The Difference Between Celibacy and Chastity.
In a recent dispatch from NewsMass, ( Feb. '03) it was reported through retired Episcopalian Bishop, Rt. Rev. C.F. Allison that the Cowley Brothers, an Episcopalian Religious Order, were changing the wording of their 100 year old Vow structure. No longer, he said, disapprovingly, would they take vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience but from henceforth the holy words would be enunciated as Poverty, CELIBACY and Obedience.
Why the change? He says that the new word ( i.e. celibacy) is A EUPHEMISM FOR SODOMY !!!!!!! I was shocked and profoundly confused. When I took a solemn Promise of Celibacy in what was then called the rite of Ordination to the Sub-diaconate, I believed that I was offering myself to the Lord forever in an exclusive and holy giving of self to Him, and generously giving up any future hope of marriage with loving wife and children. It was an "in" joke among the candidates as we prepared for this momentous step to list mentally the names of all the pretty girls we had known. Then just before the Call to the altar from the Bishop we would say ( under our breaths)....Good bye....Joan or Mary or Dolly. And we meant It !!
This was a far cry from Sodomy ( obviously derived from the outrageous Biblical city of Sodom). From our studies in moral theology we knew that Sodomy was the term used for same sex behavior or homosexual intercourse. It referred to that which was pejoratively mentioned in the Bible (Lev. 18, 22) with the frightening Hebrew word TOEVAH ( or disgusting). It usually meant having intercourse anally. What could this have to do with celibacy? How could homosexuality have anything to do with celibacy? It just didn't make any sense ! No wonder the Internet story shook up not only me, the dinosaur priest, but many others who wagged their heads in disbelief !
So, apparently, there was and is ambiguity about the meaning of Celibacy. In a recent episode of LAW AND ORDER, a usually well informed program, the assistant DA confidently asserted that the whole meaning of celibacy with priests was simply to contain/repress the sexual drives of priests. Does the average person see priests as biting their thumbs and climbing walls out of frustration in the non discharge of their libidinal instincts? Is celibacy meant to depress these natural drives and turn average young people into a-sexual zombies? If this is so, how would one interpret the radical word change of the Cowley Brothers? It is a "puzzlement."
If one were to interpret celibacy in a negative manner, one might describe it simply as a total " giving up" of something (i.e. marriage). This conjures up feelings and concepts like "vacuum", " emptiness", " nothingness", and the like. Any therapist would have a field day dissecting the unhealthy dimensions of such a pathetic involvement. Obviously some clergy and religious have approached their " Celibacy" in that ill informed manner and have paid dearly for such ignorance. How this nonsense happened is again a "puzzlement."
More practically, one might describe the Positive side of religious celibacy. Certainly, the phenomenological side of celibacy is Non-marriage, but the interior aspect or intentionality is really at issue. Exclusive intentionality, generosity with the Lord, the use of the will, the understanding of what it means to love --in the manner of the Lord -- - - ---- these are really what celibacy is about !
So what about the Cowley group? Why drop chastity and insert celibacy? The Bishop more than implies that the Cowley chap can now say: " I am celibate" but not bound by the old chastity rules. I am not married and will never marry. Therefore I am faithful to the vows. I can now "love" another man sexually and never break my vows!!!! This is blatant rationalization but at least it is open about intention.
And it is not only the Cowley Brothers. In his book GAY PRIESTS,( 1989) Dr. James Wolf, sociologist, presents a study of Roman Catholic priests which says precisely the same thing. One of the priests, under a pseudonym, states his belief that he and his priest lover in their overtly genital behavior have found the solution to loneliness, frustration and isolation.(p.102) He alleges that there is no "dissonance" relative to his priesthood in this " relationship." One wonders what such strange "making the end justify the means" would do to any stable moral system?
Wolf offers insightful test items E.G. : Celibacy means forgoing marriage but not necessarily sexual activity; Celibacy is an ideal rather than a law which must be obeyed ( page 185). The responses of his sample indicate this viewpoint is more common than one would imagine.
From an "Orthodox" Catholic point of view, celibacy is BOTH negative and positive in that one does give up something attractive and normal, i.e. family life but for a powerful attractive reason, i.e., exclusive Jesus centered LOVE ! If one does not know the meaning of love, one cannot understand or be a celibate in the sense of the Catholic church's position.. It is a love choice between TWO goods which are 1) Family-love and 2)complete self giving to Christ. How undiluted is this love of Christ? ---- ah - - that is the life long question( in fact, in both instances) since love is dynamic and ever growing and never arrives at a real totality. Wherever love is, it grows or dies. It glows or darkens. It gets stronger or weaker. It never stands still.
With such a definition, the Cowley move becomes a cause for sadness--- and even for feeling betrayed. One cannot commit oneself exclusively to Christ by vow and subsequently try to legitimize forbidden behavior! And certainly, again, not just Cowley who represent only the tip of this dreary iceberg! It means, also, priests and brothers and nuns and others who have made the commitment by vow or solemn promise.
How, then does this position mesh with chastity? In fact, what IS chastity? Is celibacy interchangeable with chastity?
From an official Catholic point of view Chastity "....means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being." We speak here of what Fr. John Harvey calls " Interior chastity" which involves both interior and exterior behavior. Integration refers to one's sense of "Order" ( or God's Plan ) and hence, in the broadest sense, disorder can impinge on or actually be unchastity ! This obviously teaches that chastity is EVERYONE'S obligation. We are all called to observe God's Plan. We are all called to be chaste but all are not called to be celibate!
So, all celibate persons must be chaste but not all chaste persons must be celibate. When we translate this principle into everyday life, we are saying that the lawfully married man and woman are entitled to a vigorous and fully creative sexual life with all its joys and consolations and meaning possible. In effect, we argue that sexual behavior belongs exclusively in marriage BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN, Anything else is disorder and therefore unchaste by definition. This clearly rules out the possible " Adam and Steve" implication of the Cowley et al. move. Homosexual behavior is disordered and therefore unchaste.
Such a position moves far beyond the homosexual world. It speaks to Lust which is inordinate desire and the reduction of the human being to a thing. This is called Reification, clearly disordered. ( cf. Pope John Paul's highly misunderstood statement that a man cannot lust after his own wife and the uproar from an unlettered media).
It speaks to fornication and the disorder consequent to it particularly when it involves married persons- - - - adding adultery to the disorder or disruption of God's plan. It speaks to Porno which immerses a person in the world of fantasy and illusion while the Plan speaks to reality. Listen to some of the research of the mental health community and the damage done to reality orientation of those addicted to Porno.
Chastity speaks to " the world's oldest profession", Prostitution, wherein the "John" ( we speak mostly of the male user ) defiles himself and sins against himself while reducing another person to an instrument of his own sexual pleasure. The selfishness and narcissism are plain to observe. Chastity speaks also to masturbation wherein the powerful sexual drive meant by the Planner for mutual self giving and procreation is perverted to an " intrinsically and gravely DISORDERED action." ( #3252, Catholic Catechism). This is a narcissistic circularity wherein focus is on self and not truly on the beloved. Even Norman Mailer refers to masturbation as "...this miserable activity."
The term " Purity " is sometimes used relative to chastity meaning Undiluted, uncontaminated and the like. Whatever term we use, we are moving in the world of God's Will which, we believe, is revealed for OUR happiness both here and hereafter. If one is a psychotherapist and/or a priest confessor, the data are overwhelming to support the ancient wisdom: PLAY IT STRAIGHT. All the fancy rhetoric cannot cover or fake out the misery, physical and otherwise, which accompanies unchastity. And this has nothing, as such, to do with celibacy. It has everything to do with DISORDER or deviation from the Plan of the One Who loves us implacably.
The difficulty in struggling for one's chastity is obvious, especially in a sex soaked culture like ours and especially since we are all wounded by an Original sin. But we believe that the Planner while demanding chastity from us also provides the help ( or Grace) to find the Peace and inner joy intrinsically attached to living the Order He has ordained.