Embracing Celibacy
May 24, 2012
Hey, this is a neat post from the Marriage Matters blog:
I don’t mean that [priests] simply acquiesce to celibacy, but they embrace it with their whole heart. I am not simply referring to men who think to themselves, “Golly, marriage would be good. Women are beautiful. Sex sounds nice. But, oh well.” I’m speaking of men who have stared into the eyes of a woman with the passionate desire to sweep her off of her feet, profess his love and fidelity to her at the altar, make sweet, sweet love to her, and have a huge Catholic family; men who have looked straight in the eyes of an individual, particular, woman with whom he is in love—and who is in love with him–and said, “I choose Jesus. I choose priesthood. I choose celibacy.”
Whole post is here. It’s quick and not overly ponderous, and I liked it for its genuineness.
In other news, the date for moving out is SOON, because I am DYING up in here; also I am taking a long-overdue week’s vacation to go speeding around New England on my faithful iron steed (if she’s out of the shop by then, ohpleaseohpleaseohpleaseGod) and see Sal & others; and also I just got back from my first session with a new therapist who, as far as I can tell, really gets it. So I am, relatively speaking, pretty chipper. Hoorah.
I’d like to add something else, if I may.
>”There is the Ordinary Form of Mass (2002 Missale Romnum) and the Extraordinary Form of Mass (1962 Missale Romanum). The ordinary is what is common and usual. It is what you would expect.”
I don’t understand. The Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Mass are not defined by statistics as regards their actual use. For example, if priests suddenly started using the Extraordinary Form in more statistical numbers, such that there had been considerably more Extraordinary Masses since both Extraordinary and Ordinary existed side-by-side, that would not change which one is the Ordinary and which one is the Extraordinary.
You’ve just given an example that tells me that “ordinary” has something additional to it besides statistics and numbers.
I don’t understand what you’re saying that serves to illustrate, rather than throw further doubt upon, your point. What are you saying? :S
Contemplative in the Mud,
By upset I don’t necessarily mean angry. As Victor says, the volume seems high. I’m using the word upset to mean something like ‘disturbed’. It is obvious that you are disturbed or else you wouldn’t have engaged the issue in this way. I apologize because I’m convinced that my spelling and grammatical errors have contributed to this. I’ve been responding too quickly without throughly reviewing my responses. I’m slowing down a bit to help this problem.
Let me begin with your question about the word ‘natural’. I’ll try to express its use in the context of our discussion. In Theology we make a distinction between the ‘order of nature’ and the ‘order of grace’. We do this so we can analyze different aspects of the human condition so that we can gain a clearer insight into the ‘nature’ of God, i.e., God’s essence, or ‘who God is’. The distinction is important. If we don’t respect the distinction then we will not fully see how God has acted in the world.
When I spoke about marriage being the ‘natural’ vocation of all men I had this distinction in mind. So, in other words, without some direct revelation from God a celibate vocation doesn’t make sense according to the ‘order of nature’. This is easily seen when we universalize the vocation. If everyone were to embrace a celibate vocation the human species would quickly come to an end because there would be no procreation. On the most basic fundamental level, the human person is created to propagate the species. Nearly everything we do (just like the other animals) is ordered to the rearing and care of children. Celibacy, then, only makes sense when there is some revelation indicating that it is pleasing to God. This we have, but it’s not that simple. Remember, grace doesn’t destroy nature, only a very few people are called to this vocation because God doesn’t contradict himself. Through revelation we learn that celibacy is not contrary to human nature because it relates not to the natural end of man (happiness) but to the supernatural end of man (beatitude). But, we also learn that it relates to this supernatural good not as an intransitive good but as a transitive good. Let me explain what I mean here:
Certain things are good in themselves and other things are good because of what they are ordered to. Marriage is both. It is good because it is ordered to procreation, safety, building society, and natural happiness. When marriage is elevated to a Sacrament by Christ it takes on other characteristics: a means of communicating sanctifying grace, a sign of the relationship between Christ and his Church. So, Christian marriage (Sacramental Marriage) makes marriage a good in itself by elevating it to the state of being a Sacrament. Celibacy however, is not a good in itself. It is “for the sake of the kingdom” and thus only possess the nature of a transitive good. It is good in so far as it is a sign of the final state of man in beatitude. Christ lists the three types of celibates, two are disordered states (made so by nature, made so by others) and only one is an ordered state (for the sake of the kingdom).
Hopefully that illustrates the point. If not, well, we’ll see. But, on this basis alone it is not inconsistent to think that a vocation to celibacy would be discovered after discerning matrimony. Matrimony is, under every consideration except one, a greater good than celibacy. To deny this is to deny fundamental truths about everything we believe as Catholics. The one exception is when we evaluate each vocation according to the final state of man. This is why we speak about celibacy being a more noble or an objectively higher vocation than marriage. But, this is only a small part of the greater teaching of the Church on human sexuality, sacramental theology, ecclesiology, Christology, etc. One of the greatest errors the Church has been trying to correct for the past few hundred years is just this point. Blessed John Paul II’s Apostolic Exhortation Familaris Consortio is a great place to begin if this is something you have never heard.
So, this is the first reason why it would seem uncommon for someone to consider a celibate vocation before considering a vocation to marriage. In both the order of nature and the order of grace, matrimony is a greater good than celibacy. The human person is made for the highest goods. We are designed by God to seek the greatest good. Thus it is easy to see why I would say this. Simply consider the order of grace. Matrimony is a Sacrament, celibacy is not. Matrimony communicates sanctifying grace, celibacy does not. Matrimony is a sign of the relationship between Christ and his Church, celibacy is only a sign of the ultimate (heavenly) state of man. But, under this same consideration, the married state is temporary whereas celibacy is not temporary. So, in this way celibacy is greater. If the human person is created to choose the greatest good that it perceives then it is obvious that Matrimony is objectively a greater good than celibacy and thus the human person, all things being equal, would seek matrimony before they would seek celibacy.
This is the case unless there is some intervention by God. This is another reason why the seeking of a celibate vocation is uncommon. Because it cannot be confirmed ordinarily as a greater good than matrimony overall it must be given to an individual that it is a greater good for that individual. Now, it is true that this intervention by God can happen prior to a consideration of marriage (I know some priests and religious that have known that they were called to this sort of life since they were first able to exercise reason), it is still an intervention. So, if you think from universal to particular, the greatest number of people will consider marriage as is proper according to human nature. A lesser number of people would consider celibacy. Then, of that number there would be those who consider celibacy without considering matrimony. In other words it is reasonable to consider that a subset of a subset of a set of people would be less than the sets above it. There would need to be compelling evidence to the contrary to negate such a consideration. Such evidence is not forthcoming because this is really hard to verify so one should assume the reasonable position until it has been falsified.
Again we return to the notion of romanticism. I have not been clear in where I find your statements overly romanticized. Where it becomes clear is in the claim that the celibate vocation is one that is in relation to Christ in an undivided way and that Matrimony is one that is in relation to Christ in a divided way. This is not the case. St. Paul simply says that it is better to be celibate because it is easier to contemplate God than it is as one who is married. But, the celibate has a lot more to consider than God. Even the monk has a divided heart. The community of a celibate is analogous to his family. Granted, it is a family that is specifically ordered to seeking contemplation while matrimony is not so ordered (essentially). But, it is untrue to see a divided heart among those married and an undivided heart among the celibate as a universal claim.
What distinguishes a divided heart from an undivided heart is how one loves. In the natural order there are four types of love: storge, eros, philia, agape. Storge is the love of ones natural family. Eros is desire. Philia is the love of friendship. Agape is the love of the other for the others sake. In the order of grace we add one greater than these – caritas. Caritas is the love of the other for God’s sake. Thus, to love with “Christian love” is to love another because God loves them. Another way to put this is, we find our love for others in our love of God. This is a relation to God with an undivided heart. This sort of love is accessible to the married and the celibate alike. It is harder to attain to this sort of love as a married person because of the heavy influence of storge. But, the celibate finds a barrier to caritas because of the heavy influence of philia. But, when all these loves are made subject to caritas then we love God with an undivided heart. If this is unfamiliar to you I would suggest reading Blessed John Paul II’s “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body”. He does an excellent job of synthesizing Patristic thought on love and relationships and develops it further in light of contemporary insights.
Now I need to ask you a question. I’m unclear what you mean by the term ‘moral’. You see, in technical language, a moral act is every human action done when reason is engaged. We distinguish between ‘a human act’ and ‘an act of man’ in ethical evaluation. A moral act is one that is done with the engagement of the intellect and will (reason) and corresponds to a ‘human act’ while a non-moral action is one that does not engage the intellect and will and corresponds with an ‘act of man’. When we evaluate human acts we don’t apply praise or blame (culpability) to a act until all objective consideration can be reasonably made. When this is done we use the word good/bad or good/evil. These terms speak about the intrinsic or subjective rectitude of an action (the acts consistency with reason). I haven’t assigned these words to my analysis of seeking ones vocation. I used the term odd. If I were to translate the word odd to a technical term it would be ‘non-normative’ which is not a moral evaluation but a sociological evaluation. Normativity is related to culturally acceptable or unacceptable behavior but yet reserves moral judgment. In fact, one of the historic works of Christianity is to separate subjective cultural norms from what is morally good or bad because often a particular culture’s norms are not isomorphic with objective moral evaluation. Thus, much of the work of the Church has been to restructure an encountered culture’s social norms to fit with authentic ethical norms. This has been done with greater or less success over the years. Anyway, I’m asking how you are using the term ‘moral’ and concurrently I’m trying to express how the term I used doesn’t directly correspond to an assignation of praise or blame to a particular act. If you can accept this simple point, we’ve come a long way.
Re: The Example of the two Roman Liturgies
It expresses my point exactly as intended. My argument is not simply made from a numerical standpoint. My argument is fundamentally based in human nature (as my previous comment should express). Even if, through some extreme intervention by God that everyone who embraces a celibate vocation from this point in time forward were to have been given knowledge of this vocation since the initial stage of their ability to use reason it would still remain extraordinary. It would remain extraordinary because God’s communication of the vocation would occur through extraordinary means. The vocation of celibacy is by its very nature extraordinary in the first place. To receive that vocation without any consideration of what is ordinary adds a greater degree of extraordinariness to what is already extraordinary.
Brother Gabriel,
Please just answer straight. (I mean and say this kindly, a bit sad, tired.) You will save us both a lot of time if you just answer questions and points that are raised, rather than write long letters! (I mean and say this kindly.)
Are you still saying that it’s odd not to go to celibacy through *dating*? Because *that* is what I have been shocked by since the beginning. You said *dating*. It’s right there to see: dating. You were speaking of people who dated and broke relationships. (I said there would have been more balance, and less friction, if we also spoke about those who didn’t, who went to celibacy without first dating in experience.) In the context, you said *dating*. Dating. Dating. This was the topic. This is what you said is normal, ordinary, not-odd.
*Dating* prior to coming to celibacy.
I’m not repeating myself to be upset, rude, or angry. I’m repeating myself, because you have neglected the points I made before: Are you still talking about dating, or have you dropped that line of discussion? I want to make it impossible for you to miss this point again. (I don’t know why it was missed before. I’m not blaming you.)
You originally said *dating*. Yet everything that you just wrote to me is about the good and truth of marriage (in nature and in sacrament). That makes sense, for the most part, though some things you say I don’t exactly agree with.
But knowing and considering and being deeply drawn towards marriage, considering marriage, considering that path, is not the same as the act of *dating* a particular person.
Are you still saying that it’s odd not to go to celibacy through *dating*? If you’re not, then there is no major disagreement. (There are minor ones.) If you are, then your arguments should probably relate to that point, shouldn’t they?
>”This is easily seen when we universalize the vocation. If everyone were to embrace a celibate vocation the human species would quickly come to an end because there would be no procreation.”
For what it’s worth, in the City of God, Augustine said to this, “Then the world would end sooner.”
In other words: “Why universalize anything? It’s in the hands of Providence. Just trust and yourself do your best.”
Saint Augustine doesn’t see any need to formulate norms in the first place. It’s in God’s hands. It’s a mystery.
>”Remember, grace doesn’t destroy nature, only a very few people are called to this vocation because God doesn’t contradict himself.”
Why would that mean “only a very few people” are called? What is a “very few”? And how do they know they, in particular, are called?
>”Hopefully that illustrates the point.”
It does. But it’s a point that didn’t need illustrating. Thank you for writing it all. But it’s not necessary. Please just talk to me.
>”But, on this basis alone it is not inconsistent to think that a vocation to celibacy would be discovered after discerning matrimony.”
Yes, “discerning matrimony”, considering it in one’s life and in terms of its goods that you keep mentioning, discussing it and learning about it, thinking about it for oneself, considering it… It’s all very broad.
I see the *link* to dating. But they’re not *equivalent*.
>”So, this is the first reason why it would seem uncommon for someone to consider a celibate vocation before considering a vocation to marriage.”
I’m glad you now use the word “seemingly uncommon” rather than “odd”.
What I find amazing is that “considering a vocation to marriage” is, to all appearances, the same to you as “dating”. Is it? Is it not? You originally told me it’s “odd” to go to celibacy without going through “dating”. Has your story changed? Or is it still the same? Unless you answer me when I ask you (this is at least the second post in which I’ve asked), how can I know?
>”Because it cannot be confirmed ordinarily as a greater good than matrimony overall it must be given to an individual that it is a greater good for that individual.”
Perhaps you already know this… but… You disagree entirely with, for example, Saint Alphonsus and Saint Thomas. They both say that celibacy, truly and lovingly embraced as a counsel, is a greater good in terms of spiritual security and spiritual growth (“contemplation” is “easier”, as you, yourself, put it); and we should ideally have counter-indicators (e.g., negative impediments, positive duties required in life) if we are to not take this offered grace. Of course, there are many, many such counter-indicators. And probably far more than either of them considered. But your perspective is still the reverse of these two Doctors. I will simply point this out.
Given that one of them is Saint Thomas, it gives pause to think whether your long nature-and-grace derivation of argument is water-tight…
>”This is the case unless there is some intervention by God.”
Why is an “intervention” required? It’s in the Gospel already: some have become this way for the sake of Jesus himself. If someone reads about a good in the Gospel, why does God need to “intervene” to make him want it? It’s ordinarily there already. It can be chosen like all other things are chosen in a state of grace: “Is it good? Does it suit me?” etc.
Yes, lots of *other* things are ordinarily in his life, too: his parents, his family, girls, etc.
But this one is also ordinarily in the Gospel. Why is an “intervention” needed? It’s really already there in the Gospel; it’s already a good proposed to him in his life. I don’t see any need for an “intervention”. It’s really there in his life to choose as good and suitable.
This is a point I simply cannot understand, regardless of the “dating” issue. Celibacy for Jesus is in the Gospel. Thus nothing extraordinary is required. (It may be given; but it’s not required.) The requirements are just a will, prayer, and ordinary grace. None of your arguments about grace and nature change that. It’s there. It’s an invitation. It can be considered without a further divine “intervention”. Just ordinary workings of nature and grace are enough.
>”In other words it is reasonable to consider that a subset of a subset of a set of people would be less than the sets above it.”
Your “subset of the subset” is a group that went to celibacy without considering marriage.
… What does this have to do with a group of people who discerned celibacy without actively *dating*?
>”Such evidence is not forthcoming because this is really hard to verify so one should assume the reasonable position until it has been falsified.”
If that is the case, I would like to see the “reasonable position” that someone discerning marriage is actively dating.
>”Where [romanticism] becomes clear is in the claim that the celibate vocation is one that is in relation to Christ in an undivided way and that Matrimony is one that is in relation to Christ in a divided way. This is not the case.”
“A divided heart” is a common expression to summarize what Saint Paul said when he said, “his interests are divided,” since interests are found in the heart. I certainly don’t mean that, in the case of the will and love, there is division in marriage and not in celibacy. In fact, I already said that much. If you didn’t see that I said this, it is not my fault.
If you have a problem with this expression (“divided”), please don’t take it up with me. Substitute any other expression that shows that, for a celibate, it “is easier to contemplate God than it is as one who is married”. This is the (principal?) meaning, I agree. I assumed it would be easier to stick to the Scriptural word. Apparently it wasn’t. But if we agree on the meaning and disagree on the Scriptural word (I can’t imagine why), that is fine for me.
>”Anyway, I’m asking how you are using the term ‘moral’ and concurrently I’m trying to express how the term I used doesn’t directly correspond to an assignation of praise or blame to a particular act.”
“Odd” corresponds to marginalization of experience when it’s used to justify the exclusion of or irrelevance of experiences in a conversation. (As it was.)
By “moral”, yes, I do mean that it involves human actions in which reason is involved.
>”To receive that vocation without any consideration of [marriage]…”
This is entirely your foisting of an opinion on me.
I’m constantly talking about someone who *does not date in experience*, not someone who acts without “any consideration of [marriage]“. Where did you get an idea that someone would act “without any consideration of marriage”? (Is it even *possible* without divine intervention? I, personally, have difficulty imagining it. How could a child not consider their own parents’ marriage, for example? their human nature? etc. This is certainly *not* something I have discussed: “acting without any consideration of marriage”.)
But more to the point: Since when was dating synonymous with considering marriage? Would you *please* distinguish between the two, so that you could stop attributing to me opinions that I don’t hold.
I don’t mean to be upset or angry. But this post is nowhere near the first time that I have asked you to make the distinction or clarify if you were still talking about dating — because, in accordance with your original comment, I still am talking about dating. I’m only going based on the original topic: dating. I am sticking to the topic.
By repeating myself, I’m not meaning to “sound” upset or angry. But how else can I draw your attention to this point? I keep trying to ask you this question. If there is a gentler way to do so, after you misrepresent my opinions (*because* I’m faithful to your own words, no less), I don’t know it. I’m sorry.
Please (a gentle please) distinguish between dating and “considering marriage”. Thank you!
>”I used the term odd. If I were to translate the word odd to a technical term it would be ‘non-normative’ which is not a moral evaluation but a sociological evaluation.”
Sorry, but this isn’t faithful to the original context. You used the word to marginalize experiences from a discussion. I said a broader variety of experiences could have helped and generated less friction (there was a lot of friction in the conversation!). You called those other experiences “odd”.
It’s not possible to disinfect all moral implications. I’m sorry. (genuinely meant)
By the way, I did something very bad in not replying to this:
>”I apologize because I’m convinced that my spelling and grammatical errors have contributed to this.”
Thank you for the apology, though I don’t think this is in any way a cause of anything except some smiles.
And I can clarify something here, I hope:
>”Even if, through some extreme intervention by God that everyone who embraces a celibate vocation from this point in time forward were to have been given knowledge of this vocation since the initial stage of their ability to use reason it would still remain extraordinary. It would remain extraordinary because God’s communication of the vocation would occur through extraordinary means.”
Of course I agree with this. This is what ordinary and extraordinary actually mean!
But I have to immediately add the following, so that I’m not misunderstood…
The situation you described is certainly extraordinary. It lies outside the normal regime of virtue and grace. There’s an “intervention”, as you put it.
However, there are no extraordinary means in a young person, already past the age of reason, reading the Bible, praying, considering marriage, considering celibacy for Jesus, and choosing celibacy based on prayer, prudence, their situation, the Gospel, Jesus, etc. … nothing extraordinary required to do this after reason but *before* *dating*. Even *if* the child lives in a culture where dating often occurs for young adults, there are years of normal, everyday conversations with Jesus in that time! Years of thinking and talking with Jesus. That’s a lot of room for ordinary graces and virtues to lead to ordinary answers and choices.
It is — or can be — ordinary. The communication of the vocation is through ordinary means: prayer, virtues, Bible, friendship with Jesus, prudence, daily activities, reflection… No extraordinary experiences, graces, or virtues are required; it’s possible; it’s real.
It’s one “ordinary” way founded in the way things are for Christians.
Is there anything in this you disagree with? This is what I’ve been saying for ages.
Contemplative in the Mud,
I have answered you at leat three times. Discernment of marriage is, by definition, dating (or it’s cultural equivalent).
Augustine is incorrect. This would be a typical place where Aquinas would correct him.
My position is not contrary to Aquinas (I can speak for the position of St. Alphonses). If you cannot see the distinctions made when considering an object under seperate ratios then I don’t know how to help you understand. I would need you in a classroom. This is a poor forum to teach.
Maybe the problem is that we have different conceptions of discernment. Discernment is not simply thinking about something or praying about it or the combination of the two. Discernment includes actively persuing a vocation. I often express to young men considering my Order that the have yet to begin true discernment untl they have entered the novitiate. You can’t just consider a vocation in the abstract.
The word odd does not imply marginalization. What lead you to that conclusion. I don’t know where you are from but current American English usage doesn’t imply this, as I’ve noted several times. It is becoming exhausting explaining this. I feel like I’m having a conversation with someone who claims that Christians worship three gods instead of a Trinity and no matter how hard I explain that the Trinity is not three gods the interlocutor disagrees.
You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the order of nature and the order of grace. How can I help you understand this distinction?
Brother,
>”I have answered you at lea[s]t three times.”
Where?
>”The word odd does not imply marginalization.”
I didn’t say it always does. However, in this conversation, originally, “odd” was used to marginalize experiences from the discussion. It’s right there in the text. We were discussing dating and celibacy. I said there are broader experiences and might help to round out the conversation. You contradicted me and said those experiences were “odd”.
If you think the use can be justified, then you can justify your action: marginalizing experiences from a conversation.
Or, if marginalization is not your intention, then perhaps you’d be willing to discuss those non-dating experiences as if they are also normal and/or ordinary?
If you think I’m “disturbed” over a *word*… Sorry. I’ve made it clear that’s not the case. This is about something other than a word. It is the meaning that is the problem. I said “scandal” at the beginning: telling young people that God will not ordinarily reveal a celibate will to them unless they date. If you don’t pay attention, it’s not my fault. I’m really not sure how to be more clear: it’s scandalous to tell young people that God will not ordinarily reveal a celibate will to them unless they date. It’s actual scandal and confusion of the young.
Sure, God may reveal his will that way. But there are other ordinary paths, too. Confusing young people is not good. Sorry.
>”(or it’s cultural equivalent).”
So you’re admitting that your original wording was, at least in some way, wrong or deficient. It took a long time. Could you please make this explicit, rather than hiding it in parentheses? It’s important. Thank you.
>”Discernment of marriage is, by definition, dating (or it’s cultural equivalent).”
Not by definition, no.
But yes, this is one *part*/one *way* of discernment of a particular marriage.
Similarly, beginning to live with Dominicans is the discernment of that life.
Reading the Bible and living with Jesus is a basic and general act of discernment as well. (something your definition “dating = discernment of marriage” doesn’t have in it)
Since we’re talking about celibacy, it’s pretty obvious that, to discern celibacy, I don’t ordinarily need to date (though, of course, I could). One can start to live something and experience it with Jesus.
Really! Imagine a hypothetical “I”. I live a celibate life. I have experience. I reflect and discern with Jesus. I choose celibacy in light of this living, this experience, this reality, this relationship. What is so “extraordinary”?
>”Discernment is not simply thinking about something or praying about it or the combination of the two. Discernment includes actively persuing a vocation.”
Where did I say otherwise? For example, I spoke about living with Jesus through ups and downs and exercising prudence and love and the other virtues. In other words, young people are often living a celibate life already. They can discern *through* those experiences.
What could you possibly disagree with in this?
It amazes me that, as far as I can tell, you’re claiming that living a temporary celibate life with Jesus cannot ordinarily be “actively discerning” a permanent celibate life.
>”You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between the order of nature and the order of grace.”
I’m not aware of any such problem.
You express an awful a lot of judgments about what you think goes on in my mind. It’s really very bizarre.
>”How can I help you understand this distinction?”
If you think I need any help, I’ve already told you what is helpful to me: to reply to individual comments like a conversation that is shorter and easier to follow (i.e., like I reply to individual statements of yours).
>”My position is not contrary to Aquinas”
Yes, it is.
The Doctors do not agree with you. This is just a fact. Sorry. I truly am sorry in this case. But the facts can’t be changed.
>”(I [can't?] speak for the position of St. Alphonses)”
Well, this is much better than when you called the claims of the Doctor of prayer and moral theology “Protestant radical fideist” and “backwards”.