Pages

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Vow of celibacy

Over at TFan’s fine blog, I told a commenter that a young man has no right to take a vow of celibacy. He challenged that contention. So let’s pursue the issue.

1.God has designed most men and women such that we normally have a profound desire to pair off. To find a member of the opposite sex with whom we can share our lives, have a family, and grow old together.

One reason a vow of celibacy is wrong is that such a vow is profoundly at odds with the way God made most of us.

By the way, this is not the same thing as choosing to remain single for some unspecified period of time. This is not about delayed gratification. Rather, this is a vow to remain single for the duration.

2.On a related note, the desire to pair off is complex. It has a physical component, but in human beings it is more than physical. It involves memory, imagination, and anticipation. It also involves a general desire for companionship. Of a husband or wife. As well as children.

It is driven in part by loneliness, or fear of loneliness in middle age or old age.

These factors can vary in their intensity. They can vary over time. The physical component may be stronger in youth (although that’s not necessarily the case), while the emotional component may be stronger in middle age–give or take.

A 20-year-old man may, in good conscience, take a vow of celibacy. At the time, he may be quite sincere.

Suppose he’s a seminarian. He enjoys the companionship of other seminarians. And he has time.

But the world may look very different at 40 than it did at 20. A sense of social isolation. A sense that time is running out. He’s approaching a point of no return, beyond which he can’t make up for lost opportunities. He lacks the emotional compensations he had at 20.

Imagine how he feels as offers premarital counseling to star struck couples. As he observes how they hold hands and gaze longingly into each other’s eyes.

Imagine how he feels as he watches young kids jump into the waiting arms of parents, while he returns “home” to an empty house. He has no one in the world to call his own. No one who calls him her own. He’s not a part of anyone. No one is a part of him.

Or suppose, 5 years after he takes his vow, everything is going hunky-dory until he falls in love with a woman. He didn’t plan for that to happen. But suddenly his world looks very different. And he can’t put things back together the way they were before he met her.

It’s possible for him to outwardly keep his vow of celibacy. But there is now a lack of inner consent.

Moreover, this was always a purely artificial and self-imposed duty. Not like a marriage vow. Not something you owe to anyone else. And it’s not driven by a God-given desire for self-fulfillment.

Oh, yes, the church of Rome says a priest is making his vow to God, but that has no divine authorization. It’s no more a vow to God than a human sacrifice. A pagan may intend his human sacrifice for his god or gods, but the transaction is imaginary.

Such a vow is deeply presumptuous. An affront to God.

Needless to say, this also takes a toll on ministry. How many celibate priests are whisky priests? Even if keep their vow, they pay for it in another department.

7 comments:

  1. I happen to agree with you. Living a life of celibacy deprives one of not only of one of life's greatest joys but also the challenge of giving oneself totally and completely for the good of another.

    However, Scripture seems to suggest that celibacy is indeed a "loftier" state.

    "I would that all men were even as myself; but every one hath his proper gift from God .... But I say to the unmarried and to the widows, it is good for them if they so continue, even as I."

    Also: 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 and 32-35

    What do you do with Matthew 19:12?
    "For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.""

    ReplyDelete
  2. i) Those passages don't teach clerical celibacy.

    ii) Those passages don't teach compulsory celibacy.

    iii) To say a single life has advantages is not a prediction about the future. I'm in no position to know, at the age to 20 (to pick a figure) if what works for me at 20 will work for me at 30 or 40. I don't know at present what my future will be.

    But a vow of celibacy is a commitment about the future. A commitment based on future conditions which were never promised me.

    A man or woman can take this one day at a time, but he (or she) can't foresee the future.

    iv) Assuming, for the sake of argument, that these passages clearly teach compulsory clerical celibacy, then the price for that Biblical support is the perspicuity of SCripture.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "iii) To say a single life has advantages is not a prediction about the future. I'm in no position to know, at the age to 20 (to pick a figure) if what works for me at 20 will work for me at 30 or 40. I don't know at present what my future will be.

    But a vow of celibacy is a commitment about the future. A commitment based on future conditions which were never promised me."

    Then how could any man make a marriage vow in good concience? Your argument does not follow--that a vow implies a claim to omnicience. Just a a claim to obedience. Thus if a vow is oriented towards a purpetually worthy end (it is always a worthy end to serve god in an absolute sense) it cannot be made obsolete by the winds of change.

    Don't you feel you've completely set aside the words of Christ, about renouncing marriage for the kingdom of heaven? Renouncing marriage for the kingdom of heaven does sound like an exortation to do what suits me today, or, theorize about what "will work for me when I'm 40." It sounds like a willing sacrifice made by some for the sake of the gospel.

    For your consideration, part of the problem in logic here may follow from mistaken notions as to the legitimacy of divorce. I'm not a Catholic in case you're interested in correctly directing your polemic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. steve I dont think ill ever get married in this life because of poverty, obligation etc. I also want to marry someone I am genuinely in love with which is normally with girls that are out of my league, is the hope of marrying someone in heaven a misplaced hope?

    ReplyDelete
  5. SHAWN SAID:

    “Then how could any man make a marriage vow in good concience?”

    I already explained the asymmetry between a marriage vow and a vow of celibacy: “Moreover, this was always a purely artificial and self-imposed duty. Not like a marriage vow. Not something you owe to anyone else. And it’s not driven by a God-given desire for self-fulfillment.”

    Try to pay attention.

    “Your argument does not follow--that a vow implies a claim to omnicience. Just a a claim to obedience.”

    i) A lifelong commitment to celibacy is predicated on a gift. Therefore, you’d have to know yourself to be thus gifted (for life) to make a good-faith vow.

    ii) I’d also add that if you had such a gift, then a vow would be superfluous.

    “Thus if a vow is oriented towards a purpetually worthy end (it is always a worthy end to serve god in an absolute sense) it cannot be made obsolete by the winds of change.”

    God does not require this of us. It doesn’t serve God to concoct legalistic duties.

    “Don't you feel you've completely set aside the words of Christ, about renouncing marriage for the kingdom of heaven? Renouncing marriage for the kingdom of heaven does sound like an exortation to do what suits me today, or, theorize about what ‘will work for me when I'm 40.’ It sounds like a willing sacrifice made by some for the sake of the gospel.”

    No, because the renunciation of marriage in Mt 19:12 is predicated on one’s gifted status in v11. And whether or not one is so gifted is an empirical question which you can only answer at present, and not for all time.

    You can choose to remain single as long as you feel up to it. That’s not a blind commitment to the future.

    “For your consideration, part of the problem in logic here may follow from mistaken notions as to the legitimacy of divorce.”

    That’s too vague to merit a response–although Jesus does permit divorce in case of infidelity.

    So if you’re attempting to draw an analogy between an unconditional marriage vow and an unconditional vow of celibacy, your analogy unwittingly undercuts your position vis-à-vis celibacy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LonelyBoy said...

    I think that's possible. At the same time, poor people have gotten married throughout history.

    Also, one's financial situation is very unpredictable. Right now the economy is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Steve,

    Your post makes a lot of sense to me and was entirely accepted without reservation until yesterday, when I happened to read 1 Timothy 5 (my church is preaching through 1 Tim at the moment).

    What is going on in verses 11 and 12?

    " 11As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. 12Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge."

    It looks as though it refers to a class of people (in this case some widows) who made some pledge not to marry and who, if they do, are breaching that pledge and bringing judgment upon themselves.

    If this is what it is talking about - and I'd be grateful for your comments - then it would seem to be a counterexample to a general proposition that it is immoral to vow not to marry.

    ReplyDelete