"Non-Religious/Non-Vocational" Singleness & Celibacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter MysticMissMisty
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MysticMissMisty

Guest
Salvete, omnes.

(Yes, I did briefly touch on this subject on another thread I just posted, but, since the main topic of that thread was somewhat different, I thought I’d “re-post” the latter part of my questions here so that we might get into more deep discussion specifically on this topic on this thread.)

What I am about to ask comes from the perspective of a 31-year-old women who has no desire–and has no desire to have desire–for sexual contact (what some might consider “asexual” in “orientation”). Understand that she (I) am not celibate, therefore, because it is any “sacrifice” of mine or because I feel some religious “vocation” toward such a single and celibate life; my desire simply does not exist. Without getting into here whether so-called “asexuality” is disordered or legitimate, can a woman or man who wishes to live a single life merely because he/she has no desire for sex and/or children be living out God’s will? Is not wanting sex/children too “selfish” a reason not to bear children, as there is really no directly religious component to this lack of desire? Is there not something in Catholic teaching that man should be “inclined to life” or something like that? Could the non-religious desire to not have sex/children of which I speak not be compared equivalently even to aborting a child, if such desire results in the omission of having children? If not, why would these not be equivalent?

For some time, I have considered my own state to be more one of personal preference, like those who do not like this food but like that one, rather than as something I would impose on another person. Of course, I consider sexuality a gift from God, just not one that every single person might desire. I therefore do not consider myself in any way morally “superior” to anyone else who desires sexual things. Would singleness based on whatever degree of lack of desire for sex/kids/etc., rather than on any religious devotion, be legitimate in God’s eyes? Why or why not?

That said, if you consider “asexuality” legitimate, could this not be some way of God rather “choosing your calling to singleness for you” for whatever reasons He might have?

Please note here that my question does not so much concern my own particular condition of “asexuality”, but, rather, an situation where someone simply wishes to be single for non-religious reasons. Let’s try to keep the subject focused on this greater generality. “Asexuality” can and indeed has been discussed on other threads more specifically addressing it.

Gratias.
 
Sex and children are a central part of marriage, so I think that if a person has no desire for sex and children, they probably aren’t called to married life. For me, seems to be the common sense answer.
 
I was just reconsidering one of my queries above concerning whether choosing not to have children based on lack of desire for sex is equivalent to something like abortion.

I was reading elsewhere on the fora that a person’s “right to life” begins “at conception”. First of all, is this an accurate reflection of Church teaching? If this is so and if the words are pretty much precisely stated this way, this could preclude any comparison between not having children based on lack of desire and abortion, as, in the former case, the decision has been made BEFORE any child has been conceived, whereas, in the latter case, the child has already been conceived. So, the omission of having children per se might be permissible whereas the having ofchildren and then taking that life away would not be. Thus, a child’s “right to life” is not violated ifthe child does not yet exist, which would be the case in the first instance (which is our current one under discussion). However, a child’s right to life would be violated in the latter case of abortion and other similar forms of contraception because the child already exists.

Is this a valid understanding of the distinction or am I just pulling proverbial hairs/playing semantics/missing the forest for the trees/acting according to letter and not spirit?

I guess the question is: Does a woman have the right to omit having children based on non-religious reasons such as the ones I’ve posed abov since the life does not yet exist? Or, is the right of the child to life being violated simply by a woman’s omission of giving that life?

Still, the distinction does seem a bit arbitrary to me. Why would a life’s mere existence be the determining factor as to whether a woman has or has not the right to not desire it?

Is there any Church teaching on this particular aspect of the issue?
 
Life begins at conception, therefore right to life also begins at conception. Choosing not to have children doesn’t violate this in any way.
 
Life begins at conception, therefore right to life also begins at conception. Choosing not to have children doesn’t violate this in any way.
But, if we do not wish to have children, are we not denying any potential child who might wish to live, grow up and do great things, that right?
 
What if a couple decides to have only three children, and not ten? Are they denying life to the other seven potential children?

If this were the case, then NFP and other forms of family planning allowed by the Church would be immoral.

I think you’re overthinking it 🙂
 
But, if we do not wish to have children, are we not denying any potential child who might wish to live, grow up and do great things, that right?
A person who has not been conceived does not exist and no right can be denied to a person who does not exist.
 
Salvete, omnes.

(Yes, I did briefly touch on this subject on another thread I just posted, but, since the main topic of that thread was somewhat different, I thought I’d “re-post” the latter part of my questions here so that we might get into more deep discussion specifically on this topic on this thread.)

What I am about to ask comes from the perspective of a 31-year-old women who has no desire–and has no desire to have desire–for sexual contact (what some might consider “asexual” in “orientation”). Understand that she (I) am not celibate, therefore, because it is any “sacrifice” of mine or because I feel some religious “vocation” toward such a single and celibate life; my desire simply does not exist. Without getting into here whether so-called “asexuality” is disordered or legitimate, can a woman or man who wishes to live a single life merely because he/she has no desire for sex and/or children be living out God’s will? Is not wanting sex/children too “selfish” a reason not to bear children, as there is really no directly religious component to this lack of desire? Is there not something in Catholic teaching that man should be “inclined to life” or something like that? Could the non-religious desire to not have sex/children of which I speak not be compared equivalently even to aborting a child, if such desire results in the omission of having children? If not, why would these not be equivalent?

For some time, I have considered my own state to be more one of personal preference, like those who do not like this food but like that one, rather than as something I would impose on another person. Of course, I consider sexuality a gift from God, just not one that every single person might desire. I therefore do not consider myself in any way morally “superior” to anyone else who desires sexual things. Would singleness based on whatever degree of lack of desire for sex/kids/etc., rather than on any religious devotion, be legitimate in God’s eyes? Why or why not?

That said, if you consider “asexuality” legitimate, could this not be some way of God rather “choosing your calling to singleness for you” for whatever reasons He might have?

Please note here that my question does not so much concern my own particular condition of “asexuality”, but, rather, an situation where someone simply wishes to be single for non-religious reasons. Let’s try to keep the subject focused on this greater generality. “Asexuality” can and indeed has been discussed on other threads more specifically addressing it.

Gratias.
It could become more about religion in time. Every vocation is supposed to be holy. Also, who mentioned “moral superiority?” All I mentioned before was chastity, which is a virtue that for many is the hardest to attain, although it is not the most important virtue…still, each virtue is precious.
 
I believe it is quite permissible to live as a chaste, single person. My brother never married, never dated never wanted to. His family are the college students he teaches. He has plenty of time to mentor. He also is an integral part of his parish, volunteering and helping them grow.

Not eveyone is called to married or religious life. The single life is a call from God.

If you need to talk to someone about this, I suggest you make an appointment with a priest.

God bless you.
 
I once asked a question in the Apologetics section whether or not it was sin to not be married and to not be in a religious order, but just a faithful chaste Catholic.

The priest who answered said “What sin?”

He then proceeded to tell me I should be grateful that I am not living in sin.
 
It could become more about religion in time. Every vocation is supposed to be holy.
So, then, are you saying that, ultimately, a non-religious singleness is an invalide (and even sinful?) state in which to be living in the eyes of the Church? Are you saying that, if there is no directly religious reasons, but more reasons of personal desire/taste, for remaining single, this is invalid and/or sinful?

I mean, I, personally, even though my singleness is ultimately rooted in personal taste/desire, have always considered it beneficial to my spiritual life in the sense that it allows me to devote more time to serving God outside of all the difficulties that come from raising a family. And, in my case, since I truly have no sexual desire, I sometimes feel that it breaks down some barriers that might otherwise be put up when I, as a woman, work with/interact with, the opposite sex, since they often come to know that I have no desire of a sexual nature toward them. SO, I suppose all this does benefit my spiritual life and my lend a spiritual element to my singleness. Still, as I say, it is ultimately rooted in a lack of personal desire for sexual relations/children. So, is this still invalid/sinful in my case? Even ifnot in my case, since I do lend some spiritual significance to it, is it invalid in the case of a Christian/Catholic man/woman who is single purely for personal reasons/reasons of desire/taste that are not ultimately based on some religious reason?
 
Furthermore, what about the verse in 1 Timothy 2:15 about women being saved through child-bearing? (see a more detailed discussion I’m having on this verse here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=959330 )

Here it seems that Paul may be requiring women, at least those outside of the religious life, to marry/bear/raise children in order to be saved! He may be saying that, while a woman is not permitted to teach in the Church, she “SHALL BE saved through childbearing”, not may be, as if this were just one of many options for women in the Church, but he rather says shall be.

How do we deal with a verse like this one if we are (specifically a woman) who is single ultimately for non-religious reasons?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top