Why does Church ask for Celibacy within Marriage?

[Mathew_George]

I am starting this as new thread, because I do not find this subject addressed in related threads.

Church’s teachings about periodic abstinence for birth control is understandable, in cases where the desired family-size is not yet reached or where the spouses are still young and are flexible regarding family-size.

Take the case of a family where the wife is close to menopause but still is a few years away. For good reasons, the family size is complete, and there is no way the spouses can risk another pregnancy. My understanding of Catholic teaching in this regard is that, the only licit way to avoid any chance of pregnancy is permanent abstinence. With due desire to be obedient to my Catholic faith, I simply don’t get it.

My conscience tells me that, much as sex could be selfish and exploitative, it could also be caring and sensitive… and in many an instance, of therapeutic value. It is a way of saying… I am sorry, … it is Ok, I forgive you, … and many such sentiments of caring, that is best said this way.

To say that such mutual feelings become null and void per se, if the sex is not open to pregnenacy, is at best an ignorant statement.

Let me put it this way. Without going into what has been debated over and over in other related threads, if sex that is not open to new life is against the will of God, then so be it. You or I have no other way but to fall in line… Period. But even if Church’s teachings in this regard were infallible, infallibility doesn’t extend to all the arguments or rationale leading up to the infallible statement. Again, if Church’s teaching on artificial birth control is infallible, it’s just that part of the teaching that is infallible. Supporting arguments regarding selfless mutual giving and the good of procreative sex, might just be well-meaning arguments. They may or may not be the truth.

Coming back to my point… Permanent abstinence within marriage does not appeal to me as a good reason to remain married, in the first place. It will be a whole lot easier for me to beat concupiscence and remain chaste, if I separate from my wife, rather than sleep on the same bed with her and struggle with sin. Besides, it deprives me of all opportunity of the therapeutic value of sex. Yes, we are all called to carry our cross. Marriage has ample crosses of its own, and it is strange that I am called to carry the cross of celibacy too, within marriage.

 

[aurora77]

“Permanent abstinence within marriage does not appeal to me as a good reason to remain married, in the first place.”

So, you’re saying that if you two can’t have sex, there’s not a good reason to remain married??? I hope I’ve misunderstood you. If permanent abstinence is required within your marriage, I hope you and your wife love each other and are strong enough to do this. I would bet most marriages at some point go through periods of required abstinence; it’s tough, but sex isn’t the only reason to get married. In fact, my mom gave me a piece of advice, to marry a man, that if at some point we could never have sex again, I’d still want to spend the rest of my life with.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mathew George,

To my knowledge the Church has never bound married couples to celibacy, unless they were not validly married, or they voluntarily made vows of celibacy.

Me thinks you have misunderstood Catholic teaching.

In the situation you describe, the couple may licitly use NFP. It is their choice to either have sex or not in this case, as it is for everyone who uses NFP. The Church does not bind them to one choice or the other in this case. The Church does not prohibit non-procreative sex. The Chuch does however prohibit human acts which render sex intrinsically non-procreative.

As for your notion about marriage and sex. What if your spouse had an auto accident and could never have sex again? I think you need to think about how *selfish *it would be to dispose of your lifelong oath to your partner simply because one could no longer have sex. Our crosses are to be embraced if one follows Christ. Each cross differs, and some are seemingly more difficult than others. However, if the cross has YOUR name on it, then embrace it like Christ did His. If one has such a cross to bear, then grab hold of it, never let it go, and know that by this ‘way of the cross’ you become more Christ-like. Love is not the same as sex. I love my wife even when I’m not having sex with her. I figure I can keep loving her my entire life, even if she could not ever have sex again. I have hopeful confidence that she feels the same way.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I think the term you want is continance, not celibacy.

I second what Aurora said.

If the reason for having no more children is that serious then it should be treated as though it were like not being able to have relations because of serious illness. For example, if one of you was in a car accident and had a long, painful recovery would you still feel that you were being deprived of all opportunity of the therapeutic value of sex?

If it were me, I would think yeah, I’m deprived of that but if continance is the way to show my love and fidelity to my spouse I will make that sacrifice.

Also, the continace would not actually be permanant. A woman’s fertility isn’t. And you seem to be thinking about your own need’s and comfort here. What would your spouse need from you in either case?

 

[puzzleannie]

the Church does not call for celibacy in marriage, for the very good reason that the definition of celibacy is to be unmarried. The Church does call for chastity for everyone according to their state in life. For the unmarried that of course means continence - no sexual activity. For the married, that means that the marriage act must always be open to life. If for some good reason: mother’s health etc. pregnancy is unwise, that also means abstinence, either during her fertile period, or completely, until the danger no longer exists.

Care to restate the question?

 

[Rebecca_New]

I read somewhere that Our Blessed Mother was concieved when her parents hugged in the Temple. The love between spouses must go a lot further than sex. Then look at Mary and Joseph, their perfect marriage had no sex, but it had something more powerful and perfect.

 

[StephanieC]

Dodging the issue of morality, etc., I just have to interject that this scenario is another reason why the Creighton Model of natural family planning is so great: it is able to help a couple determine fertile and non-fertile days even through menopause. Amazing! :yup: www.creightonmodel.com.

 

[Dorothy]

<>

The parents of our Blessed Mother conceived her in the same way that all babies are conceived. St. Anne did not have a virgin birth.

What you describe above is taken from a book, I believe, by a mystic (private revelation), which is symbolic of Anne and Joachim’s holy love for each other.

Peace,

Dorothy

 

[Mathew_George]

“Permanent abstinence within marriage does not appeal to me as a good reason to remain married, in the first place.”

So, you’re saying that if you two can’t have sex, there’s not a good reason to remain married??? I hope I’ve misunderstood you. If permanent abstinence is required within your marriage, I hope you and your wife love each other and are strong enough to do this. I would bet most marriages at some point go through periods of required abstinence; it’s tough, but sex isn’t the only reason to get married. In fact, my mom gave me a piece of advice, to marry a man, that if at some point we could never have sex again, I’d still want to spend the rest of my life with.

I guess I did not communicate clearly when I wrote… sex… and reason to remain married. I meant that permanent abstinence is unnecessarily taking away from marriage its unique dimension viz. closeness through sexual expression. There surely are other more important reasons to remain married, but these reasons could co-exist with good sex. I am saying that, taking away the opportunity for good sexual expression within a marriage, also takes away that part of the essense of marriage.

Yes, your mother is right. If there is good reason for one spouse to sacrifice sex **for the sake of ** the other, I guess spouses in a good marriage would and should measure up to that challenge. The point I am debating is that, the reasons of natural law and self-less mutual gift that form the background of Church’s teachings on abstinence (including permanent abstinence), are not convincing enough.

 

[JimO]

I suppose I don’t understand why you say in your example that the abstinence is permanent. If the wife is near menopause, then it will be temporary, maybe a year or two, but not permanent.

I might add that in your example the circumstances seem unfair to the couple. Well, to put it bluntly, life’s not fair. Many veterans have been injured in battle and unable to have sex. Many people suffer illness or severe pain and are unable. Sometimes we have to deal with hardships, but that’s not the Church’s fault. The Church teaches truth and if we construe that as members of the Body of Christ we are somehow treated unfairly, then, I hate to say it, but we are focusing on self and not on what the Will of God is for us.

One final comment. I think that it is terribly sad how many people blame the Church because they can’t have sex when, where, how and with whom they want. This is so short sighted in the bigger eternal picture.

 

[Mathew_George]

Bruised Reed:

I second what Aurora said.

If the reason for having no more children is that serious then it should be treated as though it were like not being able to have relations because of serious illness. For example, if one of you was in a car accident and had a long, painful recovery would you still feel that you were being deprived of all opportunity of the therapeutic value of sex?

If it were me, I would think yeah, I’m deprived of that but if continance is the way to show my love and fidelity to my spouse I will make that sacrifice.

Bruised Reed:

And you seem to be thinking about your own need’s and comfort here. What would your spouse need from you in either case?

I do not understand your analogy linking my argument to serious illness or accident. If abstinence is for the sake of my spouse, I do realize that my commitment to her demands the sacrifice from me, and I guess God will give me the strength to take up the cross. If my wife is eager as I am for the warmth of mutual sexual expression, I do not know for whose sake we shall take up the burden of permanent abstinence.

Church’s moral angle of the teachings is based on Natural Law, and the ideal of self-less mutual giving. Natural Law is something that is written in every human being’s conscience. If so, every human being regardless of faith or creed should feel its significance within his or her conscience, isn’t it? Are we saying that a good, conscientious Hindu (for example) has the same feelings of guilt about contraception, as a Catholic does? Very unlikely. Anybody with a good conscience objects to contraception as a vehicle for licencious behavior. But, within the right context of shared marital closeness and the very practical challenge of demographics, I do not think that contraception poses such fundamental moral dilemma, for a good conscientious non-Christian.

I do not also understand the argument that contraceptive sex, though shared and desired by both spouses, is contrary to self-less mutual gift, of the spouses. If my wife is certain that she shouldn’t have another pregnancy, how is my putting her at risk of pregnancy, an act of gift at all? If we mutually desire the sexual intimacy for the closeness it brings, how can permanent abstinence be called self-less giving?

My guess is that, it is rather the inculcation of our Catholic conscience as opposed to Natural Law per se that gives us our Catholic moral reference-points, and that we are judging ourselves based on our own reference-points. Without taking anything away from the heroics of those who live by NFP, I guess the same might be partly true there too. Just think of the earlier times in Church, when any form of sex not restricted to procreation alone, or oral or anal sex (even as foreplay), were frowned upon. I guess, more than the Natural Law written on everybody’s conscience, Catholics’ feelings about virtue or guilt were more likely dictated by what the Church or people of authority were saying about these issues.

On the contrary, if I am taught infallibly that Church’s stand on sexual morality is the Will of God… Period, I guess the argument will be intellectually more convincing to me. It will still be a heavy cross to bear. But, we know of the ‘original innocence’, how the ‘fall’ irreversibly muddied things, and how sex as we today know it is indeed the devil’s version, however appealing and natural the packaging seems. When it is linked to Natural Law and its ramifications, I do have difficulty understanding.

About the second Quote. I do not know why you would think that sex is only a man’s issue. In every marriage, I guess there might be instances when one spouse accommodates the other sexually, but I would think the challenge of permanent abstinence will be as much an issue for my wife too.

 

[JimO]

Mathew George:

My understanding of Catholic teaching in this regard is that, the only licit way to avoid any chance of pregnancy is permanent abstinence.

Again, if Church’s teaching on artificial birth control is infallible…

Coming back to my point… Permanent abstinence within marriage…

I re-read your post and have a couple of questions for clarification. Your example doesn’t make sense, as I stated before, because your example wouldn’t involve permanent abstinence. Second, there are no artificial birth control methods that “avoid any chance of pregnancy”, thus, your only option is sterilization and yet you refer to the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control and not sterilization.

Could you clarify your example?

 

[YinYangMom]

Mathew George:

I guess I did not communicate clearly when I wrote… sex… and reason to remain married. I meant that permanent abstinence is unnecessarily taking away from marriage its unique dimension viz. closeness through sexual expression. There surely are other more important reasons to remain married, but these reasons could co-exist with good sex. I am saying that, taking away the opportunity for good sexual expression within a marriage, also takes away that part of the essense of marriage.

Yes, your mother is right. If there is good reason for one spouse to sacrifice sex **for the sake of **the other, I guess spouses in a good marriage would and should measure up to that challenge. The point I am debating is that, the reasons of natural law and self-less mutual gift that form the background of Church’s teachings on abstinence (including permanent abstinence), are not convincing enough.

Should a couple voluntarily choose a celibate lifestyle - as a couple - then it isn’t taking away anything. It is an offering up for the sake of souls in purgatory or praise for God or whatever reason led this couple to choose that lifestyle.

In any case, it certainly isn’t required by the Church.

Your concern seems to address two healthy people in marriage where one wants to live celibately but the other does not. In that situation the Church teaching would be for that couple to seek therapy and/or spiritual guidance.

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Mathew George:

I do not understand your analogy linking my argument to serious illness or accident. If abstinence is for the sake of my spouse, I do realize that my commitment to her demands the sacrifice from me, and I guess God will give me the strength to take up the cross.

I make that analogy because you say this:

Take the case of a family where the wife is close to menopause but still is a few years away. For good reasons, the family size is complete, and there is no way the spouses can risk another pregnancy. (…)

Risk to me sounds serious.

If my wife is eager as I am for the warmth of mutual sexual expression, I do not know for whose sake we shall take up the burden of permanent abstinence.

For both of you. Ideally for each other. Sex is important to a relationship true but erotic love is not the only kind of love that can be shared by spouses. Most of us abstain most of the time. Think about that.

And why is it “permanent”? Is the there a detail that is not TMI that could make that understandable. I’m starting to think you don’t know what menopause is.

Church’s moral angle of the teachings is based on Natural Law, and the ideal of self-less mutual giving. Natural Law is something that is written in every human being’s conscience. If so, every human being regardless of faith or creed should feel its significance within his or her conscience, isn’t it? Are we saying that a good, conscientious Hindu (for example) has the same feelings of guilt about contraception, as a Catholic does? Very unlikely. Anybody with a good conscience objects to contraception as a vehicle for licencious behavior. But, within the right context of shared marital closeness and the very practical challenge of demographics, I do not think that contraception poses such fundamental moral dilemma, for a good conscientious non-Christian.

If this was just about contraception, okay. But it isn’t. It’s about doing what is best for another person. Even the Hindu hopefully would be willing to be chaste and continent to protect his wife from a pregnancy that would be harmful physically or mentally (or what ever the risk is.) Since he doesn’t have the commandments of the church to guides him he may or may not use contraception.

And how could contraceptives possibly be considered in congruence with Natural Law?

I do not also understand the argument that contraceptive sex, though shared and desired by both spouses, is contrary to self-less mutual gift, of the spouses. If my wife is certain that she shouldn’t have another pregnancy, how is my putting her at risk of pregnancy, an act of gift at all? If we mutually desire the sexual intimacy for the closeness it brings, how can permanent abstinence be called self-less giving?

By rejecting each others fertility you are rejecting something that makes you human, healthy and whole. Contraception is an instrument that tries to fix something that aint’ broke. More importantly, who we are as sexual beings has much to do with who we are meant to be, our mission in life. Desecrating our sexuality, each other’s sexuality is wrong to the core.

My guess is that, it is rather the inculcation of our Catholic conscience as opposed to Natural Law per se that gives us our Catholic moral reference-points, and that we are judging ourselves based on our own reference-points. Without taking anything away from the heroics of those who live by NFP, I guess the same might be partly true there too. Just think of the earlier times in Church, when any form of sex not restricted to procreation alone, or oral or anal sex (even as foreplay), were frowned upon. I guess, more than the Natural Law written on everybody’s conscience, Catholics’ feelings about virtue or guilt were more likely dictated by what the Church or people of authority were saying about these issues.

Perhaps some Chistian writers frowned upon these activies. But note: their geration didn’t just invent them. So neither did ours. They clearly have been challenging the faithful for millenia. Natual Law hasn’t changed and neither has the teaching of the church. Perhaps our understanding is much more whole but we still need the commandments if we are tempted to do what is selfish, harmful and potentially sinful.

(…)

About the second Quote. I do not know why you would think that sex is only a man’s issue. In every marriage, I guess there might be instances when one spouse accommodates the other sexually, but I would think the challenge of permanent abstinence will be as much an issue for my wife too.

I get that, however you used the pronoun “we” three times. You didn’t mention your wife’s needs until the post I’m quoting from. That’s how I read it. Sorry.

 

[Mathew_George]

YinYangMom:

Should a couple voluntarily choose a celibate lifestyle - as a couple - then it isn’t taking away anything. It is an offering up for the sake of souls in purgatory or praise for God or whatever reason led this couple to choose that lifestyle.

In any case, it certainly isn’t required by the Church.

Your concern seems to address two healthy people in marriage where one wants to live celibately but the other does not. In that situation the Church teaching would be for that couple to seek therapy and/or spiritual guidance.

You miss my point. Tell me, what should be the motive for volunterily giving up sexual closeness that I feel is good for the couple? I am saying, the Church’s postulation of Natural Law in these matters, does not appear convincing enough, because it doesn’t seem to be so deeply etched into human conscience universally as the Church says. It seems rather the result of Catholic inculcation of our conscience.

We can give up any good thing and offer the sacrifice, for the sake of the souls in purgatory. No questions about it. But the point we are debating is, is giving up sexual experience within marriage just another routine sacrifice that we make, or is it something illicit and therefore we are called upon to eschew?

 

[Mathew_George]

Dear Bruised Reed

With all due respect to you, I am afraid you are looking at the issue emotionally and, therefore, focusing on the wrong areas of my posts. I think I want to be an equally good Catholic as you are, though I obviously lack the courage. One sure way I can be disuaded is by irrational responses to issues I believe are real-life.

I say that mutually complementing sexual experience within marriage, is good in building closeness between couples. I say that Church’s reliance on Natural Law in its teachings is unconvincing, and, therefore, ask for whose sake I or my wife should be making the sacrifice of abstinence. You say that it is for mutual benefit, without explaining what benefit it is.

I queried your analogy linking abstinence for not-so-vital reasons to abstinence when one spouse is debilitated, and you shot an answer quoting selectively from my post!

Then you say something about… we all abstaining some time or the other, without addressing the moral significance of why we should abtain.

I had some serious questions about Natural Law, and why good conscientious people of other religions do not feel so strongly about contraception as we do. Natural Law, if it is ingrained in the conscience of all people, should also guide and disturb the conscience of all good people, isn’t it? You have not focused on my question, while offering an answer. You suggest that a good Hindu too might embrace continence to protect his wife from pregnancy, while not addressing our basic point of debate, viz. why continence at all?

You seem to go off at a angle, answering my point about self-less mutal gifting by the spouses. My question was, where is the gift, and how do we call it self-less. Even now, I am at a loss to understand what you wanted to say in answer to my above question.

I had a question about the influence of indoctrination upon human conscience, and how we all tend to judge ourselves based on how our conscience has been cultivated. I do not think you have addressed the issue logically.

Yet, behind your impatience, I do find sincerity and zeal aimed at reforming me. I promise, I am and will be open to your views. If the views are presented logically, I will be a whole lot persuaded to change.

 

[aurora77]

Mathew George:

You miss my point. Tell me, what should be the motive for volunterily giving up sexual closeness that I feel is good for the couple? I am saying, the Church’s postulation of Natural Law in these matters, does not appear convincing enough, because it doesn’t seem to be so deeply etched into human conscience universally as the Church says. It seems rather the result of Catholic inculcation of our conscience.

I guess it just depends on whether you believe that the Church teaches infallibly. If you don’t there’s nothing that can be said to convince you to abstain from using ABC.

That being said, I don’t know what your situation is, but I can tell you my husband and I went through a period of abstinence. I had some health problems that made our sex life practically non existent and then surgery which meant no sex for a number of weeks. You’ll get through this; really you will. If it’s in the best interest of your family not to have more children, I would suggest checking out NFP.

If I can make a suggestion, please read up on WHY the Church teaches as it does on ABC. I’ve used it, thinking, oh well, it’s just a matter of conscience. What a lie–once I actually found out the reasoning behind the Church’s teaching it makes sense. I wish I hadn’t had to find out the hard way the truths about ABC, but I did. Please don’t go down that road.

 

[LittleDeb]

Mathew George:

I had some serious questions about Natural Law, and why good conscientious people of other religions do not feel so strongly about contraception as we do. Natural Law, if it is ingrained in the conscience of all people, should also guide and disturb the conscience of all good people, isn’t it? You have not focused on my question, while offering an answer. You suggest that a good Hindu too might embrace continence to protect his wife from pregnancy, while not addressing our basic point of debate, viz. why continence at all?

You seem to go off at a angle, answering my point about self-less mutal gifting by the spouses. My question was, where is the gift, and how do we call it self-less. Even now, I am at a loss to understand what you wanted to say in answer to my above question.

I had a question about the influence of indoctrination upon human conscience, and how we all tend to judge ourselves based on how our conscience has been cultivated. I do not think you have addressed the issue logically.

Yet, behind your impatience, I do find sincerity and zeal aimed at reforming me. I promise, I am and will be open to your views. If the views are presented logically, I will be a whole lot persuaded to change.

While this was not addressed to me, I hope I can still reply. My interest in seeking out NFP, or periodic continence, was based on my deep interest in Natural Law so I would like to try to answer this section.

One of the first questions I asked myself about people of other religions when I was searching out NFP was why don’t THEY embrace natural law? If continence is natural, then why doesn’t everyone think so. Yes, it should guide and disturb the conscience of all good people. It does. Not all people who embrace periodic abstinence are Catholic.

Why continence at all? Because humans are continent. We spend more time NOT having sex than we do having sex. This is not true for all animals. There are many species whose entire existence is centered on mating. We are not one of them. (I know there are some men who would beg to differ, but thinking is not doing!) Our natural law says that the ratio of having sex to not having sex is heavily weighted towards the not.

So I would ask anyone. Why doesn’t everyone embrace continence? You ask about the influence of indoctrination. That question is applied much better to those who do NOT embrace continence. Since our reproduction is based on sex, we obviously know sex causes babies. We also know sex doesn’t always cause babies, but no sex will not result in babies. Simply stated under natural law: Sex may cause babies. No sex will not cause babies.
It is only because of unnatural developments that current thought is: sex generally doesn’t cause babies. In other words the developments of contraceptions do not change natural law even if people are “indoctrinated” to think so.

In my studies, it is ingrained in our conscience. That is why people who contracept have a 50% divorce rate as apposed to a less than 5% in non-contracepting couples. If you have two couples who agree on everything except contraception, it is still the contracepting couple who has the higher chance of divorce, regardless of religious affiliation.

 

[YinYangMom]

Mathew George:

You miss my point. Tell me, what should be the motive for volunterily giving up sexual closeness that I feel is good for the couple? I am saying, the Church’s postulation of Natural Law in these matters, does not appear convincing enough, because it doesn’t seem to be so deeply etched into human conscience universally as the Church says. It seems rather the result of Catholic inculcation of our conscience.

We can give up any good thing and offer the sacrifice, for the sake of the souls in purgatory. No questions about it. But the point we are debating is, is giving up sexual experience within marriage just another routine sacrifice that we make, or is it something illicit and therefore we are called upon to eschew?

I guess I don’t understand where you are coming up with the idea that married couples are called to give up sex within marriage, at least called by the Church. That just isn’t the case, and certainly there’s nothing “routine” about it.

Some couples, for whatever reasons, do feel called to give up their sex lives in order to serve God. When that happens they speak with a spiritual advisor and the Church will accept their lifestyle change as a sacrifice for whatever reason they disclosed.

The Church won’t insist this couple resume relations.
The Church didn’t demand they give up relations.
The Church blesses their union/their sacrifice.

As for your question: what should be the motive for volunterily giving up sexual closeness that I feel is good for the couple?

What **you **feel is good for a couple is irrelevant to any couple who is moved spiritually to offer the sacrifice of sexual relations. The matter is between the couple and the Church.

As to what motivates a couple to offer such a sacrifice, that’s a very personal matter so I would be surprised if they were very open about it. As most sacrifices go, humility is one of the virtues which help to make it pleasing to God so I doubt you’d meet many couples openly discussing their calling. But I suppose you’d encounter some in spiritual conferences on the subject.

 

[goofyjim]

My mom told me the story of her parents who are now deceased. I forget whether it was just after her birth or another incident (she wound up being an only child) but they were told they would not be able to safely bear children. From that point on they lived in virtually a brother/sister relationship, meaning abstinence. They were a very devout Irish Catholic couple.