The Catholic Church teaches that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is better than marriage. Until recently, I assumed that this was celibacy which was chosen by the person as a sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom. On this interpretation, celibacy which was not chosen by the person—say, because some internal or external factor precludes marriage—does not have that superiority.
But now it has occurred to me that there are two senses in which celibacy can be for the sake of the Kingdom. First, the celibate person may choose it for the sake of the Kingdom. But the second way is that God may choose it for the person for the sake of the Kingdom. Understood in the second way, an involuntary celibacy can still count as for the sake of the Kingdom.
The same point would apply to such things as poverty and obedience. Some choose poverty and obedience to better witness to the Kingdom of God. But for some, God chooses it. And the poverty and obedience can still be for the sake of the Kingdom.
The above is especially true if the calling is embraced with gratitude and love. In that case, we can have a genuine sacrifice of something that, paradoxically, may not even have been available to one. Think here of two early followers of St Francis who joyfully embrace the poverty that he preached: one came from a rich family, and sold all he had, and the other was very poor, and had nothing to give away. It would be problematic if the formerly-rich Franciscan had a permanent superiority in his poverty. Instead, I think, we can say that the always-poor Franciscan is still making a sacrifice by embracing the poverty, by renouncing griping, by rejoicing in God’s gift. The same can be true of a eunuch who embraces celibacy.
Alex
ReplyDeleteIf you truly believe in Natural Law, celibacy cannot possibly be better than marriage.
Human beings are said to have been created man and woman, and the telos of human being is procreation. So, a consistent application of Natural Law Theory must necessarily condemn voluntary celibacy, because it is completely unnatural.
Now, for clarity's sake, I have a great deal of respect for people who choose a life of celibacy, but then, I also have a great deal of respect for people who 'choose' a same-sex relationship.
I also have a problem with the phrase 'embraced with gratitude and love'. You either want to be a celibate person or not. If you don't want it, then it is impossible to embrace it with gratitude and love. If you do want it, it is not involuntary.
Is there a real difference between the following?
ReplyDelete(1) For the sake of end Y, God chooses that occurrence X occurs.
(2) Given that X occurs, God chooses that X’s occurrence be for the sake of end Y.
(3) Given that X occurs, God uses X to promote some good Y.
It seems like (3) is possible even in cases where X is an evil, but (1) is not. So (1) and (3) seem to be different. I’m not sure about (2), though.
* * *
On a different note, Walter’s claim that it is impossible to embrace something you don’t want with gratitude and love is clearly false. But it is a little hard to theorize. What is going on when that happens? Do we need to explain it in terms of conditional desires? “If it is possible, . . . , nevertheless not my will, but thine.” Or are there alternative explanations?
Walter:
ReplyDeleteProcreation is *a* telos of the human being. It can be good to sacrifice one telos for the sake of another. Self-preservation is also a telos of the human being, but it can be good to sacrifice one's life for another.
Matthew:
(2) sounds somewhat similar to (3) to me.
Another option is (4), which is intermediate between (1) and (3):
(4) For the sake of end Y, God allows X to occur.
Alex
ReplyDeleteIf celibacy for the sake of thé Kingdom is truly better than marriage, then , if everybody were to choose celibacy, the procreative telos of human beings would never be fulfilled. But I am glad you agree that a homosexual couple can sacrifice 'a' telos of their sexual facilities, for something better, namely their love and their pleasure.
Moreover, I don't agree that self
sacrifice is good. As far as I know natural law does not allow me to commit suicide,not even to save someone else. Celibacy, in this case, would be very much like suicide.
Matthew
If my claim is 'clearly'false, it should not be hard to theorize.
'If it is not my will but thine' you can accept this, but you cannot embrace it with gratitude.If you give me a bottle of brandy while knowing I don't like brandy, I will not embrace your gift with gratitude and I am pretty sure you wouldn't either.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteI don’t know. A lot of experiences seem to me to be hard to theorize, like consciousness itself, or the act of forgiveness for grave wrongs. Maybe I’m just bad at theorizing things. The reason I think it is clear that it is possible to embrace something you don’t want with love and gratitude is that (a) this seems to be the right way to describe some of my own experiences, and (b) I have heard plenty of other people report the same. These people could be misunderstanding their own experiences, of course, but such misunderstanding is another common experience that strikes me as hard to theorize.
If I had the right sort of trust in you, I would sincerely thank you for the brandy. I might be confused by it, but I think I could accept it as a gift.
Matthew
DeleteIf you knew that I gave you the brandy when I knew that you didn't like it, you would perhaps accept it, but you would not sincerely thank me for thé brandy.
I think you confuse gratitude for the intention bevind the gift with gratitude for thé gift itself.
I don't deny that if you gave me a bottle of brandy I would be grateful for the fact that you gave me something even though I don't want brandy.
What I am talking about is that if I don't want to lead a life of celibacy, but for some reason I am unable to have a serious relationship, I can accept that, but I cannot be grateful for it
Acceptance isn't gratitude.
Alex
ReplyDeleteJust to clarify a bit. Even if, in some cases, celibacy could be justified as a means to a better end, it is impossible, on classical natural law theory, to maintain that celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom is better than marriage.
That man created humans as man and woman in order to procreate and that celibay is better than marriage is a clear contradiction. There is simply no way to reconcile these two claims.
And if God is the creator and sustainer of everything else and nothing would exist for even an instant without god actively creating and sustaining it, then "For the sake of end Y, God allows X to occur" is impossible too. God cannot merely 'allow' something.
Obviously I meant to say, "that God created humans..."
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, one's intellect and emotions might disagree. I might know that X is good for me but I might not want X. But knowing that X is good for me is sufficient to allow me to be sincerely grateful for it.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I am a recovering alcoholic. A week ago, I asked you to go and throw out all the alcohol in my home. But now I want a drink, and I am hoping that you didn't think to look in a certain location. I go there, and find that you did throw out the bottle that was there. I now reflect that I want the bottle to have been there, but it would have been bad for me to be there. I call you up and sincerely thank you for doing such a thorough job.
Alex
ReplyDeleteIf you realize it would have been bad for you if the bottle was there, you don't want the bottle to be there.
What you want is not merely a matter of emotions, it is alsof a matter if intellect.
In the case of celibacy, I could only be greatful once I realize celibacy is good for me, IOW, once I really want to live a celibate life.
First half of comment:
ReplyDeleteWalter,
Regarding what you've said: "That man* created humans as man and woman in order to procreate and that celibay is better than marriage is a clear contradiction. There is simply no way to reconcile these two claims."
*I suppose you meant: "That God created humans..."
As Alex mentioned before, sexual intimacy, marriage and procreation do not have to be the main telos of humanity. Regarding the creation of mankind as represented in the account of Genesis.
My point is:
The main telos of humanity is relationship with God, not with one another. When God first created Adam, he was the only human, then he was unable to relate to other human beings. Would God create a being that's unable, even if they so choose, to fulfill their main goal? Hardly.
God first created the man and, only after a serie of events, the woman, proceeding to then establish marriage.
Along with that however, I'd like to present how the order of scripture relates to that idea, since you're referring to scripture regarding God being the one to establish marriage:
- When God created Adam, through His breath, Adam instantly had a connection to God. God also walked along Adam in the garden of Eden, so God and Adam already had a progressively developing relationship before the fall;
- After the innitial connection with God was established, Adam is given rule over the Earth and other beings, which is represented by the order of the account given in Genesis 2. It also is a positive development of the relationship between man and God;
- Only after ruling over the plants (given authority to eat of the fruits, other than the fruit of knowledge of good and evil**) and after ruling over the animals (after naming them), the woman was created and God said they should be together.
**If Adam was given power and rule over the plants, why couldn't he eat of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil? Because ruling over plants isn't man's highest purpose, having a good relationship with God is and eating of the fruit of good and evil would hurt the established relationship with God. So keeping the good relationship with God is more important than ruling over the plants.**
Second Half of Comment
ReplyDeleteHence, if:
1) If the main telos of humanity is (as christianity claims) to relate to God, forfeiting another telos, such as marriage, to pursue God would not be contradictory, but would be a good thing;
2) One could pose the question: If pursing God before marriage is the main objective of human kind and forfeiting marriage to pursue Him further is good, why did God allow man to be married? Wouldn't that decrease man's ability to fulfill his purpose?
- To that I could respond that, in the context in which marriage was created, both man and woman were already close and in a relationship with God. God was among them in a much more deeper sense than after the fall and their relationship was pure, without sin. So marrying wouldn't be a hindrance to forming a relationship to God.
- After sin (after the fall), the ability of mankind to relate to God was impaired (as the bible confirms). In a christian view, we lost the Holy Spirit, our hearts became hardened and consciences became seared. However, that doesn't impair our relationships with one another.
Then:
- Forfeiting marriage to pursue a better relationship with God, as to flee from distractions and everything that could hinder that highest purpose, would be better than to keep struggling to keep balance between the higher purpose (relating to God) and the lower one (relating to your spouse or material posessions), given our limited capabilities.
- Marrying and having children is still "a" purpose of mankind, so it isn't a sin.
Besides, that order of importance for each of these purposes can be viewed once again through the order of the 2 main commandments of the christian God:
First: "1.Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
Second: 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself."
Miguel
ReplyDeleteThe Adam and Eve myth has many flaws, so I don't think it is a good idea to use it to argue for celibacy under natural law.
It doesn't matter when exactly God created man and woman or in which order He did it. The God I am talking about is the God of Classical Theism, who is, among other things, immutable. So He doesn't create Adam and then realizes this guy is lonesome and out of compassion gives him a companion. Whether Adam was created first is not important because both Adam and Eve have always been part of God's eternal and unchanging plan.
And that plan was that human beings would have a relationship with God through the celebration of marriage. So, marrying is loving the Lord with all your heart.
So, initimacy, marriage and procreation are, without any doubt, the main telos of humanity.
Or do you think the original Adam, before Eve came along, was not really a man, but of some undifferentiated gender?
Now, some people may be unable to have an imtimate sexual relationship with somebody else and of course they can also love God in their own way, as long as they do not refuse to get married.
My beef is not with celibacy for priests and nuns, because it may be possible that God calls certain people to love Him in another way. My point is that the claim that marriage is some kind of second-class means of loving God is simply absurd.
It is even an insult to every married couple.
But the second way is that God may choose it for the person for the sake of the Kingdom. Understood in the second way, an involuntary celibacy can still count as for the sake of the Kingdom.
ReplyDeleteIf God chooses celibacy for a person, it means that God also endows this person with a gift of staying and remaining celibate, which includes a gift of awareness of the calling as celibate and seeing celibacy in your life as blessing. How celibacy can be properly involuntary then?