Ship of Fools: Can Celibate Roles in the Church Survive in the Developed World?

Thread: Can Celibate Roles in the Church Survive in the Developed World? 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=027432

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Celibate priestly and religious brother/sister vocations are rather healthy in parts of the developing world but catastrophically lacking (with a few very conservative exceptions) in the developed world. Although I am a pretty militantly pro-sex person, I actually would greatly miss there being a subset of clergy and religious who are and must be celibate if such celibacy were to disappear.

Can it survive? How? Why is it valuable? Will it die out in the developing world as it becomes more prosperous?

This is not about priestly celibacy per se, but about the value of having some (not necessarily all) priests who remain celibate. The same with religious brothers and sisters. Some would argue that if you allow some to not be celibate, then almost no one will be celibate, so it has to be all or nothing. I'm not so sure.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

What do you mean when you say that celibacy is disappearing in the developed world? Are there statistics to sustain this claim?

Also, when you speak of celibate clergy, are you specifically thinking of RC nuns and priests, or are you thinking of others as well?

Are you thinking of celibacy as a lifetime commitment, or as a temporary option? I can imagine someone deciding to be celibate for Lent, just as someone might fast for a period of time.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I mean celibacy as a lifetime commitment - at least one as serious as entering into a marriage. And I mean it within a certain "role" in the Church such as clergy, monks, nuns, religious brothers and sisters, etc. The numbers of people discerning vocations to these celibate roles in the RCC and in religious orders in Anglicanism that require celibacy has been dismally low in the developed world for some time and does not show signs of recovery except in some small conservative pockets (and I doubt their ability to reproduce their results on a large scale).

Here are some statistics for the US and the world, since you asked. I can also offer anecdotal evidence of a graying RC priesthood, especially in dioceses that do not have large numbers of immigrants or a conservative evangelical culture that makes it easy to find converts (or where, for similar reasons, families tend to have a decent number of children). Even in rapidly-growing dioceses, multiple church buildings many miles apart often need to share an old and frail priest who shuttles around so much as to not be able to spend much time with anyone. Quite a few priests are brought in from the developing world to help fill in the gaps (and for their language skills to minister to immigrants).

You'll see the "success stories" of conservative habited orders of religious sisters on Oprah, but overall, vocations to the religious life (to be a religious brother or sister) are pretty low and many orders are increasingly resembling hospices for their dying members.

I think enforced celibacy is worth saving for two very specific roles:

1. the religious life (religious brothers and sisters) - not all religious need be celibate (there already are orders of married people), but traditional celibate religious life is a great treasure and it would be a great loss if the developed world were to lose it.

2. bishops - Both the RCC and Orthodox Churches require bishops to be celibate - and in Orthodoxy they usually are monks before becoming bishops. If the argument for being "married to everyone" and showing favoritism to no one that has been used for clerical celibacy in general is true for anyone, it should be true for bishops. I'm more open to the idea, though of allowing widow(ers) with grown children to become bishops, or if the spouse is living and chooses "married celibacy" too.

Asexuals do exist and these roles are perfect for them. Also, I suspect that there are a lot more women out there called to (and capable of) celibacy than men but maybe that is sexist of me. If women in the church in general had more power, then celibacy for women would not be as stigmatized as it is.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Did you mean to add a link here with statistics?

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

I don't get it, stonespring, sorry! Well, I do take your point that such roles are well-suited for asexual people, assuming you meant that such roles could give them a route through life without being asked repeatedly why they're still single at their age.

But otherwise, how do you avoid the implication that people who have deliberately chosen a celibate vocation (be it a monk / nun kind of role, priest / bishop etc, or something else) are superior, more devoted to the Lord, than those who choose other paths through life? Or am I imagining a problem that, in reality, doesn't really exist?

Posted by Ahleal V (# 8404) on :

I wouldn't immediately think of it as a developed-non-developed contrast. Rather instead, that considering that a vow of life-long commitment within marriage is now seen as rather counter-cultural (the idea that people married in their early 20s will find themselves strangers in their mid 30s, or by their late 50s/60s is one that crops up in the papers almost every week) so presumably the idea of life-long celibacy is even more so.

X

AV

[ 27. June 2014, 07:09: Message edited by: Ahleal V ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Sorry. I suck at getting to the point. Here are the statistics I meant to post earlier. They aren't everything I'd like to point to, but some of it:

http://cara.georgetown.edu/CARAServices/requestedchurchstats.html

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

I thought celibacy just means "not being married". Of course, it follows that if you're not married, you have no opportunity for chaste sex. But then there are married people who end up with no opportunity for chaste sex, either temporarily or permanently.

Finding chastity difficult isn't exclusively the experience of either the married person or the celibate. Failing to live chastely, and needing to be reconciled and absolved isn't exclusively the experience of either the married person or the celibate either.

In fact, it's not all about sex. Or the absence of it. (Though for those without, sometimes, yes, it does *feel* as if it is all about the absence of it.)

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

One of my dreams is to live in a monastery where the monks all get it on with each other - but also kick everyone else's butt at Gregorian Chant (oh and I guess also try to help the poor and pray and live simply, blah blah [Smile]

). But I admit that celibacy (meaning in this case no marriage and no sex) is something that allows someone to play a role in the church that you cannot play otherwise. It literally allows you to give yourself to everyone while belonging wholly to no one (but God). So it's sad that in the developed world we see less and less of it.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

I will add to my earlier list of questions this one: As you say you envision a lifelong commitment to celibacy, do you assume this is a commitment assumed while young, or a commitment into which one may enter later on? That is, a 50-year-old widow might choose to become a nun, at that age. Would she be one of the celibate individuals you have in mind? IS she, in your judgement, not technically celibate because she had a previous period of time in her adult life?

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I will add to my earlier list of questions this one: As you say you envision a lifelong commitment to celibacy, do you assume this is a commitment assumed while young, or a commitment into which one may enter later on? That is, a 50-year-old widow might choose to become a nun, at that age. Would she be one of the celibate individuals you have in mind? IS she, in your judgement, not technically celibate because she had a previous period of time in her adult life?

No. Entering later in life is fine. I don't really understand the value of virginity for anyone in the world other than Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary. For anyone else, what you did in the past doesn't make your current celibacy any less special.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

This is pure guesswork but it seems to me likely that a high regard for celibacy correlates with a generally conservative sexual ethic and that this in turn correlates with limited access to contraception and sexual health services.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Why do you need someone to be celibate for you?

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

I believe there is still a place for the religious life within the church and it's something ++Justin has spoken about a lot. Although some of that interest is in New Monasticism which possibly has more in common with third order/lay movements with people living a rule of life in dispersed community, there is also renewed emphasis on the tradition celibate, gathered communities. ++Justin brought these strands together in a day conference a few weeks ago.

However, I think it is a mistake to focus on celibacy. Celibacy is not the point of religious life but something which enables it. It is a counter culture choice certainly; our society regards people who aren't having sex as being weird.* But there are other factors in the decline of religious life. For example, when religious life was rediscovered and communities founded in the wake of the Oxford Movement, it was a way women could have careers, eg in teaching or nursing, rather than stopping when they got married. That social situation is now very different, with women able to work after they marry enabled not just by changes in attitudes but in contraception and household technology. Thus a number of active communities have refocussed their activities in recent times. But God is still calling people to these roles. At Greenbelt last year there was a novice from OHP in Whitby in her early 30s. SSF have a number of novices.

Carys

*Virginity is now despised rather than prized. I'm not convinced either position is ideal.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I'm inclined to think that the 'community house' idea needs to be re-explored and perhaps promoted anew. It's one way for modern Protestant churches to give value to the celibate life. And since a good proportion of Western Christians today are likely to remain celibate for want of Christian partners, there's a need for celibacy to be validated in Protestantism.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

Some of us in my circles make vague comments to each other about our future, envisioned as some kind of shared living arrangement; the assumption is celibacy but merely as a circumstance of getting older, it being common for a woman to outlive the marriage by divorce or death, not celibacy as a command or vow. If the shared arrangement is separate small houses with a common kitchen/dining room, residents could marry without affecting the dynamics.

But also, anyone who wants to is free to take their own vow, move into a shared apartment or house with like minded people. The hitch is how to bring in money to pay for food and rent if you want a prayer-based life, but far as I can tell all "religious" work, many at secular full time jobs.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I think the point of a community house is that you share your spirituality with each other, having shared times of prayer, etc.

In terms of the financial aspect, the congregation or denomination might own the building (for example, it might be an unused manse), or it might be owned by one or all of the individuals living there, but they'd all contribute to the upkeep and bills. Most would need to work, but not necessarily full-time, depending on age and circumstance. And of course, in some churches there will be members who are unemployed.

Most communities seem to assume that you'll be committed to the shared life while you're living in the property. I suppose you'd leave if you decided that being in a romantic relationship was a priority.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0