Why the Church no longer teaches the superiority of celibacy over marriage

[Mboo]

Is it really God who attracts us or our passions?
It is not because we feel attracted to marriage that marriage would be the appropriate path for our salvation. In fact when we get married it is especially the enjoyment of the happiness of marriage that attracts us and not the considerations of our salvation

 

[AdamP88]

If the human population were in danger of extinction, this could be an objective and acceptable reason for the need to marry.

Decide to found a private family without objective necessity while the resources used to found and maintain this family could be used to save a part, a very small part of the billions of humans languishing in a spiritual misery, material, corporal, moral is not a fair choice in my opinion.

Since, objectively, in order to love with love of charity one’s prochan and God one does not need to marry, only a weakness of the intellect which does not believe or which does not understand the superiority of celibacy, or a Weak willpower that is unable to sacrifice the joys of marriage out of love for God can justify the marriage now. So in either case it’s an expression of imperfection

I really think you just don’t understand Church teaching.

This isn’t a Catholic view. Find a Church document to back this up.

 

[Mboo]

Oh that’s all you have to object. I am in the field of simple logic for the moment. Thank you for refuting with reasonable raguments the points I raised

 

[Mboo]

you know, our Faith is reasonable it is even a dogma, and the option currently taken by the Church especially with regard to the teaching on chastity (marriage, celibacy, etc.) seems to me to be obviously unreasonable.
I have been meditating and reading a lot about chastity since the fathers of the Church until today. There has been a real break since I believe JP2, and there are obvious errors in the over-valorization of marriage that we make today, I want to overvalue marriage but to do it in the truth.
I am French-speaking, I have already raised this problem more precisely in French-speaking forums, but no one to answer the obvious errors that are found in the current pastoral care of the Church.
So I turned to a forum of a wider audience …

 

[Reuben_J]

We also can say that our marriage is sacred, a grace, a Sacrament, given by God. When we marry, we are accepting God’s gift of marraige for us.Therefore, it is a high calling of offering and consecrating our marraige to God, making God as the Lord of our marriage, and thus in everything we do together in marriage, even sex, are made holy and offered to God, in recognizing that Matrimony is His gift.

Brother, we can always look at each state of life accordingly in a holy way because we are Christians and what we do, we do them for God.

Your contention is moot. Either you are married or single, whatever is the case, you can find holiness in life. It does not have to be celibate only. God bless us in either state of life that we choose. More importantly, is what we do and that our hearts are for God.

 

[Mboo]

I agree with you. But to say that one can sanctify oneself in the maraige is obvious, for one can sanctify oneself everywhere, even in prison, even in illness, to say that it is a sacrament does not confide excellence to those who marry by this fact alone. The problem is like a loss of the sense of excellence
In other words, from St. Paul up to Pie12, people were encouraged to remain single, to prefer celibacy, and to marry let’s say it clearly by default, which is reasonable when we see all the advantages. that celibacy offers in the perspective of salvation, and all the constraints that ordinarily are found in marriage when one strives for perfection.
Today it is the opposite, we are in a campaign of overvaluation of marriage to the detriment of sacred celibacy (we no longer recall the excellence, beauty and superiority of sacred celibacy, we confuse celibacy sacred and priesthood etc) and above all, this overvaluation is, in my opinion, fallacious, because it no longer focuses on what is essential (Christian perfection).

 

[Mboo]

Error the sacrament of marriage is for those who are already married. One must first be married civilly to receive the sacrament of marriage.
God recognizes and blesses all civil marriages, and this one must precede the attribution of the sacrament of marriage

 

[Mboo]

The sex act is an act in which one imitates God to a great degree. One gives their all to another and in doing so creates life.

Yes, but imitating God in this way does not make us look like God, for even brutes and animals imitate God in this way.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

but no one to answer the obvious errors that are found in the current pastoral care of the Church.

A lot of us don’t think there are “obvious errors” “in the current pastoral care of the Church.”

It sounds like you are just in search of a bunch of people who will agree with your viewpoint.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Error the sacrament of marriage is for those who are already married. One must first be married civilly to receive the sacrament of marriage.

God recognizes and blesses all civil marriages, and this one must precede the attribution of the sacrament of marriage

You do know that in the United States and some other countries, there is not a separate “civil marriage”? You get married before the priest and that’s that. One ceremony, that is sacramental if you have both been baptized. The ceremony performed by the priest is recognized by the governmental authority. You are not required to go get civilly married first and the vast majority of couples don’t.

 

[Mboo]

this I did not know. But what I especially wanted to make clear is that marriage is different from the sacrament of marriage, and that this sacrament is for those who want to marry or for those who are already married (civilly).
And a sacrament provides help, a remedy against sin or against imperfections. Those who marry need special help from God because they have taken a path of sanctification ordinarily “perilous”.
So even if the sacrament is something wonderful, it does not mean that the beneficiaries are necessarily in a better situation than those who do not need it

 

[Kei]

The state did not have the power to marry until like a hundred years ago. It is for legal reasons that people are civilly married, the sacramental marriage is what matters for Church unions. A marriage between two correctly baptized Christians is sacramental.

That’s like saying because animals eat it means the Eucharist isn’t particularly special. You just seem to not like marriage/relations, when it’s a necessary thing.

 

[BarbTh]

I think that The Church shot herself in the foot when she talked about good, better or best - higher or lower. The celibate state points, as it were, to Heaven where all will be celibate; therefore, because Heaven is accepted by all as a superior state to life on earth, celibacy can be said to be higher.
“Shot herself in the foot” because now The Church labours often without much luck at all to get ordinary people to understand SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE in spiritual theological terms. We are still now all hung up on good, better, best - higher or lower.

But in the final analysis, nothing in the subject under discussion whatsoever can be higher or best, more perfect, than God’s Will for a person and no matter what state of life to which he or she is called. That is highest and best for that person SUBJECTIVELY, while theologians have every right and good to argue in terms of OBJECTIVELY good, better and best, higher or lower. But even theologians would have to agree that nothing is higher, best or more perfect than to embrace The Will of God detached from whether I like it or I do not, and no matter where His Will might place me in the scheme of things objectively.

Watched a movie the other night “Keeping Mum” (comedy). The lead is a vicar (Rowan Atkinson) and gives an address at one point to a church conference on “God’s Mysterious Ways” Here are his closing remarks to his address:

"What in the end all this comes down to is how we deal in life with the problems we have to face. Sometimes it’s a question of just taking action, of making decisions, of involving others, of finding your resolve and seeing it through. But at other times, it’s about something much less tangible. Sometimes all it takes is a little grace. A little of God’s grace, and all our problems seem to fade away. Now, should we demand an explanation from our Lord? Question his methods? Or should we merely enjoy the benefits? Well, I don’t think the Good Lord wants us to question too much.

Isaiah Chapter 55 Verse 8: “My ways are not your ways.” And I think what he basically means by that is,

“I’m mysterious folks. Live with it.”

Sometimes and perhaps even often, we have to be silent before The Mystery of God and His mysterious actions and decisions, His Divine Will. Silent and humbly accepting unconcerned in the least about theological OBJECTIVE determinations and quantifications.

“I’m mysterious folks. Live with it.”

 

[Richca]

Show me one teaching, only one since 1954 that recalls this truth. The last is that of Pope Pius 12 in 1954.
Since then, the Church has been following a logic of overvaluing marriage to the detriment of celibacy.
Whether in the pastoral teachings, the homelies, no one recalls this truth, if you even have a homily of a priest on marriage and chastity that says this truth, give me a link on it.

Vatican Council II, Optatam Totius 10, Decree on the Training of Priests:
Students ought rightly to acknowledge the duties and dignity of Christian matrimony, which is a sign of the love between Christ and the Church. Let them recognize, however, the surpassing excellence of virginity consecrated to Christ (23), so that with a maturely deliberate and generous choice they may consecrate themselves to the Lord by a complete gift of body and soul.

Footnote 23 points to the encyclical of Pius XII SACRA VIRGINITAS which is about consecrated virginity whether of a priest, religious, or lay person.

 

[Mboo]

But in the final analysis, nothing in the subject under discussion whatsoever can be higher or best, more perfect, than God’s Will for a person and no matter what state of life to which he or she is called.

About the will of God.
God in his wisdom may want your child to be sick and give him a sickness that is difficult to cure. But you must want what God commands or advises you and not necessarily what he wanted, so you must want your child to be healthy, even as God wanted him to be sick.
Let’s go back to marriage and celibacy. Our passions (not God) attracted us to the natural joys of marriage. But God leaves us free to choose what is good (marriage) or what is excellent (sacrificing these joys of marriage for one’s love). So when we get married we have freely chosen to follow what pleases us, we have not necessarily followed the absolute will of God, here the will of God is to leave us free to do what is good or what is excellent .
“Love and do what you want” (St Augustin) sums up the situation a bit

 

[BarbTh]

Hi Mboo - Thank you for the comments.
If one reads up on Divine Providence from the CCC, it is very firm that God does not will evil small or large anywhere at all in His creation, but He does permit because He can draw good out of it. It is a question of God’s Direct Will and His Permissive Will.
If you need the paragraphs concerned in the CCC let me know. I am very distracted just now. Or I might return when I can and post the paragraphs.

Re Divine Providence - it is explained fully in the CCC. If a child or even oneself is struck with a serious illness, God would not have permitted it unless He could draw good out of it and the good He intends may be the desire and efforts of parents to assist the child to overcome the illness and with recourse to God and His Will “Not my will but Thine be done”. A powerful witness! As I quoted, it is very much a case of “I am mysterious, folks. Live with it”. We can never be sure absolutely of the good God intends to draw from a situation of evil - we can only try to understand and work with the situation.

If God leaves us free to make our own choice where vocation is concerned, then we are indeed free to choose without any ‘penalty’ from God for not choosing what is most perfect. The moment we make our choice and strive to live out that choice in holiness, God is right in there with us with every support and encouragement, every Grace we need to be great saints, no matter what vocational path we choose.

“Love and do what you will” (St Augustine) I think is in terms of agape/supernatural love and personally think it is what St Augustine meant. Library : Eros and Agape | Catholic Culture

 

[Mboo]

Here it is a comment addressed to the priests, and this further reinforces the confusion according to which sacred celibacy is when one is a priest.
Normally the teaching of the primacy of celibacy over marriage is in catechesis on marriage that must be found. This was the case when Jesus and St Paul gave their teaching on marriage, the catechism of the Council of Trent. Also mentioned in his chapter on marriage
And even in the CCC it is in the chapter of marriage that one speaks of sacred virginity, AL (which is devoted to family and marriage) also speaks of celibacy. So the tradition of talking about celibacy when you teach about marriage is always respected. But CCC and AL no longer talk about the superiority of celibacy.

 

[Mboo]

Thank you BarbTh
I totally agree with you, Whether one chooses marriage or celibacy God is always on our side my problem is not the choice that one or the other make…
I only have the impression that today our pastors are no longer telling the whole truth, they have made the choice to overvalue the marriage without my seeing an objective reason for it… They hide truths about the intrinsic excellence of virginity and sacred continence

 

[whyeyeman]

The word “superiority” in today’s world…where everyone’s self-esteem is so fragile…creates problems.

How on earth does that make any sense? What problems are going to be created? This claim makes no sense whatsoever and is just a cop out.

 

[BarbTh]

I have to wonder if The Church as hierarchy has woken up to the fact that without marriage, there is no Church and no celibate vocations. Here in Australia our pews for Sunday Mass have fewer and fewer occupants. The Church as hierarchy and that includes our priests can see to what they must appeal to correct the situation. By very far and for most of our existence the majority in the pews were married people with children. But prior to Vatican II, only priesthood and religious life were considered vocations per se. Marriage arrived late on the scene to become very respectable, a sacrament underscored and a holy state of life and a vocation per se. Some celibate vocations are still struggling to be recognised in the pews as it were.
Personally, I think the horse has bolted and it will be many generations before the whole situation corrects. As Pope Benedict while still Father Ratzinger wrote and perhaps prophetically:

The Church will become small. She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members…

It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church. Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.
The church will become small