The nature of the 'gift of celibacy'
Submitted by Forgiven on April 3 2002 16:19:01
|
This is partly a response to Sally below, but does raise a wider issue. At the core of her reply is a certain interpretation of the passage in Paul where he talks about 'the passions being strong' - or 'it is better to marry than to burn.' I Cor 7 v 9. The question she raises is the degree to which the 'gift of celibacy' means that there is no temptation / sexual attraction in the celibate's life at all. I have a problem at point; strictly speaking I don't have the empirical evidence to argue the point. There is the danger of a circular argument here - the monks and others who give up on their vow because it is too hard obviously didn't have the gift. But the alternative - reflecting what seems to be the mainstream view - is that celibacy, whilst being a gift, doesn't mean that you aren't sexually attracted, just that you've learn to live without genital sexual expression and to find your intimacy needs met in a variety of different relationships rather than with a spouse. (This is expounded on at length in a book I've recently reread 'An experience of Celibacy. by Keith Clark, a Capuchin Friar (one of the branches of the Franciscans). Unfortunately it's out of print... Note that this approach makes much more sense of the claim that Jesus was tempted as we were, but without sin; if he had a gift of celibacy which means that he didn't have to fight this battle, he got off lightly!! Once we've established that point, it is to a large extent irrelevant to my mind what the object of our sexual attraction is. Clearly Sally goes to far with the comment: any desire besides that of a man for his wife or a wife for her husband came about after the fall. how else would you ever be aware of the possibility of being attracted to someone. And again I feel that she is assuming that ALL sexual attraction is inherently wrong - a claim I still don't see any biblical evidence for. It's a part of your life - some people are attractive because they make you laugh - others because they make you think - others because there is some sort of sexual attraction. In any relationship there is a mixture of all these - it's part of life, and we're better off learning to live with it than pretending it isn't so and then getting a nasty surprise when it suddenly blows up in our faces. Perhaps this comment of Sally focuses the issue: Our sexual desires are all bent out of shape. How can we think that the desire for a child, or a family member, or an animal, or some opposite-sex partner we are not married to, is a good thing when to act on such a desire would be an evil thing? How can the desire for evil be good? It's not that the desire for evil is good or bad. It is just there; it's what we do about it. We can pretend it isn't there - and deny we are human. We can immerse ourselves in it to the point where we are sinning in our minds. Or we can find a middle path where we recognise that it is part of being human, thank God for the person and the more positive role they play in my life because of the sexual attraction, but then walk on by. I think it is the same as looking at a cream cake that we don't have the money to buy (or which we are too overweight for it to be appropriate for us to buy!). We can pretend there is no attraction there - we can wallow in the desire to buy it - or we can thank God for the gift of good tasting food - and walk on by. To condemn the BL for being energised by the sight of a cute boy is as logical as condemning a diabetic for wanting the cake which would do them a lot of harm. I don't know how much sense this all makes to anyone else (I'd like to know I'm not completely nuts on this!!) But it seems to hold together for me. The trick is to not cross the line to 'wallowing'; to know what is holy before God - and what is not glorifying. It's not an easy line to draw, but I believe that it is possible and right - and wiser than pretending that we aren't drawn to boys at all. |
Follow ups: