Desire is the culprit

The thing about the Catholic priests, the thing that caught my attention as a child, was the extent to which they were off limits, and therefore safe to desire. At least the good looking and kindly ones were.

The creepy ones, the priests like Father Flynn who took the year nines for religious instruction, were always best avoided.  Not that Father Flynn had a reputation for doing things to girls – I knew little about what happened to boys, in my single sex school, except from my brothers who talked only of ‘getting the cuts’ on a regular basis – but we all knew enough to avoid sitting alone with Father Flynn because of our discomfort at his difficult and blush inducing questions.

‘Do you have your periods yet?  None of his business.

‘Do you know how babies are born?’ Why ask, unless he wanted to teach us?

‘Do you know what parts of the body are active during the procreative act?’

Father Flynn loved the word procreation and although it seemed innocent enough in the bible, at least in places, rolling out on Father Flynn’s tongue, it held a measure of salaciousness we could not escape.

And so we learned to avoid him.

My mother worried for the parish priests wherever we lived. She worried that the priest’s job was too harsh, that the loneliness must have been crippling and that the priest might resort to alcohol late at night for comfort, or some such thing.

She never talked about the priests’ sexual relations with women other than to tell me about her opposition to non- celibacy in the priesthood.

My mother needed her priests to be celibate.

‘How could I talk to a priest who might then go home to his wife burdened with my story?

I wondered then what story my mother wanted hidden from the rest of the world.  What thing could she have done that was so outrageous only the priest could know.

It must have something to do with her own sinfulness.

My mother took sin seriously, or at least so she told me. She was after all raised by a woman, my grandmother, my oma, who suffered from scruples.

My oma went to Mass every day of the week, even through the freezing cold of Dutch winters, to the cathedral-like church of St Bavo, and once a week she confessed her sins to the priest.

After she had told him about the dreadful things she considered she had done to besmirch her own and God’s name, my grandmother went back home to complete her penance, a few prayers and a promise not to sin again.

Hours later she returned to the priest in his confessional.

‘You have absolved my sins father,’ she said. ‘But you got it wrong. Those sins are far worse than you realise,’ and she repeated the detail of her sins again, those anonymous sins that none of us know about to this day – we can only imagine – and again the priest remained unimpressed.  But he increased his list of penance prayers so that my grandmother should go home cleansed, unburdened and ready to attend to her family and life as a good Dutch woman in Haarlem Holland between the wars.

Still not satisfied my grandmother returned yet again for the late shift at the confessional – in those days the queues for confession could be so long the priests needed to hold multiple sessions – and this time she urged the priest to take her even more seriously.

She had sinned grievously. Did he not realise the severity of her sin?  Once again the priest tried to humour my grandmother by requesting not just one decade of the rosary but ten.

And still my grand mother was not appeased.

She could not be forgiven her sins; no matter how hard the priest tried.

My mother then lived under the weight of such a conscience stricken woman and tried to escape the burden by hiding herself away in books.

In medieval times, monks used scruples, the knots tied to the end of ropes and attached to sticks with which to flog themselves.

‘Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.’

images-1

These days we ascribe such impulses to an over active superego or to something maybe even more sinister, to some masochistic impulse to wash away our pain/sin under the weight of some bullying impulse within that gets satisfaction out of hurting ourselves.

For the monks and priests of the past – though I would not be one bit surprised if it still goes on today – it was a way of honouring God, making oneself pure and desire free in his eyes.

Desire was the culprit, desire for all things considered sinful: money, food and drink but mostly sex, lust, desire for another’s body, desire for the satisfaction of one’s own body.

My grandmother’s visits to the priest in confession might have been her way of flagellating herself.  Certainly, from what my mother said, the priests who attended my grandmother felt flagellated.

The priests in my mother’s home town and at the cathedral of Saint Bavo wanted to offer relief, not more pain, but my grandmother would have none of it and the pain must have extended to her diet.

In one of his journal entries, one of my uncles, a Franciscan priest, wrote:

‘The unusual habits of mother during her pregnancy, especially in her choice of food, made her vitamin deficit and could have given her children a form of rickets as our dentist pointed out.’

For my oma, all desire was bad.  Desire was to be squashed.

And yet without desire there can be no pleasurable expectation, no sense of the value of anything.

And worse still when our desires but must not even be considered.

Therein lies a problem for the priests. The need to be celibate in thought and deed.

How do you straitjacket your mind, when your mind will have its own way?

Unless you split off your desires into denial or slip into situations where your right hand does not know or recognise what your left hand is doing.

 

 

Final diagnosis and first post

A tub of yoghurt followed by two horse pills is my breakfast these days. All washed down with one or two cups of tea.

IMG_2396Don’t be fooled by the size. These ‘horse’ pills are bigger than you think.

By the time one of them hits the back of my throat it turns sideways, even as I put it into my mouth pointy end forward.

To swallow one is to gag and then gulp down mouthfuls of water before they finally settle somewhere in my stomach.

I feared I was on the control dose, by the absence of taste. They taste like nothing, just the faint tang of plastic, but the woman who asks me questions and runs me through tests told me the pills are made in a factory to certain specifications and all the pills, whether the real thing or the control, are made to taste the same.

I had hoped I’d be on the real thing, not the placebo.

I had hoped I might observe remarkable changes in my cognition, in my memory, in my ability to perform these Lumosity type tasks that the researchers set every time I visit the Swinburne University where the tests take place.

The pills are meant to contain a mint extract, and the hypothesis follows that this extract will improve cognitive functioning in people over fifty.

I haven’t noticed any deterioration, but as for improvement, there’s none there either.

I agreed to participate in this study, not only for the altruism of giving back to the community via scientific research, but also because they offered an MRI as part of the procedure.

A free MRI. I can establish once and for all that my brain is okay.

In the waiting room at the department for psychopharmacology, the drawing board near reception is filled to the brim with notices of rooms for rent and requests for participation in other research projects.

There are many that deal with so-called mental health.

‘Do you know of or live with someone who suffers from bi-polar disorder? We’d like to talk to you as part of our research into the condition.’

I cringe. I have an aversion to the use of psychiatric jargon. People use these expressions often these days. So and so has bi-polar, as if it’s a concrete and physical disability, like being born blind or suffering from cancer.

So and so has depression. I much prefer people turn these nouns into verbs. I reckon it’s more helpful and meaningful to say, ‘So and so is depressed’.

It has something to do with the reductive nature of these psychiatric categories. When used as nouns they speak about a person as a category.

When we say someone has lung cancer, in our mind’s eye we hone in on the horrors of the cancer, the difficulties of breathing.

We might ask the standard stereotypical question where lung cancer is involved, ‘Did she smoke?’ but we do not assume more about the person. The person still has an identity that goes beyond their diagnosis.

But when we say someone has schizophrenia, for instance, it’s as if their identity is subsumed under the label, and they cease to be a person beyond their diagnosis.

We like to label people and things. It helps us to get a grip on them, but it’s dangerous as well.

The fantasy seems to be if you get the diagnosis right, correct treatment automatically follows.

I’ve been running through reruns of that TV series House, about a grumpy doctor and diagnostician who works in a busy New Jersey hospital.

The stories tend to be formulaic and dramatic. They start with someone unexpectedly falling ill, or having an accident. The person is rushed into hospital and for some strange reason, generally to do with difficulties in diagnosis as to the cause of the problem, Dr House and his team are called in to give a diagnosis.

They start off with hunches based on symptoms, then treat according to those hunches, one of which invariably leads the person to have a heart attack, a stroke or some other major episode in which we are led to believe this person will die.

The person rarely dies, only survives and amazingly, the next day they discover the real cause, which might be a tumour, or some internal bleed, or some unspoken decision on the part of the patient to confess to having done something he or she hadn’t owned up to earlier, like taking cocaine, or LSD or some other illegal substance that’s made them sick.

House’s philosophy is that patients always lie.

The body, on the other hand, obeys certain procedures and from time to time the camera peeks inside, via fantastical imagery of what goes on inside a blood vessel, a pumping heart, or wasted lungs.

Is it that people lie? Or do they omit information or construct a story around events so that they don’t disappoint their loved ones, or don’t get into trouble with the law?

People, myself inclusive, reinvent themselves in order to present their best selves, or their worst selves if that’s their inclination, but in any case, it’s an attempt to reconstruct some sense of themselves that meets the needs of the moment.

I’m reconstructing my identity with this move, and I’m fearful some won’t recognise me.  Hopefully you do.

 

In any case, whether you’re here from my old place or visiting for the first time, welcome.