Should artists be forbidden to marry?

There was a vigorous discussion this morning, during the weekly Italian language course I attend, prompted by an article in the Italian press about the marriage of Catholic clergy. Apparently this is a topic hotly debated at the moment within the Roman Catholic church, I gather as a part of the generally reforming approach of the current Pope. It was interesting to hear the variety of different views expressed by members of our group. Although several of us thought at the outset that there would be little to actually debate on this subject, we were wrong.

My own views underwent quite a journey in the course of the morning. Initially I was inclined to believe that there was an almost “open and shut” case against a celibate clergy, but as the discussion progressed I began to see that it raised some interesting questions.

I should begin by noting, I suppose, that I am not a Roman Catholic, but have been brought up in the non-conformist tradition, which naturally inclines me to be hostile to celibacy, and to give a great deal of weight to the view that the clergy ought be as much like the rest of us as is possible. As discussion wore on I began to understand the Catholic view, that a priest should be wholly committed to his vocation.* The factor that caused me to look at things in a somewhat different light was, in fact, my own experience.

My father was, as it happens, a Baptist minister, and if anybody could be said to have given absolute priority to his calling it was Dad. The down side of this was, of course, that the family had to take no better than second place in his world, and I have been keenly aware of the extent to which we all suffered to some extent from that. The conclusion towards which my thoughts tended was not, however, that the Catholics are simply right, and that all clergy should be celibate. What I began to ask myself was a rather broader question than this. Is it the case that anybody whose commitment to their occupation takes absolute priority in their life ought to avoid imposing that burden upon a family? Can art be (and perhaps on some occasions should it be) a “vocation” in the sense that the priesthood is?

Given the fact that an appreciable number of artists both historically and in the contemporary world would appear to “live for their art” to the detriment of any other aspect of life, perhaps it would be better for all concerned if they avoided implicating a family in a situation that must lead to their serious neglect? It is possible to think, of course, of figures in the history of art for whom this was the case–or for whom it might have been a great deal better for all concerned had they acknowledged where their true priorities lay.

Let’s get this straight. I should not be counted in this company. The love of a good woman (and having one to love) has always been too important a part of my life to ever make me contemplate celibacy! It does raise the uncomfortable question, however, as to whether this might have contributed to the fact that I am not (and probably never will be) a major luminary in the artistic firmament. It is conceivable that I might have turned out a better artist, but I would certainly have been a more miserable one!

*The question of whether or not priests should be only male is quite another matter, but I’m not going into that one here.