Virginity/celibacy higher than marriage?

[Shin]

When God wants it to end, that’s the right time, LW.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

When God wants it to end, that’s the right time, LW.

If the world were to end, it would either from natural reasons (like a meteor crash or perhaps maybe Al Gore was right, laughable that notion seems) or your classical apocalyptic scenario where hell itself breaks loose on earth.

To suggest that having the whole human race consecrate their virginity to God as a means to end the world as you seem to imply would be contrary to many of the Church’s teachings on human life, sexuality, marriage, and family creation.

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Uhhmmm…the point everyone seems to be missing is that an anathema was issued at Trent, stating that celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. That should end the debate, if only out of obedience to the decrees of Holy Mother Church.

I think some clarification is needed, though. Not everyone is called to celibacy. It is a difference called * grace of state* (not confused with the state of grace). By the same idea, the vocation of a diocesan bishop is higher than the religious priest, who is in turn higher than the secular priest. This does not mean one is “better” than the other, merely that one has a higher calling. I read an article on it a while ago, I’ll see if I can find it…

 

[notredame_999]

It seems to me that since the emergence of the “universal call to holiness” issued by Vatican II, and John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, as well as Hans Urs von Balthasar’s “The Christian State of Life”, calling one vocation “higher” than the other is null. As John Paul II rightly pointed out, the two vocations (celibacy and marriage) are not mutually exclusive, but mutually necessary. Without marriage, celibacy as a calling is nothing. Likewise without celibacy, marriage as a calling is nothing. In other words, how can celibacy be a higher vocation when marriage isn’t even an option, or how can marriage be any sort of calling when celibacy is not an option. In order to follow one vocation or the other it is necessary to give up some good (either celibacy or marriage). Von Balthasar points out that it is not a matter of one calling being “higher” than the other, but of how well we live the calling that we are given. This echoes St. Paul’s affirmation that prior to Jesus’ coming Jew and Gentile were all equal before God because all had sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. The Jews were not greater or “higher” than the Gentiles because they had refused to live their calling as the Chosen People. Similarly if a celibate does not live his/her personal call to celibacy, then his vocation is no “higher” than that of a married man/woman.

Whether one remains celibate or gets married, one’s call as a Christian is to holiness (not to be equated here with moral uprightness, although that is certainly an aspect of holiness). St Therese of Liseaux summed it up most beautifully when she exclaimed, “My vocation is to love!” Without love any vocation is ultimately pointless. All vocations are meant to lead us to Christ. Marriage is not focused on the spouses. Rather in marriage the spouses come to Christ in a mediated way, through each other and their love for each other.

One final thought. Marriage is a Sacrament, celibacy is not. I know there are those who will argue that Holy Orders is a Sacrament. Yes it is, but Holy Orders and celibacy are two completely separate things. We in the East have many men who have received the Sacrament of Holy Orders with their wife looking on! Married priests are not a fiction or a thing of the past (I know several). I understand that there are also a substantial number of priests in the Latin Church who are likewise married. Also, monastic profession for men and women is not numbered among the Seven Sacraments. So I would ask, if celibacy is the “higher” calling, why is it not numbered among the Sacraments?

This interpretation is against tradition. Thats why so many SSPX/FSSP don’t tend to quote theology of the body. For almost 2,000 years, both east and west, christians have called consecrated celibacy a higher state than marriage. The issue is whether it should be a condition for ordination- the west says yes, east says no.

And if you don’t consider celibacy a higher calling than marriage, how do you explain that even in the east bishops are chosen from monastic celibates?

 

[JReducation]

So is the fact that sex is sacred and marriage is the institution that protects that sacredness.

And revelation has taught us this, just as revelation has taught us that consecrated celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. It’s not a matter of one being sacred and the other not. It’s a matter of hierarchy of callings. Think of the parable of the talents. Three people, three different sets of talents, all were held accountable for the talents they received, but not all are given the same talent or the same degree of talents.

To understand sacredness of consecrated celibacy, one must understand the sacredness of marriage. In marriage a man and a woman become living signs of the love between Christ and his Church. In consecrated celibacy, men and women are called to live that love dierctly with Christ, without the mediation of the spouse.

This should not be threatening or offensive to the married person. On the contrary, it’s more frightening for the person called to consecrated celibacy, because the relationship is between him/her and Christ, without the assistance and support of a spouse.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Vico]

Is virginity, or celibacy, a higher state than marriage if the individual attempting it is being constantly bomabrded and even occasionally entertaining lustful thoughts?
Is a priest/brother/sister/or even lay person truly celibate if they abstain from any sexual activity but they are frequently thinking about sex?

Celibate means unmarried. I think you mean chaste. Being tempted is not a sin, rather a test. It is chaste to fight temptation, and to avoid the near occasion of sin.

Yes, virginity is a higher state, per Jesus Christ. Matt 19:10-12:

[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” 8 [11] [This] word: probably the disciples’ “it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God.

9 [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, “eunuchs.” Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, “have made themselves eunuchs”) for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.

 

[mattkubes]

Some people seem to be confusing the notion of a “higher calling” with personal holiness. No one is saying that the consecrated celibate is automatically holier than the married person, and the Church’s teaching isn’t concerned with this - rather, it is talking about the objective nature of the vocations themselves.

 

[JReducation]

I’ve always explained the concept of higher calling this way. You invite people to a wedding feast and you seat them in specific places. The bridge and groom are always center-stage. Their families have the tables closest to them, then the other relatives and friends. However, all are given the honor to be invited.

All are given the honor to be invited to holiness. However, they are assigned different places, some closer to the bride and groon (Christ and the Church) and others around the room.

No one is holier than the other, because all have been called to holiness. It is up to each person to achieve holiness by being faithful to that state to which he or she has been called.

The Church uses the wording “higher calling” to mean that in the hiearchy of holiness, the one call is higher than the other.

In marriage, one is called to be a sign. Married people enter into communion with God through the graces that flow through the marriage. What is beautiful about marriage is that the grace that is earned by one spouse is earned for both, because they are inseparable, even if one is a saint and the other a reprobate. One spouse can be the means to salvation for the other.

In consecrated celibacy one is called to enter into direct communion with the Beloved or to enter a communion with the Beloved without the benefit of the support and graces that flow from marriage. That’s one reason why religious life is referred to as preferable to secular life, such as the life lived by a diocesan priest. Religious life allows the grace of one member to sanctify the other members of the community. This is where the vow of chastity becomes different from the promise of celibacy made by a secular cleric.

The Church actually holds them in this order, from top to bottom: consecrated chastity (religious life), consecrated celibacy (secular cleric), celibacy (secular man or woman), and marriage.

All are guests at the same banquet with Christ and the Church as bride and groom, but they occupy different places at the banquet.

Remember, just because all are invited to the feast, does not mean that all are going to be perfect guests. The perfect guest is the one who behaves honarably at the feast.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

And, at the top, the Bishop.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

And revelation has taught us this, just as revelation has taught us that consecrated celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. It’s not a matter of one being sacred and the other not. It’s a matter of hierarchy of callings. Think of the parable of the talents. Three people, three different sets of talents, all were held accountable for the talents they received, but not all are given the same talent or the same degree of talents.

To understand sacredness of consecrated celibacy, one must understand the sacredness of marriage. In marriage a man and a woman become living signs of the love between Christ and his Church. In consecrated celibacy, men and women are called to live that love dierctly with Christ, without the mediation of the spouse.

This should not be threatening or offensive to the married person. On the contrary, it’s more frightening for the person called to consecrated celibacy, because the relationship is between him/her and Christ, without the assistance and support of a spouse.

All right if you put it that way, it makes sense too. I just can’t help but notice how calling consecrated celibacy/virginity a “higher calling” seems to lead people to think that in a perfect Christian world, people would be giving themselves to Christ. No marriage which means no sex. And no sex means no reproduction. The boy who aims for either the priesthood or the monastic life is upheld and the devout cheer for his decision. On the other hand when they see guys like me, who seek a meaningful romance full of both intimacy and genuine love, they shake their heads and claimed we have been seduced by the world.

 

[JReducation]

And, at the top, the Bishop.

You lost me.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Doesn’t the Diocesan Bishop have the greatest grace of state, over a religious priest and diocesan priest (where is a religious brother in there?)?

 

[JReducation]

All right if you put it that way, it makes sense too. I just can’t help but notice how calling consecrated celibacy/virginity a “higher calling” seems to lead people to think that in a perfect Christian world, people would be giving themselves to Christ. No marriage which means no sex. And no sex means no reproduction. The boy who aims for either the priesthood or the monastic life is upheld and the devout cheer for his decision. On the other hand when they see guys like me, who seek a meaningful romance full of both intimacy and genuine love, they shake their heads and claimed we have been seduced by the world.

The bold is mine.

That is a very foolish thing for anyone to say. A faithful husband is no more lost to the world than a holy monk in a monastery.

The average lay person lacks the proper understanding of the different calls and how they stand in relation to each other. We had something similar happen to us in our community. Vatican II commanded that religious orders return to the vision and mission of their founders. Franciscans were founded as a brotherhood, not as an order of priests.

Since the 1970s we have been trying to get the laity to stop calling the ordained Franciscan, Father and to call him Brother or Friar. We have appointed a number of brothers, who are not priests, as superiors in communities that run parishes. This means that those ordained friars who staff the parish are under the authority of a friar who is not a priest. Therefore,the pastor is not the top man on the totem pole. He runs the parish, but he reports to the superior of the house, who can pull him out of office at will, no questions asked. You should hear the goofy things that people say, because they do not understand the different vocations and the hierarchy of vocations vis a vis the holiness of the people called. In one parish, the laity refused to call the superior Father, because he was not a priest. Well, religious superiors have been called Rev. Father and Rev. Mother since God created Adam. OK, not that long, but you get the picture.

I’m the superior of my house and I work with the diocese. When I go to the chancery, the bishops and clergy address me as Father. The lay staff has said that they feel uncomfortable with that. But when Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica visited, no one batted an eye-lash with the title Mother. Go figure.

People often say very silly things and mean no harm. That’s my point. Stick with the Church’s definitions and you’ll do fine.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Doesn’t the Diocesan Bishop have the greatest grace of state, over a religious priest and diocesan priest (where is a religious brother in there?)?

You have to separate here. There are two very different vocations or callings.

CALL (VOCATION) TO HOLY ORDERS:

A man is called to form part of the hierarchy (government) of the Church through one of three orders:

Order of Deacon
Order of Presbyter
Order of Bishop

All three men are clerics or clergymen. It makes no difference if they are married or celibate.

CALL (VOCATION) CONSECRATED LIFE:

A man or a woman is called to live his or her entire life in intimate communion with Christ, consecrated to imitate his earthly life being like him: obedient, poor and chaste. He or she lives out this call either in a community or in total solitute, such as a hermit or a consecrated virgin. This person is not part of the hierarchy (government) of the Church. In other words, he is not in a position of authority. These men and women are known by different titles: monks, nuns, sisters, brothers, friars, lay brothers, lay sisters or regulars.

Some men are called to both: Holy Orders and the Consecrated Life. These men are the ones that people mistakenly call religious priests. In fact they are not religious priests. They are RELIGIOUS & PRIESTS. There is no such thing as a religious priest. That’s some goofy wording that someone used to say it faster and it has stuck. In Caon Law, priests who are also religious are referred to as regular priests. Regular comes from the Latin word, Regula (Rule). It means that these priests are bound to live by the regula (rule) of their religious community.

Canon Law refers to them as such when it wants to say something to priests that does not apply to those priests who are also religious. For example, when Pope Benedict wrote Summorum Pontificum and said that all priests could celebrate the EF without permission, there was a concern raised by the superiors of religious communities. Why? Because priests who are ALSO religious are bound to obey their superiors. They cannot just do whatever they want to do, even if it’s a good thing. The Holy Father followed up with the letter that we have all seen and hopefully understood. In his letter he explained that regular priests needed the permission of their major superiors and the major superiors could grant that permission according to the laws of the institute (religious order). In other words, the superior can only grant permissions that the rules allow him to grant.

Brothers are consecrated religious men. Some of these brothers are ALSO priests. But they remain brothers, because they are in vows and members of a brotherhood.

There are some religious institutes where all members are both consecrated religious and priests. We call them clerical institutes. These are religious communities for priests: Jesuits, Salesians, Dominicans, Carmelites, Camillians, Vincentians.

There are religious institutes that are brotherhoods, but do ordain some or many of their brothers: Franciscans, Discacled Carmelites, Benedictines, Trappists, Marianists

There are religious institutes that are brotherhoods, but do not allow any of their men to be ordained: Alexians, Christian Brothers, De la Sall Brothers, Marists, Good Shepherd, Christ the King, Bros of Peace, Bros of the Eucharist,

When we speak about clergy or clerics, this includes deacons, priests and bishops, be they religious or secular.

I hope that I have not confused you too much.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Hahaha, no confusion at all. I’m familiar with all this, just a little out of practice in my terminology. A religious priest, aka regular priest or religious and priest (right?) has higher grace of state than a secular priest. That’s what I’ve read. I think we’re confusing grace of state with the specifics of a calling, though I’m not positive…

 

[JReducation]

Hahaha, no confusion at all. I’m familiar with all this, just a little out of practice in my terminology. A religious priest, aka regular priest or religious and priest (right?) has higher grace of state than a secular priest. That’s what I’ve read. I think we’re confusing grace of state with the specifics of a calling, though I’m not positive…

I see where you got this. OK, the regular priest has a higher grace of state, not because he is a priest, but because he is a religious. He shares the same grace of state as do all religious brothers, sisters and nuns.

The vow of chastity is a higher grace of state than the promise of celibacy made by a secular cleric.

When a religious is ordained, he does not make the promise of celibacy, because he is in vows. He has already made a vow of chastity that trump the promise of celibacy.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Acolythus_sum]

Got it. I guess I was confused after all … Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Chatter163]

Everyone wants only the best for God right? And so, since consecrated virginity is the “best vocation”, that it is “gold” while marriage is “copper” it only stands that in an ideal Christian world, everyone is a consecrated virgin. And hence, we will then die out because since sex and marriage are more beneath, nobody engages in them and we all cease reproducing.

If you were in a logic class, you would fail with reasoning like this. This is a false dichotomy, as an “ideal” Christian world does not exist. You are comparing something nonexistent with something that exists. All have sinned, so by definition there can never be an ideal Christian world. The Lord has set out different vocations for different people, and while some vocations by their nature contain more grace then others, every individual is different in terms of graces received. We are not in competition with one another, so it is a matter of Deus providebit.

 

[JReducation]

If you were in a logic class, you would fail with reasoning like this. This is a false dichotomy, as an “ideal” Christian world does not exist. You are comparing something nonexistent with something that exists. All have sinned, so by definition there can never be an ideal Christian world. The Lord has set out different vocations for different people, and while some vocations by their nature contain more grace then others, every individual is different in terms of graces received. We are not in competition with one another, so it is a matter of Deus providebit.

That’s kind of a “Yes and No”. There is an ideal Christian world; but we must make it happen. It potentially exists. This is what Jesus refers to when he says, “The Kingdom of God is among you.” He’s referring to himself as the Kingdom. However, he is also expressing the fact that we must open ourselves to his kingship to experience this kingdom. An easier way to say this is that we can make the Kingdom palpable, because Jesus has made it possible. That which is possible, is a reality, even when if it’s “under construction” (notice quotation marks).

As far as some vocations containing more graces than others . . . grace is not quantifiable, it’s qualifiable. We speak of great or higher graces, not more graces. Grace itself is a share in the Divine Life. Some callings invite us to share more intimately in the life of the God-head than others. This is why the Church says the consecrated celibacy is a higher calling than marriage. The call to consecrated celibacy is a call to a more intimate communion with the God-head. How a person responds to that call is a whole other story. Yet, that’s what’s essential for sanctity.

We become holy in the measure that we are faithful. Today’s feast day is very appropriate for this discussion. St. Therese made it very clear that it’s not about doing great things, but about diong the ordinary with extraordinary love. Whether we’re speaking about marriage or consecrated celibacy, the daily challenges must be faced with extraordinary love. If love is missing, we’re not going anywhere in the spiritual life.

Speaking for me, one who has made a vow of chastity (consecrated celibacy), I pray that God will give me the love to persevere like St. Giana Molla, who was a wife and mother. She may not have been called to the same degree of intimacy with God as I have been, but she certainly responded to the call to marriage and motherhood with a love and perseverence that is exemplary for anyone, married or celibate.

I just wanted to add one more thought. The consecrated celibate life is not just for clergy and religious. There are many lay people who make vows of celibacy and live very holy lives in the world.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF