gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) (06/05/90)
[Please post this for me]
Brian Coughlin writes:
----------------------------------------
Celibacy, in the eyes of the Church, is a condition that fosters a
deeper and more devoted life to God. That fact alone is enough to
promote celibacy as a beneficial Christian force. NOTE: in this
setting, it can be seen that the Church does NOT condemn
non-celibacy... any more than the Church condemns the laity for not
being of religious high status.
I recall that St. Paul urged celibacy to ALL Christians, but even
he made a point of saying that it was merely a recommendation... a
piece of non-divine advice, if you will.
"Should you marry, however, you will not be committing sin."
(1 Corinthians 7:28)
"The unmarried man is busy with the Lord's affairs, concerned with
pleasing the Lord; but the married man is busy with this world's
demands and occupied with pleasing his wife. This means he is
divided."
(1 Corinthians 7:32-33)
----------------------------------------
On the other hand, Paul, when describing the qualifications for a
biship, said that he should be the ``husband of one wife.''
It seems to me that one reason that Roman Catholicism later mandated a
celibate clergy was the strong influence of Greek thought, especially
neo-platonism. This stream of thought emaphasized the spirit-matter
distinction, and tended to equate the body with evil. One of the
effects of this mandate was that the amorous proclivities of the
clergy became a laughing stock in the middle ages, and bastard
children of high clergy were taken for granted.
To me, this whole situation illustrates the danger of enshrining an
authoritative interpretation of what we think God is saying to us,
whether he is saying it by the scriptures or by ``tradition.'' The
effect of doing this is that errors get propagated because there is no
easy mechanism to remove them.
For me, there are two (not unrelated) issues here: epistemology and
authority. In terms of the first, we are told in the bible to test
all things, and to be skeptical (humble) of our own certainty ("He who
says, `I know' does not yet know as he ought.'') In terms of the
second, we are warned against those who ``Teach the commandments of
men as doctrines of God'' and those who lord it over people. Christ
turned lordship and hierarchy on its head.
--
Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com
Are Saturday morning cartoons proof that adults hate kids?
Answer: Yes. (From "Life in Hell")
[Protestants certainly have the suspicion that celibacy in the RCC is
based on a distrust and/or dislike of sex. However it's unclear to me
that there's any evidence for this. In principle at least RC theology
takes marriage more seriously than Protestant theology, making it a
sacrament which means that it is a way in which God becomes present
among us. A recent book by Elaine Pagels (unfortunately it's at home,
so I don't have the exact title, but it's got the word "Sex" in it)
argues that celibacy was part of the basic Christian lifestyle from
the very beginning. I'm not sure quite what to make of her argument,
but it is certainly not clear to me that the accusation of
neo-Platonic influence is a fair one. --clh]hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (06/07/90)
In article <Jun.4.23.17.01.1990.15461@athos.rutgers.edu> gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes: > I recall that St. Paul urged celibacy to ALL Christians, but even >he made a point of saying that it was merely a recommendation... a >piece of non-divine advice, if you will. > > "Should you marry, however, you will not be committing sin." > > (1 Corinthians 7:28) Well, I think there is a lot of misunderstanding about this chapter of 1 Corinthians, and I don't claim to know exactly what was being said. However, I think there are some things we should keep in mind about it and that in light of these things it does not appear that Paul was as anti-marriage as he at first appears. First the chapter starts with Paul saying, "Concerning the things you wrote to me..." Clearly he is responding to a question or comment from someone in Corinth. In other words, this chapter is Paul's answer to a question, but we do not have the question! Second, in verse 26 Paul says specifically that a man should not seek to change his marital status "for the present distress." Unfortunately we do not know what distress he referred to - persecution, illness, etc. To me this indicates that the suggestion to not marry applied only to a specific situation and was not intended to be a general rule. It may have even been this situation which lead to the letter from the Corinthians to which Paul was responding. Also, in verse 7 he expresses a wish that all men were as himself. Was Paul a lifelong bachelor? Probably not. I understand that he had probably been a member of the sanhedrin (although I can't give any specific documentation of that) which would have required that he be married. If so, Paul would have been either married or (more likely) widowed. Later in the same letter (1 Cor 11:11) Paul also says that in the Lord the man is not without the woman nor the woman without the man. This hardly seems consistent with any belief in lifelong general celibacy, and indeed seems to indicate that we should plan to marry when the time is right. In summary, I think 1 Cor 7 is not an injunction to avoid marriage in general, but a suggestion that in a particular situation marriage should be postponed until a more suitable time.
dhosek@sif.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (06/07/90)
In article <Jun.4.23.17.01.1990.15461@athos.rutgers.edu>, gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) writes... >To me, this whole situation illustrates the danger of enshrining an >authoritative interpretation of what we think God is saying to us, >whether he is saying it by the scriptures or by ``tradition.'' The >effect of doing this is that errors get propagated because there is no >easy mechanism to remove them. Another poster referred to priestly celibacy as Catholic doctrine. Nope. It's discipline. There's a pretty critical difference between the two. Not eating meat on Fridays is an example of discipline. Dispensations from this are not infrequent (growing up in Chicago, one would frequently see a notice in the Tribune around March 17th indicating that it would be OK for people to eat corned beef for St. Patrick's day). I think that you're thinking that there's a bit more emphasis on priestly celibacy than there actually is. Chris adds: >[Protestants certainly have the suspicion that celibacy in the RCC is >based on a distrust and/or dislike of sex. However it's unclear to me >that there's any evidence for this. In principle at least RC theology >takes marriage more seriously than Protestant theology, making it a >sacrament which means that it is a way in which God becomes present >among us. A recent book by Elaine Pagels (unfortunately it's at home, >so I don't have the exact title, but it's got the word "Sex" in it) >argues that celibacy was part of the basic Christian lifestyle from >the very beginning. I'm not sure quite what to make of her argument, >but it is certainly not clear to me that the accusation of >neo-Platonic influence is a fair one. --clh] In certain apocryphal NT works, there are some fairly clear indications of the strong belief in the holiness of celibacy in early Christian thought; the following are excerpts from Chapter 2 of The Acts of Paul: Blessed are they that keep the flesh chaste, for they shall become the temple of God. Blessed are they that abstain (_or_ the continent) for unto them shall God speak. ... Blessed are they that posses their wives as though they had them not, for they shall inherit God. ... Blessed are the bodies of virgins, for they shall be well-pleasing unto God and shall not lose the reward of their continence (chastity), for the word of the Father shall be unto them a work of salvation in the say of his Son, and they shall have rest world without end. (quoted from _The Apocyphal New Testament_, edited by Montague Rhodes James. Clarendon Press, Oxford: 1924.) -dh --- Don Hosek "When I was younger, I would throw dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu spitballs at girls that I liked. Now, dhosek@ymir.bitnet I beg and plead for dates. Frankly, the uunet!jarthur!ymir old way was more satisfying."