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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mboo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Catholiceducation.org - "Celibacy for The Kingdom & The Fulfillment of Human Sexuality
What follows is only an excerpt from the whole article. The whole article is well worth reading and internalising to understand what The Church states and teaches about celibacy and marriage.
Celibacy: the “Higher” Calling? PART ONE of 2

History has seen some grave distortions of St. Paul’s teaching that he who marries does “well,” but he who refrains does “better” (1Co 7:38). It’s led some to view marriage as a “second class” vocation for those who can’t “handle” celibacy. It’s also solidified people’s erroneous suspicions that sex is inherently tainted, and only those who abstain can be truly “holy.”

Such errors led John Paul II to assert firmly: “The ‘superiority’ of continence to matrimony in the authentic Tradition of the Church never means disparagement of marriage or belittlement of its essential value. It does not mean any shift whatsoever in a Manichean direction” (TB, Apr 7, 1982). (Manicheanism is an ancient heresy that views bodily things as evil, placing all emphasis on spiritual realities.)

Celibacy is “better” or “higher” than marriage in the sense that heaven is better or higher than earth. Celibacy, unlike marriage, is not a sacrament of the heavenly marriage on earth. Celibacy is a sign of life beyond sacraments when we’ll be united with God directly through the “Marriage of the Lamb.”

In fact, I think it’s somewhat unfortunate that we define this vocation based on what it has “given up” rather than defining it in terms of what it has embraced. It seems a lot of confusion could be avoided if we described the celibate vocation as the “heavenly marriage,” for instance.

Of course, few who choose the celibate vocation would claim to experience “heaven on earth” every day of their lives. Celibates forego a great good, and that entails sacrifice. That entails a fruitful suffering “for the sake of the kingdom.”

Here it becomes clear that the Church does not hold the celibate vocation in such high regard because she believes sex is somehow tainted. She holds celibacy in such high regard precisely because she holds that which is sacrificed for the sake of God genital sexual expression in such high regard.
Next Post is PART TWO of 2
 
PART TWO of 2
If sex were something unclean and unholy, offering it as a gift to God would be an act of sacrilege (we all know that there’s no merit in fasting from sin for Lent, right?). But, since sex is one of the most precious treasures God has given humanity, making a gift of it back to God is one of the most genuine expressions of thanksgiving (eucharistia) for such a great gift. The other is receiving it from God’s hands and living it as the expression of the marital covenant.

Everyone is called to a life of holiness by responding to the call to “nuptial love” stamped in his body. But not everyone is called in the same way. “Each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1Co 7:7).

Each person should respond to the gift he’s been given. If one is called to celibacy, then he shouldn’t choose marriage. If one is called to marriage, then he shouldn’t choose celibacy. Hence the important need to discern one’s vocation prayerfully.
 
Last edited:
call to celibacy, call to marriage …, but it is a problem of logic and Saint Paul made it well understood.
To take an example, if someone wants to be a medecine, he does not have to discern whether he should be a doctor or whether he should be a nurse, because being a doctor is superior and more excellent than being a nurse. If he can not be a doctor then he should see if he can be a nurse, that is the logical behavior.
In the same way as Saint Paul counsel the bachelors to remain so, but if they lack continence they marry … So what is excellent and superior must be advised a priori, if one is unable to do what is superior then one can choose what is lower, it makes sense.
So logically those who do not want or who can not consecrate their celibacy to God, must discern whether they have the vocation for marriage. If they do not have one, let them resign themselves to remain single.

And finally the superiority of celibacy is not only because it is the future vocation NO, those who abstained from women on earth because of God will have a special crown in Heaven (see Rev 14-4), and in addition Jesus said that the one who renounces woman and children because of him will be happy a hundredfold on this earth.
So celibacy for God is superior to marriage because it will make us happy a hundred times over here, and will give a special crown to Heaven. That’s the truth that preacher you quoted as a reference does not say (maybe he forgot it?)

and also our modern preacher likes to talk too much about discerning whether our vocation is celibacy or marriage. St Paul has already given clear criteria of discernment; “if you can not abstain you must marry, etc”
But our modern preachers say “discern with your spiritual director” yes, but on what criteria will this director help you discern? we simply mystify what is clear, logical and simple
 
Last edited:
When one chooses marriage, one is not sure that the happiness one seeks there will indeed have it, and even if one has it it can be ephemeral, and even if it lasts death will come the broken one.

But Jesus promised us down here hundredfold if we renounce for him to have wife and children, and a special crown in Heaven…

So we have the choice between an uncertain happiness, ephemeral and terrestrial on one side and on the other side the firm promise of God to have the hundredfold of this happiness on earth, and a special glory in Heaven, only the lack of Faith or weakness of the will can justify making the least excellent choice. as I say since.
So in my opinion, the choice between marriage and celibacy is more a problem of Faith and the will than of vocation properly speaking
 
Not too sure what you mean, neophyte.

Catholic Catechism

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p4.htm

#915 Christ proposes the evangelical counsels, in their great variety, to every disciple. The perfection of charity, to which all the faithful are called, entails for those who freely follow the call to consecrated life the obligation of practicing chastity in celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom, poverty and obedience. It is the profession of these counsels, within a permanent state of life recognized by the Church, that characterizes the life consecrated to God.454

There is celibate chastity and married chastity.
What I mean is that the phrase “chaste as in celibate”, as used in the post I replied to, wrongly equates the two.
 
it is obvious, otherwise virginity and continence would not be superior to marriage. Pope JPII in his controversial teaching “theology of the body” has even admitted that continence is superior to the acts of marriage.
No one is dabating that one way of life is “objectively superior”. However, not everyone is called to practice continence.
I’m not disagreeing that religious life/celibacy is inferior to marriage. The problem is that you just have a lack of understanding of the actual theology around this. The manner in which you interpret this is simply wrong.
You claim that all people should practice continence. And that Christ would return if only we could master our sexual urges and give up making babies. (All that would happen then is that the other religions and the non-believers would thrive and Catholics would die off).

I don’t think you can say that perfect Chastity is practiced only in continence. By the definition of chastity this could not be the case. Chastity is essentially the appropriate use of one’s sexuality in their particular state of life. The Married man who lives his vows and loves and respects his wife well is just as chaste as the Cloistered religious who has never experienced sex.

The problem with your position is that you are trying to devalue marriage in order to promote what you think is the proper place of continence. People are called to both ways of life. Not everyone is going to be a monk.

You’re also forgetting one of the first commands of God to Man “be fruitful and multiply”. For married people to live permanent continence, they must receive permission from the Church as one of the duties of married couples is to be open to life. Very few people get married to practice continence, and rightly so.
These are the contradictions of the new “pastoral” that encourages people to go in the direction of sensual joys, and no longer encourages the search for the real joy that is the joy of contemplation, because joy of contemplation is incompatible with sensual joys
Incompatible with ALL sensual joys? Does that include eating, sleeping, being in nature, hot baths, coffee?
 
before, I was polygamous (several concubines), today I have repudiated them all.
 
Incompatible with ALL sensual joys? Does that include eating, sleeping, being in nature, hot baths, coffee?
Yes.
It is by fasts, mortifications, silence, solitude, meditations that we reach the joy of contemplation
 
Yes.

It is by fasts, mortifications, silence, solitude, meditations that we reach the joy of contemplation
You’re talking very tough forms of religious life here. Carthusians, Trappists etc. But orders like Dominicans are not as tough yet they still manage to comtemplate.

Again, not everyone is called to those particular forms of life. The are objectively superior and “higher” callings. But marriage is a way to salvation for those who are called to it.

Mortification and prayer is not something exclusive to religious life.
 
I live like a monk all my life, till the 40th, but i dont think that celibacy is good personally for me. I regret now that i didnt get marry when i was young. Now i advise all to get married when they are young.
In my 40th i dream about marriage and my celibacy i consider wrong.
First ptoblem was poverty,too young,then study,then business, year after year , and you missed your golden years.
I see some youth in modern age,want to dedicate themselves to celibacy and officially proclaiming it, but why not to do it between you and God?
If you see later that it doesnt work,then you just get married, but if you later fail as official nun or monk, then it will be more shame.
 
It would be a mistake to see marriage as some sort of compromise or necessary evil, created to allow people to control their sexual desires. After all, if anyone gets married, simply as a means of getting lawful sex, then that marriage is doomed to failure.

Rather, the purpose of marriage is for the husband and wife to help each other, and their children grow in holiness. When it is done well, it provides an excellent witness and I’ve seen it also provides the environment to encourage people to to much further lengths in holiness than when they were single (and presumably celibate). To claim that marriage is a sign of a lack of faith is dangerous and absurd. I don’t think I know any good catholic couples who got married as a backup in case the faith didn’t work. Speaking for myself, I can say that I would get married mainly because God led me to do so.

Celibacy, while a higher calling is not automatically superior, as while it frees one from the responsibilities of marriage, the space left by those responsibilities needs to be filled somehow. Priesthood and religious life, by their nature, provide excellent means of doing so. Outside of such a context, while living a holy life is very much possible, it is a lot more difficult. I remember I once heard someone say that they were reconsidering the idea of marriage because he valued his independence the priesthood. I knew that was no way to discern any kind of vocation and that in practice, it would mean just spending more time in the pub or just lazing around.

When I think about it, I think the lack of sex is probably the easiest challenge of a celibate life. After all, many of us technically live or would have lived a celibate life before getting married, and there are far greater temptations there than lust.

While celibacy is a higher calling, it needs to be done properly and for the right reasons. If you go by the logic that celibacy is fully superior to marriage, then it would mean that simply being too lazy to get married or do anything else and mostly living for one’s own gratification, would make one holier than the most devout couple who did everything for the glory of God. If such a person was to make such a claim, anyone should be able to tell that it’s little more than blatantly unjustified pride.
 
I’m not disagreeing that religious life/celibacy is inferior to marriage. The problem is that you just have a lack of understanding of the actual theology around this. The manner in which you interpret this is simply wrong.

You claim that all people should practice continence. And that Christ would return if only we could master our sexual urges and give up making babies. (All that would happen then is that the other religions and the non-believers would thrive and Catholics would die off).
You are excessive, I never claimed that everyone should be single
I answered to an objection that say if everyone (not only Catholics) becomes single because of God humanity will disappear, and I said that humanity can not disappear, because there is the resurrection of the dead . I never claimed without the sacred celibacy of all, Jesus will never come to establish his kingdom.
Moreover, to say that everyone could be single is a purely fictitious hypothesis, and the problem is not the choice that one can make.
The problem is, as I said in title, our pastors no longer speak the whole truth about sacred virgnity and its intrinsic excellence in relation to marriage. To say no more this truth in my opinion is a fault.
 
And why a joke? you have never seen a person with several concubines? you surprise me there.
 
I don’t think you can say that perfect Chastity is practiced only in continence. By the definition of chastity this could not be the case. Chastity is essentially the appropriate use of one’s sexuality in their particular state of life. The Married man who lives his vows and loves and respects his wife well is just as chaste as the Cloistered religious who has never experienced sex.
A married couple who decide at a given moment to live in continence in order to give themselves totally to God, practices a chastity more perfect than a couple who decides to use the acts of marriage normally.
This is the choice that Mary and Joseph made. And after them, some married couples also did it on their merit.
So it is not a question of comparing those who are married to those who are religious. It is really difficult to make clear that sacred continence is not the only fact of the religious.
Religious life exists because of vows of obedience. If it were only a question of the vows of chastity or the vow of poverty, religious life would not even exist. But in the popular imagination is the vow of chastity that gives the reason for being religious life
 
Religious life simply makes easier the acts related to contemplation and Christian perfection. But everyone, including the seculars, are called to strive for perfection, certainly it will be more difficult for a lay person, especially if he is married to tend towards the Christian perfection… And if a lay person can not live the detachment outwardly he must make efforts to live them internally, he must have the desire to live them effectively, I recall the advice of Saint Paul to the laity in relation to the detachment.
From now on those who have wives should live as if they do not; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them. For this world in its present form is passing away.
So lay and religious are called to the same inner perfection, even if externally the religious must show better their inner detachment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top