Why is celibacy better?

[PeterGStanley]

Paul does explain it more in 1 Corinthians 7 “Concerning Married Life”

1 Corinthians 7: 32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs —how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

 

[Qoeleth]

Does the Church teach that it is better never to have been conceived than to be born, suffer and eventually spend eternity with God?

Do you believe it would have been better if you had never been conceived?

I believer it is better for me to be celibate and not conceive children. I encourage others as well.

If there are those who are so tormented by lust that they could not refrain from fornication otherwise, then they should marry. This is what St. Paul says.

As Jesus said, “It is not given to everyone, but those who can, let them accept.” If you cannot understand or accept celibacy, there is no need to be so defensive about it.

 

[nuntym]

+JMJ+

Some people seem to be upset, because I quote the words of the saints, scripture and Christ Himself. Perhaps, just perhaps, it is you who are twisting them.

I’ve shown the posters here how you’ve twisted Christ’s and St. Augustine’s words. Now show me how I have done the same.

Do you consider John of the Cross and St. Francis of Assisi to be heretics? Maybe you consider John the Evangelist to be a gnostic? What about St. Augustine?

St. Thomas Aquinas denied the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Does that make him a heretic? Nope, he is a saint, but he was not infallible, unlike the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. And so are with St. John of the Cross, St. Francis of Assissi, and St Augustine. If I am going to choose between their words and the teachings of the Magisterium, then I would go with the Magisterium.

“Therefore, if I were to ask any good Christian who has a wife, and even though he may still be having children by her, whether he would like to have his wife in that kingdom; mindful in any case of the promises of God, and of that life where this incorruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality; though at present hesitating from the greatness, or at least from a certain degree of love, he would reply with execration that he is strongly averse to it. Were I to ask him again, whether he would like his wife to live with him there, after the resurrection, when she had undergone that angelic change which is promised to the saints, he would reply that he desired this as strongly as he reprobated the other. Thus a good Christian is found to love in one and the same woman the creature of God, whom he desires to be transformed and renewed; but to hate the corruptible and mortal conjugal connection and sexual intercourse: i.e. to love in her what is characteristic of a human being, to hate what belongs to her as a wife. . . . It is necessary, therefore, that the disciple of Christ should hate these things which pass away, in those whom he desires along with himself to reach those things which shall for ever remain; and that he should the more hate these things in them, the more he loves themselves.”[/INDENT]

WELL OF COURSE ST AUGUSTINE’S WORDS MAKE SENSE! Are you telling me that you think when we go to heaven I fully expect and want SEX to be there too?! I love sex because that is one of the best ways given by God to show my love to my spouse here on earth, but I also hate it because it is so limited! With the prospect of better ways of showing my love to God and my loved ones waiting for me in Heaven of course I will come to hate sex, but for now sex will do, because it is the promise of better things to come.

My goodness, who do you think we are?

It seems to typical of some modern Catholics to call anything which does not aggressively affirm the World, the Flesh as gnostic, thereby contradicting the long standing beliefs of the Church.

No, I typically call those who think of the world as evil, when God called His creation good in Genesis chapter 1, even though it will pass, as Gnostic.

Tell me, should we hate Faith and Hope, since when we go to heaven we will have no need of them, hmm?

I say it is better to be celibate and not to have children, and that Original Sin is transmitted by sex, and that the suffering of life is a consequence of the transmission of the Original Sin. This is the teaching of the Church.

Please stop twisting the Church’s teachings, it is getting annoying.

 

[snarflemike]

I believer it is better for me to be celibate and not conceive children. I encourage others as well.

If there are those who are so tormented by lust that they could not refrain from fornication otherwise, then they should marry. This is what St. Paul says.

As Jesus said, “It is not given to everyone, but those who can, let them accept.” If you cannot understand or accept celibacy, there is no need to be so defensive about it.

But you do not believe that it would have been better if you had not been conceived, correct? And for you to have been conceived, well, you know…

When Jesus said “let the little children come to me,” would it have been better if they had not been conceived? Are there any people (aside from Judas?) that the Church teaches it would have been better if they had not been conceived?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

When people conceive children, Original Sin is transmitted (cf. CCC), and thus the suffering and vanity of earthly life is perpetuated (cf. Eccl), thus disease, death and privation lives on. Another soul is cast into the dungeon of the body (cf. St. John of the Cross), the ‘miserable prison of the flesh.’ (cf. St. Francis of Assisi), from which, by the suffering of life and the renouncement of the things of this world (cf. 1 John), it eventually becomes free.

This is why Jesus recommends abstinence and celibacy: “the children of this world marry and are given in marriage, but those considered worthy to attain the resurrection neither marry or are given in marriage.”

I don’t think so. Some would say what you have just strung together is Manichean or Albigensian in tone. It could almost be Buddhist as well. Reminds me of those videos of Clinton on Youtube? where soundbites are patched to make him say the funniest things.(Mind you he sometimes did that without needing to patch the bites).

Perhaps better lines of thought would be:
(1) The non married were more free and unencumbered (both mentally and wrt responsibilities) to spread the Gospel and endure the hardships and persecutions involved.

(2) Celibates dedicated to God (allegedly) provide a clearer outward, symbolic witness to the core values that all Christians must live in their hearts and minds.

(3) Like fasting, many religions realise that the conscious realisation of God’s presence and power and understanding can be hastened by such a sacrificial way of life (if one is called to it).

 

[Philthy]

Some people seem to be upset, because I quote the words of the saints, scripture and Christ Himself.

Not at all. People are upset because you misrepresented the intent of the quote you posted by not giving it full context. Some appear to have concluded, based upon past interaction with you, that you did this intentionally. I think that sums up why “Some people seem to be upset” and that your claim of “because I quote the words of the saints, scripture and Christ Himself” simply lacks objectivity, reflection and any real basis in fact.

 

[Qoeleth]

But you do not believe that it would have been better if you had not been conceived, correct? And for you to have been conceived, well, you know…

When Jesus said “let the little children come to me,” would it have been better if they had not been conceived? Are there any people (aside from Judas?) that the Church teaches it would have been better if they had not been conceived?

Well, that is a question I cannot answer, since I don’t know what it would be like not to be conceived. Is the soul already in Heaven before being placed in the flesh? Is the soul before conception in a state identical to final blessedness? What is the relationship of Heaven to non-existence? I don’t know- nobody knows.

I apologise if anyone feels I was quoting things out of context. The fact is, however, that many of the saints and the tradition speaks about earthly life as the soul being put in exile from its Heavenly homeland, and being cast into the prison of the flesh. In fact, it is a very traditional view, not, as one poster described “damnable heresy.”

Henceforth, I will refrain from speaking about this type of question- since there are obviously accute sensitivities involved.

 

[bmonk]

Why can celibates get closer to God then married people? Is not love for one’s spouse love for God as well? The Catholic apologetic arguments in defense of honoring Mary can be used in defense of marital spirituality. If honoring Mary honors God, than loving one’s spouse honors God as well. Is there something about the exercise of sexual powers themselves which keeps one from spiritual insights? Yet is not sexual pleasure healthy for the mind and body?

Having read through the answers, I’d have to argue that, objectively speaking, we cannot judge whether celibacy or marriage is better.

Celibates get close to God, if they do, by focusing on God in a pure and whole-hearted manner. Married persons come close to God through the love of one another and love of their children and others. They are different, in many ways complementary, forms of life.

What makes the difference is how faithful the person is to his or her vocation, and how responsive they were to God in choosing that vocation. For example, a person who flees to celibacy because he fears commitment and fatherhood may be undermining his lifestyle by never focusing on God, being instead distracted by possessions, lusts, and so on. Any choice can be good or bad by how we live it.

We do not have the luxury of choosing a vocation in the abstract; it is only in our specific circumstanses of character, history, and culture that we can choose.

I would not say that celibates can get closer to God than married people, or vice versa. The question is: Which will help you live the Gospel and follow Christ better?

 

[snarflemike]

Well, that is a question I cannot answer, since I don’t know what it would be like not to be conceived.

You can’t answer whether it would have been better if you had never been conceived? You can’t answer whether existence, life is better than non-existence? What Christian would have a hard time answering that question?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Having read through the answers, I’d have to argue that, objectively speaking, we cannot judge whether celibacy or marriage is better.

Celibates get close to God, if they do, by focusing on God in a pure and whole-hearted manner. Married persons come close to God through the love of one another and love of their children and others. They are different, in many ways complementary, forms of life.

What makes the difference is how faithful the person is to his or her vocation, and how responsive they were to God in choosing that vocation. For example, a person who flees to celibacy because he fears commitment and fatherhood may be undermining his lifestyle by never focusing on God, being instead distracted by possessions, lusts, and so on. Any choice can be good or bad by how we live it.

We do not have the luxury of choosing a vocation in the abstract; it is only in our specific circumstanses of character, history, and culture that we can choose.

I would not say that celibates can get closer to God than married people, or vice versa. The question is: Which will help you live the Gospel and follow Christ better?

BMonk
I suppose the opening question is itself ambiguous as well. “Better” for who? Better for the individual concerned, better for spread of the Gospel in the world, better for the holiness of the Church or just better all things being equal and objective (I do not actually know what this would mean). Do all the above get advanced together? In the end only God knows and we cannot so speculation is probably pointless.

As you say, if we discern that God calls us one way rather than the other then that is prob the best way for all involved until God telegraphs us otherwise. It does seem naiive for someone to choose celibacy simply on the basis of it being the “better” way as it may not be better if one isn’t actually called/suited for it.

 

[Holly3278]

I think celibacy is better because it frees up all your time to be spent on God rather than on a family. That said, I have decided that I am going to remain celibate for my entire life. I have chosen the single life as my vocation. Here is what the Bible has to say:

For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."
(Matthew 19:12 RSV-CE)

To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
(1 Corinthians 7:8-9 RSV-CE)

Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord. If any one thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry–it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.
(1 Corinthians 7:25-38 RSV-CE)

 

[feed_me]

I have to have a say on this, because this has been bugging the **** out of me for years, and I never fully understood it. I have tried asking and not got a weight lifted of the shoulder response. I thought I would ask it on here and get an simplified answer and not a book answer. I can take a page in laymens terms, but a book no.

Ok, so here it goes. My problem with celibacy for priests, is that it feels forced- Matthew 19:12 “Some because they were made so by others”. What I see by that is the only way to serve God in the Catholic Church is to be celibate. I don’t see that free choice being made. Matthew 19: 12-- “some because they gave up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom”. which I see that as the free choice, that is where my heart is, and it’s stuck there like a doomed person in Hell. What I mean by that is Priests become ordained and aren’t forced to take that vow. If a Priest feels that as a person he can do more good for the Lord then if he were married, then he can take that vow, but if not let him marry. 1 timothy 3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer1 must be above reproach, the husband of one wife,2 sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, 5 for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. 7 Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.

Those letters in bold bring my questions to mandatory Priestly celibacy. I also look at the OT and see that the Priest and Prophets were married, God encouraged them to marry. Look at Isaiah God told him to marry, and have kids-- Isaiah 8:3. And in Ezekiel 44: 22 God tells them how they are to marry. It doesn’t make sense for God to skip from OT of marriage, to the ET of marriage.

That is what I have for now I said what I could on my end. More questions will come later.
Can I please possibly get and answer

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I have to have a say on this, because this has been bugging the **** out of me for years

My problem with celibacy for priests, is that it feels forced
I don’t see that free choice being made.
Matthew 19: 12-- “some because they gave up marriage for the sake of the Kingdom”. I see that as the free choice…
What I mean by that is Priests become ordained and aren’t forced to take that vow. If a Priest feels that as a person he can do more good for the Lord then if he were married, then he can take that vow, but if not let him marry.
Those letters in bold bring my questions to mandatory Priestly celibacy.

Feedme
I couldn’t see a direct question in your request but based on what I understand you to be saying (as summarised above) I guess the question is “why is celibacy a requirement for Priesthood in the Catholic Church?”

Well, you are right of course. You may already know it is a man made rule not a command of Jesus Christ. It was always an aspirational encouragement that got turned into church law/policy laid down in medieval times (I cannot remember exactly when 1100s or so). There is lots of spiritual blah blah blah why but the fundamental reason, it seems to me, was pragmatic. Wealthy married priests were apparantly tending to appropriate land, revenues and buildings from communally held “parishes” and gifting them to their own offspring.

Keep in mind also that it has always been the tradition that one could not marry after ordination and if one’s wife died after ordination one could not remarry and remain an active priest. I believe one had to be celibate to be made a bishop.

You may be surprised to know there are apparantly some married Catholic priests who are allowed same by special dispensation (having come across as married ministers from other Christian Churches).

Of course our Eastern Catholic Orthodox brothers, not under Roman Church law, have kept this old tradition up.

I don’t know if this answers your question but hope it helps.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I think celibacy is better because it frees up all your time to be spent on God rather than on a family.

Holly
I suppose the reason that this question has become problematic in the last 100 years or so is exactly because of what I have quoted from your contribution here.

The contrast/distinction between time on “God” and time on “family”, while a traditional and accepted piety, does not really show that God gives different people different ways in which to best come to him and serve the world.

Why would God not be equally or even better found (for most people) through all the necessary duties and so called “distractions” of family life? What is really meant by “spending time with God”? Surely the devoted carrying out of family duties also a "spending time with God equally efficacious wrt grace.

Family life is now seen to be a valid calling in its own right and just as direct way to God - not some sort of distracting nuisance that takes away one’s time from time better spent on “the real thing.” Presumably that “real thing” is hours and hours of prayer, mass or other non-material devotionals or lay “poncing” around the altar in white robes as my Parish Priest is want to over harshly say.

It is great you have found your calling in celibacy and your extra time in spiritual affairs works for you.

 

[feed_me]

Feedme
I couldn’t see a direct question in your request but based on what I understand you to be saying (as summarised above) I guess the question is “why is celibacy a requirement for Priesthood in the Catholic Church?”

Well, you are right of course. You may already know it is a man made rule not a command of Jesus Christ. It was always an aspirational encouragement that got turned into church law/policy laid down in medieval times (I cannot remember exactly when 1100s or so). There is lots of spiritual blah blah blah why but the fundamental reason, it seems to me, was pragmatic. Wealthy married priests were apparantly tending to appropriate land, revenues and buildings from communally held “parishes” and gifting them to their own offspring.

Keep in mind also that it has always been the tradition that one could not marry after ordination and if one’s wife died after ordination one could not remarry and remain an active priest. I believe one had to be celibate to be made a bishop.

You may be surprised to know there are apparantly some married Catholic priests who are allowed same by special dispensation (having come across as married ministers from other Christian Churches).

Of course our Eastern Catholic Orthodox brothers, not under Roman Church law, have kept this old tradition up.

I don’t know if this answers your question but hope it helps.

You answered half the question. The other half is still in need of answering. Bring me another one. What if somebody is called but doesn’t want to take that forced vow, but still wants to answer the call? This question is for anybody to answer.

 

[Philthy]

My problem with celibacy for priests, is that it feels forced-

 

[Philthy]

What if somebody is called but doesn’t want to take that forced vow, but still wants to answer the call? This question is for anybody to answer.

Become a deacon, become a missionary, serve as a eucharistic minister, etc etc

 

[snarflemike]

You answered half the question. The other half is still in need of answering. Bring me another one. What if somebody is called but doesn’t want to take that forced vow, but still wants to answer the call? This question is for anybody to answer.

What if somebody is called but doesn’t want to … but still wants to answer the call? Marriage, girlfriends, money, 8-5 job, being his own boss, all those things might be what somebody wants, but that’s not what the Latin Catholic priesthood offers. It’s a prudential decision by the western Church. The example of Christ is good evidence that they may be onto something.

 

[RyanBlack]

Well, that is a question I cannot answer, since I don’t know what it would be like not to be conceived. Is the soul already in Heaven before being placed in the flesh? Is the soul before conception in a state identical to final blessedness? What is the relationship of Heaven to non-existence? I don’t know- nobody knows.

I apologise if anyone feels I was quoting things out of context. The fact is, however, that many of the saints and the tradition speaks about earthly life as the soul being put in exile from its Heavenly homeland, and being cast into the prison of the flesh. In fact, it is a very traditional view, not, as one poster described “damnable heresy.”

Henceforth, I will refrain from speaking about this type of question- since there are obviously accute sensitivities involved.

No, the soul is not already in Heaven before being plaed in the flesh. It is not in a state identifical to final blessedness before conception. The soul does not exist prior to conception.

 

[clem456]

This is a common error, widespread in the modern Church, which frequently attempt to deny “the evil of carnal concupiscence from which man who is born therefrom contracts original sin.” (St. Augustine)

If sex transmits Original Sin, how could it possibly be good? From Original Sin arises the great suffering of life, and indeed, the whole need for redemption and atonement. “For when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin; and sin bringeth forth its own child, which is death.”

Celibacy spares the souls of your potential children the vast burden of Original Sin, and the consequence of a life spent atoning for it in the pain of living.

Be being celibate- you are not spreading the disease of Original Sin, your are not perpetuated the suffering of which the flesh is heir.

You’re joking.
Aren’t you?