Thread: Is it wrong to give honor to virginity and celibacy? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028859
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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???
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?).
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Oh, for the good old days when male virgins were the most powerful of all. Sir Galahad, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
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.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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....
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
To say nothing of ownership of her offspring.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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?
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
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?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
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.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
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)
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
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.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
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?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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!).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Uh, you're not reading what I wrote.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I think you're not responding to what is being said in the thread.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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 ]
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
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.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I meant that there's a value in the vow for the second person. Not being either identical with the first person or else the all-knowing God, that second person may find a comfort in the additional solemnity of the vow.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I should add, or wedding-band shaped tan lines. Which is more of a signal that they're on the prowl.
Posted by Teufelchen (# 10158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
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.
I recommend you read Dante's Purgatory. A recurrent idea is that God's creation is good, and to love the good works of God is good, but that loving them in the wrong proportion is bad. To give up a good thing to devote more time and energy to a better (that is, more godly) thing would be good. The highest level of Purgatory, right before the Earthly Paradise, is home to those who loved people too much to love God properly. It seems clear that in Dante's view, loving your fellow people is a good thing (even a same-sex attraction, if not acted upon in a sinful manner*) but that it can get in the way of a right relationship with God.
It's not always about an either/or choice. It's often about how much, how important, how serious. For some people celibacy might be the right choice, for others a relationship of some kind.
t
* I dare say Dante and I would disagree wildly on what 'in a sinful manner' means in this context!
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
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.
I'm jut going to cite Rule 34
(Only Wikipedia - it's safe!)
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Although they do hurt their monastic/conventual/apostolic/whatever you call it communities - and break their promises to God when they leave - there have been plenty of people who vowed lifelong celibacy (not to mention plenty of RC priests who aren't members of any religious order) who have decided that they cannot live the life they committed themselves to earlier - just like people who end their marriages. I don't judge them, and I don't think God is going to write people off in these situations either.
But I don't get why some people think that having any institutionalized celibacy is harmful to society. For one, it's a great opportunity that the small number of asexuals in society, if they happen to be of a particular religion, might otherwise not have. And as for people committed to celibacy with sexual "needs" - they are not that different than people who choose to stay married even though their particular marriage has no sex life and never will - or people who are involuntarily celibate for health or other reasons who would probably be very happy to have the chance to live in a supportive community, even if there is no sex involved.
I think that modern society has realized that much fewer people are capable of lifelong celibacy than was previously thought. It will take some time for our religious institutions to adjust - and I think that temporary vows of celibacy - or non-vowed spiritual support networks and communities for people who just happen to be celibate at any moment in time for whatever particular reason - are called for. But for those who are capable of fulfilling permanent or temporary celibacy - can't we celebrate it just like we celebrate marriage?
No one has addressed yet the issue of Jesus' celibacy and whether or not there was anything implied in that that was a. abnormal or b. to be recommended for some Christians.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
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....
He that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune, for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief. Certainly the best works and of greatest merit for the public have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men, which both in affection and means have married and endowed the public.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Occasionally someone wants marriage but not sex.
My uncle in 1929 married a woman who then refused to allow the marriage to be consummated.
They had a sexless marriage for the next twenty-five years until he died in the 1950s.
Presumably this would have been grounds for divorce had he wanted it, and certainly had he been Catholic, the RC church would have supported him.
I have heard of marriages in which couples choose to be celibate for religious purposes.
I don't know what the motivation of my aunt by marriage was in refusing sex, and my parents, who told me about the situation, are no longer alive to ask.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Stonespring, I don't see why being asexual or forcibly celibate (medical problems etc) needs a special public status to glorify it. A supportive community is fine, why not? But the mere accidents of living a human life... no. Or should I, for example, have vows and a public ceremony to honor the fact that I'm severely severely near-sighted? Synesthetic? troubled with overly loose joints?
Better to just get on with living, IMHO. These things are not chosen, require no special honor, and I can find/create a supportive community without expecting public notice and honor for my unusual way of life.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Why does living with someone and making kids need a special public service to glorify it?
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
It doesn't.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
But I don't get why some people think that having any institutionalized celibacy is harmful to society.
Institutionalising anything gives the potential for harm to someone. Society, that depends entirely how one defines society and harm.
Side note: if abstaining is an offering, what power would the sexual abstinence of an asexual have?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Originally posted by stonespring:
quote:
But I don't get why some people think that having any institutionalized celibacy is harmful to society.
Institutionalising anything gives the potential for harm to someone. Society, that depends entirely how one defines society and harm.
Side note: if abstaining is an offering, what power would the sexual abstinence of an asexual have?
It would be "worth" about as much as the fidelity of two people with either very low sex drives or a fierce and undying sexual attraction to each other to their marriage vows. Some people in committed celibate or monogamous lives are lucky enough to be in situations where it is very easy for them. I suspect that most are not, at least not until they are much older. Throughout this thread I've not tried very hard to argue that celibacy is better than marriage - although I acknowledged that some ancient forms of Christianity have followed St. Paul in teaching that it is better if you are capable of it, which most people aren't. Right now I'm dealing with people's arguments that commitments of celibacy do not deserve the respect or the public nature that we give to vows of matrimony.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
Perhaps it would have the same virtue as vowing to give up golf, if you do not play. I, personally, a prepared to vow to never play football.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Perhaps people who have less of a hearty appetite for food than others don't feel it as much when they fast, but that surely isn't the point.
It's our attitude toward and relationship with God that is important. If we put our love of and service to God first in our lives, we will be ready to give anything up that draws us away from it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Perhaps people who have less of a hearty appetite for food than others don't feel it as much when they fast, but that surely isn't the point.
It's our attitude toward and relationship with God that is important. If we put our love of and service to God first in our lives, we will be ready to give anything up that draws us away from it.
And surely that's the point--the service of God, not the details of how we choose to do it. One does it in celibacy, another in ordinary marriage. One does it overseas, one at home. One chooses poverty, another chooses the usual life of work/salary/bills etc. The focus ought to be on the service--no, maybe on the One served--and not on glorifying the details of how one servant is choosing to carry out his/her vocation.
It's the whole "look at this person! See how awesome he/she is for giving up X?" attitude that bothers me--which is what I'm hearing in some spots in this thread. There could be a whole lot of good reasons for having a public profession of vows regarding any number of lifestyles, but glorifying the servant rather than the Lord shouldn't be one of them.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you both, Raptor Eye and Lamb Chopped, for putting it so simply and clearly. It is the taking of an action for God's service that matters.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It doesn't.
So we can do away with the sacrament of holy matrimony? People should just shack up and not worry about the church's blessing?
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
No ordinations either, by that logic.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It doesn't.
So we can do away with the sacrament of holy matrimony? People should just shack up and not worry about the church's blessing?
From my, obviously, outside POV, yes. And no.
Marriage, even in these easy divorce times, is still a symbol of commitment. One that has more power and meaning than simply choosing to live together. Generally speaking.
Holy matrimony? No. A religious ceremony for religious people is a community thing and that is good. And, if you live by a set of rules, getting married by that set should theoretically help you frame that marriage within the rules. But to imply God doesn't like it if you don't get married in a church with "proper" ceremony? Church's blessing? Backwards, IMO.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
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..... ). 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.
It's rubbish that Luther, Wesley and even Zwingli believed, though. And Calvin, though he thought the question a bit silly, said that she could not be proved otherwise from Scripture.
The fact that so many modern Christians find it difficult to believe says much more about our priorities and imaginations than it does about our Lady.
Posted by Frankly My Dear (# 18072) on
:
Marriage or Abstinence .. Hmmm .. Let's not discount other perfectly honourable courses of action .. Such as providing a sexual 'pick-me-up' to any poor, neglected sort who could do with it ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDgGmiHxlTA
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Whatever you linked to, Frankly my dear, it's not visible in some countries.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It doesn't.
So we can do away with the sacrament of holy matrimony? People should just shack up and not worry about the church's blessing?
Look back carefully at what I wrote--and what you wrote. You wrote:
quote:
Why does living with someone and making kids need a special public service to glorify it?
And I replied:
quote:
It doesn't.
Let's unpack this. First of all, does marriage ("living with someone and making kids") require a "special public service"?
Answer: No. Have you ever heard of private weddings? Registry office? And etc., and etc. The "special public service" is no requirement for marriage. And plenty of people avoid it while still legitimizing their relationships in the eyes of the state and/or church.
Second, if you DO have a "special public service," is it in fact "to glorify" the fact that you are "living with someone and making kids"?
Answer: I hope to hell not.
The purpose of a proper public Christian wedding service is to glorify God and give thanks to him for the gift of marriage, as well as giving notice to the assembled people that these two individuals are about to embark on that path together. Yes, I have been to weddings where "it's all about us"--where the guests get treated to ridiculous long videos of the couple's childhood, school years, courtship, and so forth. Seriously, you'd swear it was a retirement party or something. These folks have taken that "your special day" propaganda and they've not just drunk the Koolaid, they've eaten the cup. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's no surprise so many of these folks have trouble coping with married life after the wedding, when the spotlight has gone elsewhere.
That is NOT what a wedding is supposed to be. At least not a Christian wedding.
I'm no paragon of virtue, but when we planned our very public wedding (had to be; we had a good 400 people who had to be invited for reasons of culture, love, and obligation) we made sure the focus was primarily on God. We took care with the readings, the music, and the choice of celebrant (who took care with the sermon). There was no "look at us, us, us" about it. And when we got to the reception, we made our guests' comfort our primary responsibility. Because that's what you do if you invite people to an event you are hosting (or in my case, subhosting, as my mother was primary).
Yeah, it means you don't get major ego strokes unless someone feels moved to give you that spontaneously. Whoop ti do. It was an awesome wedding with the emphasis where I believe it ought to be--on God first and on the people who loved us second. And it did, incidentally, notify the community-at-large that these two individuals are a legal couple henceforth and had gotten the blessing of church and state--not that any of them were in doubt.
[ 23. January 2015, 17:30: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
Part of what's driving mousethief to question you, LC, may be that in Orthodox theology the ceremony conducted by a priest is necessary for there to be a marriage.
In most Western churches, it is understood that the man and woman are ministers of the sacrament of marriage (if sacrament it be). The priest is there to witness and bless, but his presence is not necessary for the marriage to be a valid source of grace, or to be binding as a vow.
Apologies if this is completely off base!
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
Maybe so. But need that ceremony be public? We've done any number of weddings that were handled in private with no more than the necessary legal number of witnesses. And if the couple were intending to glorify anything, they certainly weren't succeeding. Hard to do when you're in your street clothes and nobody but the pastor, the witnesses, and the state knows that you're getting married.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
It's interesting that the Bible refers to marriage, but has nothing whatsoever to say about the necessity, or form, of wedding ceremonies.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's interesting that the Bible refers to marriage, but has nothing whatsoever to say about the necessity, or form, of wedding ceremonies.
Not really. The Bible doesn't refer to a lot of things. It's not a manual on how to do church.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
AIUI the only ceremonies were the wedding feast, followed by the bride and groom going alone into their marital tent.
Moo
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Is the idea that celibate people are "married to everyone" worth discussing? If you do not have a spouse and children as a priority among human relationships - and if you take that a step further by devoting your life to a ministry that prevents you from spending too much time, money, and energy on other family and friends, then you are more able to treat all the people you meet equally as images of the Divine Beloved.
Of course, there still are some celibate people who live in communities that are cloistered away from the world, or who live completely alone as hermits - and I myself admit to finding this form of celibacy odd, even if is much older than celibacy in the non-celibate world. Traditionally, these celibate people could be thought of as married to everyone through a prayer life that life in the outside world would not allow (not that people in the "normal" world are not able to have equally enriching prayer lives that give equal glory to God - but they of are a different nature than the cloistered and hermetic prayer life and these types of prayer and mysticism would probably disappear forever and only survive in books and consumerist retreats and seminars if these forms of celibate life disappeared).
There have been abuses where monastic communities have economically exploited the outside community but I agree with many modern ones that any cloistered community must be economically self sufficient (and that its members should all have a share in the physical labor of cleaning, gardening, carpentry, etc., needed to maintain their community, even if they do participate in the market economy somewhat to sell whatever they make to purchase some of the necessities of life.
Cloistered monks and nuns and even hermits are morally obligated, I would argue, to welcome strangers in need who stumble upon their residences as Christ and to help them however they can. In fact, the "rules" of many such cloistered and hermetic forms of life obligate this.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There have been abuses where monastic communities have economically exploited the outside community but I agree with many modern ones that any cloistered community must be economically self sufficient (and that its members should all have a share in the physical labor of cleaning, gardening, carpentry, etc., needed to maintain their community, even if they do participate in the market economy somewhat to sell whatever they make to purchase some of the necessities of life.
So you would dissolve all the mendicant orders?
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
In fact, the opposite - the giving up of something which can be joyful and pleasurable for the sake of service to God.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
It's interesting that the Bible refers to marriage, but has nothing whatsoever to say about the necessity, or form, of wedding ceremonies.
Not really. The Bible doesn't refer to a lot of things. It's not a manual on how to do church.
Yes and no – it is and it isn’t.
The Bible contains a number of guidelines and principles on how to do church, but doesn’t provide a, definitive, normative, comprehensive blueprint.
What is interesting about the marriage issue is that there is nothing in the Bible to stop a couple simply moving in together, providing they intend the relationship to be permanent and exclusive.
What has actually happened, however, is that almost every Christian tradition has set up some sort of obligatory marriage/wedding system which has been enforced by sanctions of various sorts and degrees.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
In fact, the opposite - the giving up of something which can be joyful and pleasurable for the sake of service to God.
This. There is no particular honor in giving up something sinful; we're all supposed to do that every day. It's like fasting. We don't give up food because food is evil, but because it's good.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The Bible contains a number of guidelines and principles on how to do church, but doesn’t provide a, definitive, normative, comprehensive blueprint.
Sort of. Paul's letters mostly comprise corrections to people who were screwing up Christianity 101 pretty badly. They tell us how NOT to do church more than they tell us how to.
[ 25. January 2015, 01:57: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There have been abuses where monastic communities have economically exploited the outside community but I agree with many modern ones that any cloistered community must be economically self sufficient (and that its members should all have a share in the physical labor of cleaning, gardening, carpentry, etc., needed to maintain their community, even if they do participate in the market economy somewhat to sell whatever they make to purchase some of the necessities of life.
So you would dissolve all the mendicant orders?
Historically, the word "mendicant" referred to friars, who begged for their living in the world, not monks, who lived apart from it.
And a monastic community which was self-sufficient would have no need to even contemplate mendicancy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And a monastic community which was self-sufficient would have no need to even contemplate mendicancy.
No shit. But there are orders that have mendicancy at the heart of their idenity. If you insist that monasteries be self-sufficient, you are saying that the mendicant orders have no right to exist. Who are you to say that your rules trump 900 years of Franciscanity?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
And a monastic community which was self-sufficient would have no need to even contemplate mendicancy.
No shit. But there are orders that have mendicancy at the heart of their idenity. If you insist that monasteries be self-sufficient, you are saying that the mendicant orders have no right to exist. Who are you to say that your rules trump 900 years of Franciscanity?
You are hopelessly confused.
I am not "insisting" on anyone's or anything's "right to exist" or lack thereof, just pointing out that monks, who live in monasteries, are different from mendicants (such as Franciscans) who live in friaries.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You are hopelessly confused.
I love you, too. In the Lord.
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
There have been abuses where monastic communities have economically exploited the outside community but I agree with many modern ones that any cloistered community must be economically self sufficient (and that its members should all have a share in the physical labor of cleaning, gardening, carpentry, etc., needed to maintain their community, even if they do participate in the market economy somewhat to sell whatever they make to purchase some of the necessities of life.
So you would dissolve all the mendicant orders?
Note my use of the word "cloistered" above. Mendicant orders are usually not cloistered, although some are conventual (a minority especially now that female religious can live out in the world following Vatican II - yes sexism in the church was and still is is terrible, I know). Even if your order makes a point of owning no property, you can still try, if you are staying in one place for a long time, to provide at least somewhat for your own survival through your own labor. I'm not saying don't accept any donations. But all orders, whether shut up in cloisters forever or barefoot on the streets of our cities, need to not lose touch with the labor of the poor (the same is true of everyone else, married, or celibate, rich or poor, but that is a topic for another thread).
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
Anyone interested in unpacking this scriptural passage as to how it applies to this thread? It's 1 Corinthians 7:32-35.
"Brothers and sisters:
I should like you to be free of anxieties.
An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord,
how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world,
how he may please his wife, and he is divided.
An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord,
so that she may be holy in both body and spirit.
A married woman, on the other hand,
is anxious about the things of the world,
how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit,
not to impose a restraint upon you,
but for the sake of propriety
and adherence to the Lord without distraction."
So the context of St. Paul writing to the Church in Corinth and the placement of this passage in the rest of the epistle I am sure need to be taken into account. What do you think?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Apologies for the delay in responding. Been overseas without much internet access.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
But why is celibacy or a hermits life or monastic vows better than marriage and children and normal life?
QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
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]
I can't think of a harder, more kenotic activity than marriage and childrearing. It is intensely personal and often extremely difficult.
QUOTE]Originally posted by mousethief:
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? [/QUOTE]
I think the fallacy is assuming marriage and normal life is not divine.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Anyone interested in unpacking this scriptural passage as to how it applies to this thread? It's 1 Corinthians 7:32-35.
"Brothers and sisters:
I should like you to be free of anxieties.
An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord,
how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world,
how he may please his wife, and he is divided.
An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord,
so that she may be holy in both body and spirit.
A married woman, on the other hand,
is anxious about the things of the world,
how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit,
not to impose a restraint upon you,
but for the sake of propriety
and adherence to the Lord without distraction."
So the context of St. Paul writing to the Church in Corinth and the placement of this passage in the rest of the epistle I am sure need to be taken into account. What do you think?
The context is the end of the world as they knew it.
1 cor 7:26
I think that, in view of the impending crisis, it is well for you to remain as you are.
He says the same to slaves. He seems to think marriage will cause distress because of the impending end of the world.
Yet those who marry will experience distress in this life, and I would spare you that.
He is responding to a statement from the Corinthians.
Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: ‘It is well for a man not to touch a woman.’
I don't know why the Corinthians might have thought sexual relations were not good. Sounds very gnostic. I don't know why St Paul seems to think the single life is better than married life except for the fact that you have more to worry about when the world ends.
He seems to think marriage is a "concession" in verse 6. Seems its a concession to uncontrolled sexual lust.
Again, I can't see why the life of the celibate or the single or the monastic or the hermit is holier than marriage and family and children. I actually think the reverse is true. And besides being worried about more people to worry about as the world ends, I don't think St Paul offers any valid reasoning.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
In fact, the opposite - the giving up of something which can be joyful and pleasurable for the sake of service to God.
Only if the thing you give up is not holy. Doesn't apply to marriage.
Posted by TomM (# 4618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Apologies for the delay in responding. Been overseas without much internet access.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
But why is celibacy or a hermits life or monastic vows better than marriage and children and normal life?
Surely, in some sense it comes down to the vocation of the individual. If your vocation is to the consecrated religious life then that it is better than marriage because it is the following of the vocation given you by God. Likewise if that vocation is to marriage, then for that individual, marriage is better.
Or is that just me?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the fallacy is assuming marriage and normal life is not divine.
Then you make "divine" to have no meaning at all except "not sinful."
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Apologies for the delay in responding. Been overseas without much internet access.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
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?
But why is celibacy or a hermits life or monastic vows better than marriage and children and normal life?
Surely, in some sense it comes down to the vocation of the individual. If your vocation is to the consecrated religious life then that it is better than marriage because it is the following of the vocation given you by God. Likewise if that vocation is to marriage, then for that individual, marriage is better.
Or is that just me?
Agreed. (and I note other have too above)
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I think the fallacy is assuming marriage and normal life is not divine.
Then you make "divine" to have no meaning at all except "not sinful."
Didn't you just accuse me of black and white thinking above?
Marriage in my tradition is a sacrament. It is a lot more than "not sinful". It's ordained by God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Didn't you just accuse me of black and white thinking above?
Yes. And you're doing it here, too.
quote:
Marriage in my tradition is a sacrament. It is a lot more than "not sinful". It's ordained by God.
And it's ordinary. People have been marrying and being given in marriage since before forever. It's not some wonderful special thing that all of a sudden Christians invented.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
So what if its ordinary?
[ 06. February 2015, 00:23: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what if its ordinary?
Then it's not divine. Unless, again, everything is divine except sin.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
So only very unusual things are divine in your book? How very odd. How very un-incarnational.
By that logic if everyone became hermits or monastics then it would no longer be divine huh?
[ 06. February 2015, 09:10: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So only very unusual things are divine in your book?
If everything is divine, then "divine" just means "everything." Not everything is divine. God told Moses to take his sandals off when he was on the mountain. He didn't tell him to take his sandals off when he was in Egypt. Because the one was holy in a shoe-removal sort of way, and the other less so. If you don't believe that some things can be holier than others, you aren't giving the Incarnation its full due. Jesus was Divine in a way that Paul and Peter were not. Denying this is denying the incarnation.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Oh some things can certainly be holier than others. Marriage vs the monastic or hermetic life just aint one of them.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh some things can certainly be holier than others. Marriage vs the monastic or hermetic life just aint one of them.
On what do you base this?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
On the divine call to marriage as a sacraemnt. On it's kenotic activity (as you previously mentioned). On it's profound ability to transform or destroy lives and effect the world more singularly than most things.
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
That is a poor basis of holiness.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
It is a holy thing to forgo something good for the sake of the Lord. Fasting is a similar case.
As for marriage vs. monasticism, St. Paul himself seems to say the latter is preferable to the former, although the former is acceptable if you just can't be continent without it.
Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The honor given to it certainly seems to be born out of a view of human sexuality as sinful.
In fact, the opposite - the giving up of something which can be joyful and pleasurable for the sake of service to God.
John of Damascus for instance believed that Adam and Eve were created in a state of innocence that did not include sexual intercourse. The fall of man and Original Sin carry with it sexual intercourse as a form of retribution; i.e. not a good or enjoyable thing. I believe this was a step further than Augustine who thought that sexual intercourse (within marriage and strictly for procreation of course) was in and of itself not sinful, but enjoyment of the act certainly was. I'm sure you could dig up multiple other tidbits like this. I believe it was this viewpoint that underlies the adulation for virginity and celibacy.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I believe it was this viewpoint that underlies the adulation for virginity and celibacy.
I think you've got the timing wrong. The admiration for celibacy starts early -- the Nazirites for example, were sworn virgins. Paul was a big fan of not marrying. Augustine et al. are a sad example of "too much of a good thing." They did not give rise to the cult of celibacy. They were a perversion of something that predated them.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
You on the other hand seem to not see it as holy because it is common.
I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth.
I didn't. You said it here:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So what if its ordinary?
Then it's not divine. Unless, again, everything is divine except sin.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It is a holy thing to forgo something good for the sake of the Lord. Fasting is a similar case.
So now you're equating marriage with food. Even more odd.
I don't see the logic that forgoing something good is good. Foregoing something good for a greater good makes sense (self-sacrifice) but not simply foregoing something good for its own sake. There is no wisdom in cutting off your nose to spite your face.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As for marriage vs. monasticism, St. Paul himself seems to say the latter is preferable to the former, although the former is acceptable if you just can't be continent without it.
Paul does seem to see marriage as a concession to lust in 1Cor rather than a divine call to union of souls as described in Genesis and the stability of society. But he thought the world was about to end and he was trying to tamp down the sexual immorality of the non-jewish pagan society of Corinth so his weird ideas are somewhat understandable in the context. Does't apply anymore though. Marriage is a hell of a lot more than simply controlling lust.
[ 09. February 2015, 00:19: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Ah, I see. You equate "divine" and "holy." I do not.
I'm not sure how it's admirable to give up something good for something better. Anybody with a shred of intelligence would do that. It's hardly self-sacrifice to trade in your cruddy old car for a shiny new one.
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks for your responses mousethief but I don't think we're getting anywhere. I've never understood the value of fasting either except for exercising a bit of self control ( if food is a problem) and a bit of solidarity with the poor. I don't see why God would value deprivation for deprivation's sake. Jesus came so that we might have life abundantly after all.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
if God is accurately described by the big writing* on the tin, nothing Christians do is for God, but for themselves. You do what you do to better receive God's message and be better. Still a whole lot of room for argument on what accomplishes this, though.
* the fine print is hopelessly whacky. IMO.
[ 10. February 2015, 14:48: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
if God is accurately described by the big writing* on the tin, nothing Christians do is for God, but for themselves.
Or, hopefully, for others.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
The expectations & external involvement inherent in Christian marriage - sacramental as distinct from natural - are conventionally so high that virginity & celibacy seemingly should be considered the norm, from which one is called.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
The expectations & external involvement inherent in Christian marriage - sacramental as distinct from natural - are conventionally so high that virginity & celibacy seemingly should be considered the norm, from which one is called.
You do realise that stated this way, you make a strong case against Christianity and God?
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
In questioning marriage as the default setting for Christian life?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
In questioning marriage as the default setting for Christian life?
Well, yes. The church did not get too excited about marriage for at least a couple of hundred years. Paul thought it a second best option. The bible has many examples of marriage which does not conform to "Christian" standard, etc.
But I was speaking to virginity and celibacy as being the default unless otherwise "called". Human sex drive is natural and massive. Being "called" to marriage is rubbish. We are naturally driven to find a partner(s), sexuality is not merely AB, but AA and BB and A and/or B or none of the above and it does not just get engaged when God flicks a switch. Pretending otherwise is futile.
Now, if you wish to say that humans are instructed to transcend this, fair enough. But to pretend that it is the default? Not so much.
Christians do themselves no favours behaving so.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Christianity has a very high doctrine of marriage, as being a specific and particular way of discipleship, & yet this state of is life is simultaneously almost universally encouraged & expected. You can't have both, can you?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Christianity has a very high doctrine of marriage, as being a specific and particular way of discipleship, & yet this state of is life is simultaneously almost universally encouraged & expected. You can't have both, can you?
Well, I'm not so sure about that. You could say, "Paris-trained professional chefs have a very high understanding of cuisine, yet nearly everybody eats."
Christians are called to make of marriage something more than mere mating -- to take common raw materials and sculpt them into something uncommon.
[ 12. February 2015, 00:27: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Right, but I'm talking about how Church discipline operates regarding marriage. All our called in - open door policy - but further down the line, significant penalties may be brought to bear in the event of difficulty.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
Some pedant, hung up on minutiae, is going to come along and say that technically it was a simile.
And now some pedant has.
A simile is even less like equating than a metaphor is.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
I believe this was a step further than Augustine who thought that sexual intercourse (within marriage and strictly for procreation of course) was in and of itself not sinful, but enjoyment of the act certainly was.
As I understand it, Augustine objected not to the pleasure but to letting the desire take control of you. If you can have sex while discussing the finer points of patristic theology with your partner Augustine would say you're alright.
I think in many ways Augustine is an advance upon older justifications for celibacy. He's just not all the way there yet.
[ 12. February 2015, 10:20: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
No, I do not equate marriage with food. It's a fucking METAPHOR. Look it up.
Some pedant, hung up on minutiae, is going to come along and say that technically it was a simile.
And now some pedant has.
A simile is even less like equating than a metaphor is.
I would say on second thought it's an analogy.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you can have sex while discussing the finer points of patristic theology with your partner Augustine would say you're alright.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0