2 S I 5 I I S 00000000 spellepeeplewtthhledeees 59 Below and in the following pages, are thirteen statements . Please consider carefully and at length the extent to which they apply to you. Each statement is to be rated according to the following scale: 1 does not apply to me at all or do not at all agree with statement. 2 only slightly applies to me or minimal agreement with statement. 3 - somewhat applies to me or somewhat agree with statement. .p. I definitely applies to me or definite agreement with statement. 5 - very definitely applies to me or very definite agreement with statement. Circle the number which best indicates the extent to which the statement applies to you. We would greatly appreciate some personal reflections on each of the statements . Please use the space provided after each statement. #1 . I have been lonely. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: 60 #2. I am lonely. l 2 3 4 5 Per 3 onal refle ctions: #3. I feel celibacy is difficult to adjust to. l 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: #4. I favor allowing priests to get married. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: 61 #5. I have thought of being married myself. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: #6. I would make a good husband. 1 2 3 4 5 Fe rs onal r efle ctions: #7. I can understand those who leave the priesthood to marry. 1 Z 3 4 5 Personal reflections: 62 #8. I doubt that I was ready to choose celibacy when I did. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: #9. I would make a good father for a family. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: #10. I am satisfied with my friendships and acquaintances with women. 1 2 3 4 5 Personal reflections: 63 #11 . I am personally content with my life as a celibate . 1 Z 3 4 5 Per 3 onal reflections: #12. I would marry if the Church permitted. 1 2 3 4 5 Per sonal refle ctions: #13 . If the law had been optional earlier I would be married now. 1 2 3 4 5 Pe r s onal r eflections: APPENDIX B Interpersonal Check List Computations 65 There are 128 items on the Interpersonal Check List. Certain answers are combined to gieve eight separate groups of answers. These eight groups , and the questions which comprise them are as follows: Group I: 1-4, 33-36, 65-68, 97-100 Group II: 5-8, 37-40, 69-72, 101-104 Group III: 9-12, 41-44, 73-76, 105-108 Group IV: 13-16, 45-48 77-80 109-112 Group V: 17-20, 49-52, 81-84, 113-116 Group VI: 21-24, 53-56, 85-88, 117-120 Group VII: 25-28, 57-60, 89-92, 121-124 Group VIII: 29-32, 61-64, 93-96, 125-128 Subscores are obtained by combining these eight groups in the following manner: Dominance = 0.7 (sum of II + sum of VIII) + sum of I Submission = 0.7 (sum of IV + sum of VI) + sum of V Love = 0.7 (sum of VI + sum of VIII) + sum of VII Hostility = 0.7 (sum of II + sum of VI) + sum of III The main scores are found by the following formulas: DOM = 0.7 (sum of II + sum of VIII - sum of IV - sum of VI) + sum of I - sum of V LOV = 0.7 (sum of VI + sum of VIII - sum of II - sum of IV) + sum of VII - sum of III APPENDIX C Intercorrelations of Thirteen Statements 67 m; oo.~ N; Hp. oo.~ Haw om.u NMO' oo.H o~¢ 50.: wNOS MN. oo.H Ha. HH. oo.H 3* Ne. mm. mm: 3.- E. oo.H 5* mw. Ho.u No.u am. pm. oo.H 0* Mm. mm. MODS ow. om. mm. oo.H i 1 we, Na. 2.. cm. 2..- N1- 8.- 8.- mm. 3. 3. 3.. mm. 3. 3. NM. 8; Q. 8; m4 Nw mv. FM. 0*. NM. hm.n NN.I oo.u Ho.n Hm. no. mm. hm. mm. ma. 5N. oH. mm. mm. om. mm. oo.a mw. oo.H 1* cm. mm. wN.I Ho.n ma. mw. NM. NM. Nw. 5w. mo. $5. oo.H Mam Na¥ Haw Oak om ww ll 2* m4 1* m* N* aw APPENDIX D Correlations of Six ICL Scores between Self and Self as husband . ~11] If! I.) : 69 Correlations of Six ICL scores between Self and Self as Husband. dominance r = .74 submission r = .67 love r = .77 hostility r = .71 DOM r = .63 LOV r = .72 APPENDIX E Correlations of Six ICL Scores between Ideal Priest and Ideal Husband . "'1'! “~51 71 Correlations of Six ICL scores between Ideal Priest and Ideal Husband dominance r = .84 submission r = .88 love r = .80 hostility r = .82 DOM r = .74 LOV r = .84 APPENDIX F Means and Standard Deviations of ICL Scores 73 Means and Standard Deviations of ICL scores . X s N Self DOM 3.35 5.74 90 LOV 4.55 7.89 90 Ideal Priest DOM 8.52 2.93 90 LOV 8.29 4.55 90 Self as Husband DOM 4.89 5.69 86 LOV 4.24 7.15 86 Ideal Husband . DOM 8 .64 3 .08 90 LOV 7.79 4.63 90 Average Priest DOM 4.88 5.51 88 LOV -O.4l 8.17 88 BIBLIOGRAPHY Block, J. Ego identity, role variability, and adjustment, Journal of Consulting Psycholcgy, 1961, 35, 5, 392-397. Blum, G.S. Psychoanalytic Theories of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. , 1953. Callahan, S. Beyond Birth Control: Christian Experiences of Sex. New York: Sheed & Ward, Inc., 1968. Chown, S.M. A factor analysis of the Wesley Rigidity Inventory: its relationship to age and non-verbal intelligence. Journal of t— Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 491-494. Deri, F. On Sublimation, Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1939, 8, 325-335. Eickhoff, A.R. , A Psychoanalytical Study of St. Paul's Theology of Sex, Pastoral Psychology, April, 1967, 35-42. Erickson, E.H. , The problem of ego identity, Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1956,_4, 56-121. Fenichel, O. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis, New York: W.W. Norton 8: Co. Inc., 1945. Hardy, K.R. An appetitional theory of sexual motivation, PsycholmLical Review, 1964, _'_?_1, 1-18. Hartmann, H. Essay_s on Ego Psychology New York: International Universities Press, 1964, Holt, H. The case of Father M: A segment of an existential analysis, Journal of Existentialism, 1966, 6, 24, 369-396. Kaplan, R.A. Happiness and Social Interaction, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1968. 74 75 Klein, M. The importance of symbol-formation in the development of the Ego, International Journal of ILsychoanalysis, 1930, _1_1, 24-39 . Leary, T . Multilevel measurement of integersonal behavior . Berkeley: Psychological Consultation Service, 1956. Madigan, F.C. Role satisfactions and length of life in a closed population, American Journal of Sociology, 1962, 61, 6, 640-649. McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1962. Murray, J.B. Personality study of priests and seminarians, Homiletic and Pastoral Review, 1958, g, 443-447. O'Neil, D.P. PriestlLCelibacy and Maturity. New York: Sheed and Ward, Inc., 1965. Pope Paul VI Priestly Celibacy, published in National Catholic Almanac 1968. Washington: St. Anthony's Guild, 1968. Rahner, K. The celibacy of the secular priest today, The Furrow, 1968, _1_9, 2, 43-57. Rogers, C.R. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961. Rosenbaum, J.B. A psychoanalyst's case for celibacy, The Catholic World, May, 1967, 107-110. Schafer, R. Psychoanalytic interpretation in Rorschach Testing. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954. Tenbusch, L. Open-mindedness and self-ideal discrepan_cy, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Michigan State University, 1967. Wallach, M. Two correlates of symbolic sexual arousal, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholm, 1960, 61, 396-401 . Weir, A. Value judgement and personality in old age, Acta Psy_chologica, 1961, u, 148-149. Whalen, R.E. Sexual motivation, Psychological Review, 1966, 13, 151-163. L... "‘11111111111711“