|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is it wrong to give honor to virginity and celibacy?
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
Quite a few people seem uncomfortable nowadays with anyone's decision to remain a virgin well into adulthood for religious reasons, or at any point in life to forego marriage and sex altogether for a long period or permanently for religious reasons.
I speak specifically with reference to the Catholic/Orthodox tradition of monks, nuns, friars, and celibate priests (in the RCC), and to the Catholic tradition of honoring the virginity of female saints who remained virgins their entire life, or who died rather than be married to a non-Christian or rather than break a vow to remain a virgin (as in the case of St. Maria Goretti, who was martyred during an attempted rape).
And then there is the whole issue of the Virgin Birth of Christ and the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Arguing about whether or not these things are true is for another thread. But some people seem bothered that other people think that there was something "holier" about a virgin birth than other births or that the Blessed Virgin Mary was/is "holier" for remaining a virgin her entire life. These people would say that sex within marriage is just as holy as virginity and celibacy and that the religious tradition of thinking of sex as shameful is something terrible that should be eliminated. Many of these people also think that the veneration of virginity is oppressive to women.
I agree that it is sexist to honor virginity in women more than virginity in men. But aside from that, I do not see anything wrong with considering religious virginity and celibacy, or the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (if you believe in it), as holy in a special way that all other sexuality and chastity is not (granted, I am open to the argument that devoted sexual love can also be holy in a special way that celibacy and virgnity is not).
I also agree that there may be problems with requiring celibacy and virginity among people who are not capable of it. But some people are, and some people would strongly prefer it to marriage or any other way of expressing their sexuality.
For clarity: celibacy means not being married (and presumably not having sex). Chastity means using one's sexuality in the right way, whether in celibacy or marriage. Virginity for a long time was a word almost entirely used for women (which I agree is probably sexist), but I am using it here to talk about both men and women, as the word is used today.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
If you wish to remain a virgin that's a decision for you, not to be applauded or derided.
Similarly if you choose to live without marriage - in other words not marry or partner-up - I'm OK with that.
Where I do have an argument is with the idea that women (because it usually is women) are somehow better if virgins: it could be that no one has asked them???
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I agree that the veneration of virginity has been unfairly weighted towards women, and anthropologists have suggested this is because female virginity is controlled sexual power (controlled by a world and a religious worldview dominated by men)...although in some religious virgins are priestesses of a goddess who is not herself a virgin, and in other religions priestesses who never marry engage in ritual sexual acts (whether or not these are "temple prostitutes" is a matter for another thread).
However, if "virginity" is seen as applying equally to men and to women (despite historical views of it)...we can look at the virginity of Christ (often called his celibacy, see the historical views we have talked about) - orthodox Christianity teaches that Christ was and is a virgin and that even His apocalyptic wedding to the Church will be consummated in a non-sexual way. Is it wrong to honor the fact that He never had sex and to make a point of not letting people preach that He ever did (or that He even masturbated?).
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Oh, for the good old days when male virgins were the most powerful of all. Sir Galahad, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Where I do have an argument is with the idea that women (because it usually is women) are somehow better if virgins: it could be that no one has asked them???
And the flip side of that "better" is that a woman is "tainted" if she loses her virginity without her consent. Some cultures today take the position a raped woman is a guilty woman and punish her for "adultery."
Our culture used to think that way, being raped was "a fate worse than death" and an honorable woman would commit suicide. Shakespeare wrote about it.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
People may have said that, but they did not usually teach their daughters how to kill themselves (or how to fight) and seldom armed them.
As I understand, there is a small part of the population who are asexual by nature. Why should they participate in sex if they are not interested? Why is their abstinence admirable if that is their preference?
By the way, I would not assume that all nuns, priests, etc. are virgins. None of them was born in holy orders.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
It's interesting that John Wesley's early itinerant preachers (in the UK) were more or less expected to be celibate single men. As the Methodist movement settled down, they were more likely to marry and have families.
As Christianity recedes from cultural memory in parts of the West, it might be useful to valorise the single celibate life once again. Single people can travel more easily to where the gospel needs them to be. In theory they can commit themselves more single-heartedly to the life of ministering in difficult communities, and can live more cheaply in expensive places. They don't have to worry about where to find 'good schools' for the children, or how to dovetail their vocation with a spouse's successful career....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It would seem problematic in the sense that it is something conceptualized as more worthy or better or somehow a holy or good example. All of the sex abuse scandals suggest that many who try to 'honour' this standard of conduct have aspired to something their true nature cannot attain. As for the adoption of celibacy as a perceived "good", I've heard conflicting stories about the origin of the practice, highlighting particular bits of scripture, the desire to prevent priests from leaving church properties to their offspring, and the desires of families to have younger members also not inherit if given over to holy orders.
Perhaps Depo-Provera injections or other anti-androgens could be required to be taken by those whose profession requires them to avoid sexual behaviour.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
What I think is wrong here has little to do with valorization. It has to do with privacy. Surely one's sexual life (or disinclination to pursue one) is a private matter, to be shared between the individual who's following his/her path, and with his/her deity (if one tends that way) and/or partner(s), if any. Otherwise, it's nobody's damn business to be admired or dismissed.
For other people to weigh in on the choice seems voyeuristic, if not downright meddlesome.
What should be less private, IMHO, is clear, straightforward, nonjudgmental discussion with youngsters not yet sexually active about the risks, rewards, advantages, and disadvantages of the various decisions, and how they may be made, unmade, and re-made (and not always entirely by choice, as in the complaint of one of y elderly friends who has lost her husband, misses her intimacy with him, and has few prospects for re-instating that elsewhere in her life).
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Perhaps Depo-Provera injections or other anti-androgens could be required to be taken by those whose profession requires them to avoid sexual behaviour.
The connection with sex offenders wouldn't be appreciated, I'm sure! Some sort of meditation techniques or psychological evaluation before they embark on their vocation might be better.
But my impression is that sexual abuse is less about unbearably strong and unfulfilled sexual cravings than about psychology. This is because sexual abuse also (indeed, mostly) happens in contexts where men (and women) are perfectly free to have consensual intercourse with healthy, thinking adults. I.e. it's not mere lack of sex that leads people to sexually abuse others.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
What I think is wrong here has little to do with valorization. It has to do with privacy. Surely one's sexual life (or disinclination to pursue one) is a private matter, to be shared between the individual who's following his/her path, and with his/her deity (if one tends that way) and/or partner(s), if any. Otherwise, it's nobody's damn business to be admired or dismissed.
I'm talking about valorisation within a faith group of which one has freely chosen to be a member.
It's unlikely that the majority of religious groups will ever be entirely indifferent to the sexual behaviour of their members, because sexual behaviour has such momentous consequences for the group as well as for individuals. However, the most tolerant groups draw back from being too strict on the matter, because they know that tolerance is the better policy for the members they have, or want to attract.
[ 16. January 2015, 16:40: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
There are several unmarried people in my family. I am staggered at the number of questions people seem to feel they have a right to ask about them! None of their business, surely, and up to the people concerned.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am totally on board with the idea of MYOB. What you do with your sexuality is your business. If it doesn't involve minors, property damage, non-consent or the blockage of traffic in the street, have at it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
However, public vows to remain celibate (and not have sex) are as public as the vows of marriage - and why should they not be? If someone wants to keep their sex life private, they have every right to. But if they choose to make a public commitment to abstain from sex and marriage and devote themselves to a religious life (or, for that matter, to marry someone and live a religious vocation while married), is there anything wrong with that? Virginity only becomes an issue if someone chooses to make a public vow of celibacy and also wishes to make it public that they have been celibate and have abstained from sex for all of their life prior to that. I'm not sure if there is anything particularly holy about never having had sex in one's life (as opposed to choosing to never have sex again after having had sex) other than, at least in modern society, it shows a strong will to pursue a celibate religious life in spite of strong social pressure to do otherwise.
There seems to be a general unease in modern society with anyone who chooses to abstain from sex - as if it is a sign of oppression, suppression, or perversion.
I would like to qualify what I said earlier about virginity representing controlled feminine sexual power - it is controlled, but not as controlled as when a woman is married. "Virgin Queens" have been much more powerful than married queens because they have had no man with control over them. In a sense, the Blessed Virgin Mary meets this model of a "Virgin Queen" even though she was married to St. Joseph. Once you get past Jesus' youth St. Joseph seems to disappear from the picture, though (perhaps he died), and the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary has been able to honor her as unattached and therefore unlimited in her mother-power.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I think that self-restraint, in order to abstain from sexual activity for such a sacrificial reason as to give all energy in service to God or to give oneself completely and unshared in marriage is a noble concept.
That is not to say that failure to do so should be condemned: as others have said it's none of anyone else's business. But nor should anyone be condemned or derided for remaining a virgin, for whatever reason. It really isn't necessary to have sex before marriage 'to see whether you're sexually compatible', nor is it necessary to 'sow your wild oats' or to practice with all kinds of people so that you become competent.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I thought one of the reasons for enforcing female virginity was so that men could be sure they were the father of their partner's offspring. The taint after rape could be associated with the belief that subsequent children, after whatever length of time, could be those of the previous male.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Yes, that's why the whole concept of female virginity stinks of patriarchal domination. The idea that somebody, almost always some man, having the say-so on a female's sexuality.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
To say nothing of ownership of her offspring.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I look at this from the point of view of a hagiographer (because I was one for a year), and the stories of the saints have a goodly supply of males who vowed perpetual chastity, only to have their parents try to marry them off. Same as the ladies. And of course the group of monks and hermits who went off to live in the sands of Egypt when Christianity got too cushy in the burbs -- who fought with the demons of sexual temptation sometimes literally (if their stories are to be believed) are collectively called the Desert Fathers. Because they were by and large male (with some wonderful exceptions).
So yes, by all means let us fight for the rights of women everywhere to make their own decisions about their sexuality. But let's not paint the history of Christian asceticism with TOO broad a brush, and make the mistake of saying that virginity was only for women.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I do not see anything wrong with considering religious virginity and celibacy, or the virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (if you believe in it), as holy in a special way that all other sexuality and chastity is not
The real question is WHY virginity or celibacy (male or female) is considered holy in a special way. Why is it holy?
Raptor Eye touched on a possibility: so you can devote all your energy towards working for God. That can be holy. But marriage is holy too. What God has joined, let no man separate.
So why is abstinence from sex holier than non-abstinence?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So why is abstinence from sex holier than non-abstinence?
See, that's the thing. Whether or not we agree with Raptor that abstinence makes more devotion-energy-Godfocus available, it is a viable possibility.
The holiness bit, though, pretty much depends on other co-believers knowing you've renounced sex to devote your energies to God. That's why this becomes a public (that is, to the relevant community) avowal.
And that's what makes it screwy, IMO. It brings in an element of doing things for show. While this doesn't obviate the possibility of doing it for God, it does raise pharisaical sorts of questions. If you become/remain chaste/celibate, and nobody knows you've chosen this, or why, it gets no "holy-credit" with the community, just with God (for those who believe in one).
So the question underlying Evensong's is this: who makes things holy in the first place -- the God or the community of followers?
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
We still use at Our Place on Sundays what (AFAIK) is now an out-moded ex-RCC confession (goes back to our days of trying to be an RCC ghetto within the C of E..... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ). It refers to us asking 'Blessed Mary, ever virgin....' to pray for us.
How can she be 'ever virgin' when Scripture quite clearly refers to Our Lord's siblings?
Road a'lubbish, IMHNSHO........
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Bishop's Finger: surely you know that as far as the RCC is concerned Our Lord didn't have siblings, he had cousins - no, not quite the same as 15th/16th century papal nephews. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So why is abstinence from sex holier than non-abstinence?
See, that's the thing. Whether or not we agree with Raptor that abstinence makes more devotion-energy-Godfocus available, it is a viable possibility.
The holiness bit, though, pretty much depends on other co-believers knowing you've renounced sex to devote your energies to God. That's why this becomes a public (that is, to the relevant community) avowal.
And that's what makes it screwy, IMO. It brings in an element of doing things for show. While this doesn't obviate the possibility of doing it for God, it does raise pharisaical sorts of questions. If you become/remain chaste/celibate, and nobody knows you've chosen this, or why, it gets no "holy-credit" with the community, just with God (for those who believe in one).
So the question underlying Evensong's is this: who makes things holy in the first place -- the God or the community of followers?
What do we actually mean by the word 'holy'?
If it means that God is seen in it, only God can make something or someone holy.
If anyone broadcasts that he or she is going to remain celibate for God's sake, while doing it for the purpose of gaining 'holy-credit' or self-publicity, then it is a self-serving rather than a God-serving act, one which God will not be seen through, and therefore one which is not holy.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think some churches will assume (or hope) that any single person in membership is celibate, but in Britain at least the majority of churches won't want to create conflict around this issue.
Evangelical churches with lots of young people are probably more anxious about it, but the majority of churchgoers in the UK are middle aged and elderly people, and many of them will have children, grandchildren or other close relatives who are cohabiting or who have intimate relationships with girlfriends/boyfriends. Many will have relatives who've had children outside of marriage. Some churchgoers are likely to be cohabiting, even in evangelical churches, and church leaders on the whole won't want to drive them away by heaping condemnation upon them.
So although attitudes will vary, and chastity outside marriage may be held up as the ideal (even by some people who are cohabiting, etc.), I don't think this is an issue that the average British church can afford to be too obsessed about, depending on their constituency.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The real question is WHY virginity or celibacy (male or female) is considered holy in a special way. Why is it holy?
Because it's voluntarily giving up a good thing for God. Which is hard (no pun intended). St. Paul (not just Raptor) says it's more blessed to be single so one can devote more time to prayer and to God. But it's not easy, as it's not the normal life of Man (or Woman). Giving up something for God is admirable, whether it's almsgiving or spending time in prayer instead of watching the football game, or giving up the normal healthy sex-and-kids-and-all lifestyle.
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The holiness bit, though, pretty much depends on other co-believers knowing you've renounced sex to devote your energies to God.
I don't see how. Holiness has nothing to do with how others see you; Christ indeed warned us against that. Holiness means "set apart for God" and it doesn't require anybody else to know you've set apart your life for God to set apart your life for God. Many of the holy hermits in the paterikon (collected hagiographies of the church) were only known because somebody stumbled upon them accidentally. How many more were out there hermitting that never got stumbled upon? More than one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
I repeat: how is making public vows of celibacy in a religious ceremony any different - in terms of making something private public or putting on a show or trying to show how compliant one is with religious expectations - than making public vows of matrimony in a religious ceremony?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I can think of one important reason for the public avowal, and the marking of it thereafter with a tonsure or a cassock or whatever. And that is because by and large you need another person, to become uncelibate with. (And putting completely aside the old 'sin with a woman in your heart' question.) Wearing a big tag that says I'm Not Available Thxs may help you to actually achieve it, by cutting way down upon oppoortunities for slippage.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I think that self-restraint, in order to abstain from sexual activity for such a sacrificial reason as to give all energy in service to God or to give oneself completely and unshared in marriage is a noble concept.
That is not to say that failure to do so should be condemned:
Is there a thin line between this self restraint and considering sexual activity less noble than not doing it? which leads toward considering it dirty, and the considering that having sex is giving one's self over to loss of self control and animalistic instincts etc?
When you say "failure to do so" it leads me to feel I want to equally condemn the failure to have good healthy, enjoyable, lusty sex, using the bodily equipment God gave us in all the creative and enjoyable ways we can. We certainly wouldn't judge the use of, say our brains and thinking the same way, as something to be controlled and restrained.
I also find my thoughts going in the direction of recall of the unhelpful discussions of my youth, where "looseness", being a slut, stud or man-whore and other such denigrating terms were used.
Taking from you initial paragraph, might it be possible to consider mutual sexual enjoyment as something leading more so in the direction of sacrifice to God, with sexual energy energizing zeal for God. Sex being essentially sacramental, in the joining of two souls spirit, mind, body? Might this be as least as noble?
"My beloved has gone down to his garden, to the beds of spices, to browse in the gardens and to gather lilies." (Song of Solomon 6:2)
"As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love." (Proverbs 5:19, both NIV)
This leads me to additionally consider Freud's insight, that aggression, ambition and envy etc are redirected sexual energy.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a thin line between this self restraint and considering sexual activity less noble than not doing it? which leads toward considering it dirty, and the considering that having sex is giving one's self over to loss of self control and animalistic instincts etc?
Is this a slippery slope fallacy I see before me? Yes, yes it is.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Taking from you initial paragraph, might it be possible to consider mutual sexual enjoyment as something leading more so in the direction of sacrifice to God, with sexual energy energizing zeal for God. Sex being essentially sacramental, in the joining of two souls spirit, mind, body? Might this be as least as noble?
Absolutely. Giving up something bad for God is just normal obedience, and is hardly praiseworthy; it's expected of all of us. Giving up something good for God is where self-sacrifice comes in. Martyrs aren't praiseworthy because life is bad, but because life is good.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
So I think we have an answer to the original question. Is it wrong to give honor to virginity/celibacy? Yes. Because the follow-ons of this veneration are so obnoxious, both historically and in the present day.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So I think we have an answer to the original question. Is it wrong to give honor to virginity/celibacy? Yes. Because the follow-ons of this veneration are so obnoxious, both historically and in the present day.
By "the follow-ons" you mean the thing that always happens every time as sure as clockwork? Or you mean things that can happen, turning what you said into a slippery slope fallacy?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Going back to the thing about the promotion of virginity being aimed mostly at women: let's not forget that most of the world's clergy are celibate men. Also, my experience of British evangelicalism is that the promotion is aimed squarely at both genders. I'm a bit sceptical about the 'virginity as oppression of women' thing.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Many Christians nowadays are in churches that tend to see choosing lifelong celibacy as outdated and unnecessary at best, and harmful at worst. Perhaps most strongly felt in very pro-families evangelical churches, but I know Christians from all denominations who have encountered it. Even a Catholic-raised friend (now Episcopalian) is finding it from her parents - they are extremely upset at the prospect of her becoming a nun. I think perhaps it's the permanency that frightens people rather than the lack of children/sex (though that does bother people). Not saying we should remove the permanency, but rather work on getting people more used to it.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
No, of course the bad results are not sure as the sunrise. But there are so many,, and they are so pernicious, that on the whole one must say that virginity and celibacy are not particularly worthy of honor.
They used to be virtues, right on up there with faith and charity. They should now be demoted to something like eating meat, or ice skating, or being able to tat a doily: good if you can tolerate it and derive benefit from it, okay to omit from your life at need. In neither case should it be a cause of praise or blame.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
No, of course the bad results are not sure as the sunrise. But there are so many,, and they are so pernicious, that on the whole one must say that virginity and celibacy are not particularly worthy of honor.
They used to be virtues, right on up there with faith and charity. They should now be demoted to something like eating meat, or ice skating, or being able to tat a doily: good if you can tolerate it and derive benefit from it, okay to omit from your life at need. In neither case should it be a cause of praise or blame.
Celibacy and virginity do not in themselves cause bad results. They are also callings from God - not exactly on a par with eating meat or ice skating, more like marriage or the priesthood. Not universal callings, but vocations all the same and should be honoured as such, not imposed on the unwilling but certainly not seen as unwanted or unimportant. IME the harm comes from imposing celibacy on those who are not called to it, or denying celibacy to those who are.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rogue
Shipmate
# 2275
|
Posted
Is it about having or not having sex or is it about having or not having a close relationship with another person which may include sex?
My thinking is that setting yourself apart for God means not having a particular personal relationship which can get in the way of your relationship with Him and with others. Although some monks and nuns set themselves apart from everybody and become hermits, far more get stuck into mixing with people and helping those in need. This is a 24/7 job and a marital type relationship would interfere with it and would also be interfered with by it.
[ 18. January 2015, 21:59: Message edited by: The Rogue ]
--------------------
If everyone starts thinking outside the box does outside the box come back inside?
Posts: 2507 | From: Toton | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The problem is not God, nor the person being celibate or chaste. It's what it does to human society around it. Really sucky things happen when people get obsessed with virginity and chastity, everything from clitoridectomy to child marriage to state-mandated transvaginal probes (a specialty of my state!).
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The problem is not God, nor the person being celibate or chaste. It's what it does to human society around it. Really sucky things happen when people get obsessed with virginity and chastity, everything from clitoridectomy to child marriage to state-mandated transvaginal probes (a specialty of my state!).
And these are all caused by the existence of nuns? Golly.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Uh, you're not reading what I wrote.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I think you're not responding to what is being said in the thread.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
The real question is WHY virginity or celibacy (male or female) is considered holy in a special way. Why is it holy?
Because it's voluntarily giving up a good thing for God.
Why is giving up a good thing for God a good thing? I thought we were to seek good.
By that argument you could say giving up prayer is a good thing for God.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
St. Paul (not just Raptor) says it's more blessed to be single so one can devote more time to prayer and to God. But it's not easy, as it's not the normal life of Man (or Woman). Giving up something for God is admirable, whether it's almsgiving or spending time in prayer instead of watching the football game, or giving up the normal healthy sex-and-kids-and-all lifestyle.
This argument implies normal life and marriage is bad. So you're not giving up something good.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I repeat: how is making public vows of celibacy in a religious ceremony any different - in terms of making something private public or putting on a show or trying to show how compliant one is with religious expectations - than making public vows of matrimony in a religious ceremony?
I don't think it is that different. It's about speaking vows publicly. Indicates different types of commitment before God and people.
Is the vocation to marriage better or worse or holier than the vocation to being single and abstinent? No. One simply nurtures and loves and creates on a more intimate level (the family), the other provides a different type of nurturing and love and creation (slightly removed emotionally and physically but potentially more available to help a broader range of people.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Rogue:
Is it about having or not having sex or is it about having or not having a close relationship with another person which may include sex?
My thinking is that setting yourself apart for God means not having a particular personal relationship which can get in the way of your relationship with Him and with others. Although some monks and nuns set themselves apart from everybody and become hermits, far more get stuck into mixing with people and helping those in need. This is a 24/7 job and a marital type relationship would interfere with it and would also be interfered with by it.
I think you're on the right track here. The only problem I see with this idea is that marriage and family can deepen a relationship with God - not distract from it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This argument implies normal life and marriage is bad.
How? Because there is something that's better? Bit of black-or-white thinking there?
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why is giving up a good thing for God a good thing?
Self-emptying love. Kenosis. Self-sacrifice. They are part of who God is, and therefore part of the image we are made in.
quote:
By that argument you could say giving up prayer is a good thing for God.
Fallacy: It is good to give up X for God. Therefore it is good to give up God for God.
Um ... huh?
[ 19. January 2015, 07:49: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
I'm wondering a bit about the "vows to God" thing with regards to celibacy. Is that really a great idea, particularly when made public? Given Jesus' cautions on the subject, I'm thinking maybe not. After all, it's vowing something you haven't yet performed and may later find you aren't capable of performing (i.e. God didn't make you that way, but you didn't recognize the fact till later). Seems dangerous to me. Why not just get on with living celibate and skip the public vows altogether?
Someone is going to say "but what about marriage vows"? I think that's a bit different, because of the second human being involved.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Someone is going to say "but what about marriage vows"? I think that's a bit different, because of the second human being involved.
How does that make it different? And unless I'm mistaken, when (in the RCC) when someone joins an order, they're vowing not just to God but to all the other Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc. Not just a second human beings, but thousands.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Clearly, even the most solemn of marriage vows does not guarantee a happy marriage until you die. And there are plenty of cases where the nun or monk vows (there is a term for this, cannot think what it is) do not stand over time either. (cough Martin Luther cough)
I think a public avowal and ceremony may well help you stick to your plans, when the bad times come. The status -- the wedding ring, the monk's cowl -- may well help as well. Married men on the prowl know to remove the wedding band, and I am sure that a priestly robe is not an asset in the singles bar.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Married men on the prowl know to remove the wedding band,
This is not entirely true. Richard Feynman reports that women on the lookout for a one-night stand, as opposed to a long-term commitment, often seek out men with wedding bands in the bars at business-traveler-type hotels, knowing they are looking for the same thing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
If it comes to that, there is an entire subgenre of porn revolving around women in nun's outfits. I am sure there is an equivalent one about vestments and monkish attire. If there is, please don't tell me about it.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
