Marriage is not inferior to Celibacy

[LilyM]

So, by this logic, is the non-ordained monk in a high but relatively lesser calling than the celibate priest?

And what then about women. They can’t become priests. They cannot consecrate bread and wine… Are male priests then called higher than women? The BVM was married. What about her?

Again - they are all different callings. Some can be objectively higher than others (as the position of President of the US is objectively higher than yours).

But that doesn’t make those who practice those callings personally better in any way, just as the President of the US is not somehow a better person than you.

 

[Madaglan]

Originally Posted by LilyM:

Again - they are all different callings. Some can be objectively higher than others (as the position of President of the US is objectively higher than yours).

But that doesn’t make those who practice those callings personally better in any way, just as the President of the US is not somehow a better person than you.

For all you know, I could be the Prime Minister of Canada.

 

[Johndigger]

I’m simply saying that holiness should not be equated with celibacy. There are many very holy persons in the Church’s history who are not celibate.

I don’t believe any one here is saying that one cannot be holy if married, but there’s a real danger to think that “monastic” Catholics are more likely to end up more holy than, say, missionary Catholics, who may even be married. I’ve always had difficulty with this…

I agree. Celibacy being higher than marriage should be understood how Holy Mother Church understands it, rather than our own personal interpretation of it.

It’s less of a case of “more likely” to end up holy and more of a great oppurtunity for holiness by offering up something so integral to our humanity for the Glory of God.

Celibacy does not take away one iota from the dignity of marriage. By raising up celibacy, we are not saying that marriage is wrong - it’s a choice between two different goods.

JD

 

[LilyM]

For all you know, I could be the Prime Minister of Canada.

Huh - then the position of President of the US is DEFINITELY objectively higher than yours, northern neighbour

 

[DJim]

An observation:

For some, Marriage is a Sacrament.

For others, celibacy is linked to a Sacrament.

Celibacy is for the sake of the “Kingdom,” in which one enters a covenant relationship with the Church. This relationship is itself something that can and should exist forever, once entered into.

Marriage can also be for the sake of the Kingdom (as Sacrament); however, it has an end, even though the fruits of marriage are forever (children)…

I suppose, for these reasons, celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom has a bit of an “edge” over marriage, in terms of a spiritual “superiority”.

But, practically speaking, they are merely two sides of the same coin…

DJim

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Spiritually speaking how high of a calling is the Married Catholic priesthood?

 

[FCEGM]

The Blessed Virgin Mary was celibate. That’s why we call her the Virgin. . . …

Not quite. The Blessed Virgin was married to St. Joseph and was a Virgin (practicing chastity, not celibacy) throughout her life.

 

[KarenNC]

Not quite. The Blessed Virgin was married to St. Joseph and was a Virgin (practicing chastity, not celibacy) throughout her life.

Depends on which definition of “celibacy” and “chastity” one is using, as both carry the meaning of “abstention from sexual intercourse.” So it is possible in English to have someone who is married and celibate, just as it is possible to have someone who is unmarried and chaste.

www.m-w.com
Main Entry: cel·i·ba·cy
1 : the state of not being married
2 a : abstention from sexual intercourse b : abstention by vow from marriage

Main Entry: chas·ti·ty
1 : the quality or state of being chaste : as a : abstention from unlawful sexual intercourse b : abstention from all sexual intercourse c : purity in conduct and intention d : restraint and simplicity in design or expression
2 : personal integrity

Main Entry: 1vir·gin
1 a : an unmarried woman devoted to religion b capitalized : VIRGO
2 a : an absolutely chaste young woman b : an unmarried girl or woman
3 capitalized : VIRGIN MARY
4 a : a person who has not had sexual intercourse b : a person who is inexperienced in a usually specified sphere of activity
5 : a female animal that has never copulated

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

In Catholic usage, however, “chaste” means to properly live out one’s sexuality, whatever state you are in. “Celibate” means not engaging in sexual relations. So, for a monk, nun, or priest, living chastely means living as a celibate. A married person should be chaste, but, generally, not celibate.

St. Therese of Liseux’s parents remained celibate for some time after their marriage, until their confessor counseled both of them separately that the point of being called to marriage included the possibility of children. So, they eventually had four children, all girls, all of whom became nuns. St. Therese referred to her parents as a blessed tree that only bore celibate fruit. M. and Mme. Martin are currently up for cannonization.

I think part of the reason that we have so many more religious than lay people who have been canonized is for exactly the reason that MannyFit75 said: there is a perception that the celibate vocations are superior and the rest of us poor shmucks will just have to muddle along and hope for purgatory, but sainthood just really isn’t meant for us. Besides, who really notices holiness in the family? It just isn’t as publicly lived (ironically) as holiness in a convent, monastery, or rectory. St. Gianna Molla’s husband loved her deeply, but said that he never thought of her as a saint until others started talking about it.

JPII seemed to make a point of highlighting saints who were married (including the first couple cannonized together) or lay, even though most of the cannonizations during his papacy were probably still for monks, nuns, and priests. I think this is great for the great majority of Catholics who are NOT called to the celibate vocations; it is a reminder that we, too, are called to be saints.

 

[valient_Lucy]

So the goal of superior theology is the willful, deliberate complete and abrupt end of the human race?

Not everyone is called to celibacy.

 

[KarenNC]

In Catholic usage, however, “chaste” means to properly live out one’s sexuality, whatever state you are in. “Celibate” means not engaging in sexual relations. So, for a monk, nun, or priest, living chastely means living as a celibate. A married person should be chaste, but, generally, not celibate.

I’m sorry, perhaps I am mistaken on a point of Catholic theology. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church taught that Mary was, in fact, a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children. Since the word “virgin” pretty plainly means “someone who has not had sexual intercourse” I am a bit confused. Does it instead teach that she did indeed have sexual relations with Joseph, either with or without additional children? That her virginity was only important before the birth of Jesus and is not indeed perpetual? What about the vow of virginity that the tradition teaches Mary took? Did it become void after the birth of Jesus?

All of this seems at odds with catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

 

[valient_Lucy]

In Catholic usage, however, “chaste” means to properly live out one’s sexuality, whatever state you are in. “Celibate” means not engaging in sexual relations. So, for a monk, nun, or priest, living chastely means living as a celibate. A married person should be chaste, but, generally, not celibate.

St. Therese of Liseux’s parents remained celibate for some time after their marriage, until their confessor counseled both of them separately that the point of being called to marriage included the possibility of children. So, they eventually had four children, all girls, all of whom became nuns. St. Therese referred to her parents as a blessed tree that only bore celibate fruit. M. and Mme. Martin are currently up for cannonization.

I think part of the reason that we have so many more religious than lay people who have been canonized is for exactly the reason that MannyFit75 said: there is a perception that the celibate vocations are superior and the rest of us poor shmucks will just have to muddle along and hope for purgatory, but sainthood just really isn’t meant for us. Besides, who really notices holiness in the family? It just isn’t as publicly lived (ironically) as holiness in a convent, monastery, or rectory. St. Gianna Molla’s husband loved her deeply, but said that he never thought of her as a saint until others started talking about it.

JPII seemed to make a point of highlighting saints who were married (including the first couple cannonized together) or lay, even though most of the cannonizations during his papacy were probably still for monks, nuns, and priests. I think this is great for the great majority of Catholics who are NOT called to the celibate vocations; it is a reminder that we, too, are called to be saints.

Excellent point. I do hope and pray for more married people to be canonized.

I also think it’s harder, practically speaking, for a married person to be canonized because of the time, resources, and likely the money, that it takes. Not many families have the time to do that, but religious orders do. In order for a married person to be canonized, it would take a parish, and probably also an entire diocese, to work towards the canonization of a married person. And how many dioceses are prepared to do that, or have even thought about doing that?

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m sorry, perhaps I am mistaken on a point of Catholic theology. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church taught that Mary was, in fact, a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children. Since the word “virgin” pretty plainly means “someone who has not had sexual intercourse” I am a bit confused. Does it instead teach that she did indeed have sexual relations with Joseph, either with or without additional children? That her virginity was only important before the birth of Jesus and is not indeed perpetual? What about the vow of virginity that the tradition teaches Mary took? Did it become void after the birth of Jesus?

All of this seems at odds with catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

No, you’re right. Catholics do believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.

The poster was just pointing out that married people can also be chaste, but most married couples are called to a different kind of chastity, conjugal chastity.

 

[Reepicheep]

I’m sorry, perhaps I am mistaken on a point of Catholic theology. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church taught that Mary was, in fact, a perpetual virgin and that she had no other children. Since the word “virgin” pretty plainly means “someone who has not had sexual intercourse” I am a bit confused. Does it instead teach that she did indeed have sexual relations with Joseph, either with or without additional children? That her virginity was only important before the birth of Jesus and is not indeed perpetual? What about the vow of virginity that the tradition teaches Mary took? Did it become void after the birth of Jesus?

All of this seems at odds with catholic.com/library/Mary_Ever_Virgin.asp

The Blessed Virgin Mary remained a virgin to the end of her life, and is a Virgin still. She is (and was during her lifetime on Earth) both chaste and celibate.

Edit: I see Valiant Lucy spoke before I did.

 

[Atemi]

The Catholic Church does not view Marriage as inferior to celibacy.

These two Sacraments are holy. None is greater than the other.

So if you are one of those who believes the celibacy is superior. It isn’t.

Thank you, Manny.

I totally agree with you and this is often a serious problem with Catholic apologists when speaking on this topic. There appears to be some great internal struggle within Catholicism over this very issue. This very thread bears this out. Some still insist that celibacy is intrinsically superior.

If this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church or the Scriptures, where then are all these faithful Catholics getting this idea?

Who is teaching them?

Good topic. I am glad to see we agree on something.

…

 

[Petergee]

The Catholic Church does not view Marriage as inferior to celibacy.

Both Marriage and the Priesthood are Sacrament. They are sacred.

In the Latin Rite, a priest is symbollically married to the Bride of Christ, the Church.

So marriage is not inferior to celibacy. Pope John Paul II and Second Vatican II affirms it. These two Sacraments are holy. None is greater than the other.

I have not read this statement in any Vatican II document or in any document written by JP2. Celibacy per se is not a sacrament. But celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God is a greater good than marriage.

 

[Atemi]

But celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God is a greater good than marriage.

For who?

 

[KarenNC]

No, you’re right. Catholics do believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout her life.

The poster was just pointing out that married people can also be chaste, but most married couples are called to a different kind of chastity, conjugal chastity.

Thanks. I was confused as my response was specifically directed toward the statement that Mary was could not appropriately be called celibate because she was married and was instead chaste. I recognize that she was considered a special case.

 

[KarenNC]

I have not read this statement in any Vatican II document or in any document written by JP2. Celibacy per se is not a sacrament. But celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God is a greater good than marriage.

Try this one from John Paul II:
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/jp2tb72.htm

"The question of continence for the kingdom of heaven is not set in opposition to marriage, nor is it based on a negative judgment in regard to its importance. After all, speaking previously about the indissolubility of marriage, Christ had referred to the beginning, that is, to the mystery of creation, thereby indicating the first and fundamental source of its value. Consequently, to reply to the disciples’ question, or rather, to clarify the problem placed by them, Christ recurred to another principle. Those who in life choose continence for the kingdom of heaven do so, not because it is inexpedient to marry or because of a supposed negative value of marriage, but in view of the particular value connected with this choice and which must be discovered and welcomed personally as one’s own vocation. For that reason Christ said: “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Mt 19:12). But immediately beforehand he said: “Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given” (Mt 19:11).

1. As can be seen, in his reply to the disciples’ problem, Christ stated clearly a rule for the understanding of his words. In the Church’s doctrine the conviction exists that these words do not express a command by which all are bound, but a counsel which concerns only some persons(2)—those precisely who are able “to receive it.” Those able “to receive it” are those “to whom it has been given.”

 

[Petergee]

For who?

For God, of course.
But I think you mean “By whom?”, to which the Christ and St Paul answer, those who are able to receive it.