I was blessed to be able to interview Ralph McInerny at a conference called "Art and Soul" at Baylor. He was witty, and truly a gentleman in every sense of the word. I've read many of his mystery novels, and this essay has caused me to want to read the memoir. What I loved about his fiction was that he never took himself or his characters too seriously.
Hi Chris, as a seminarian discerning (and at times intensely wrestling with) a potential call to celibacy, I must say I wasn’t impressed by McInerney’s anecdote. His shrug and a wink manner of telling the story (and calling celibacy “a single life”) doesn’t leave me with the impression that he had a deep understanding of celibacy, or that he made a serious effort to live it out. I think you’re right to recognize the unjust contrast between the agony you have experienced, and McInerney’s blazé fumblings. His ‘I couldn’t keep myself away from the girls’ mode of discernment doesn’t do justice to the plight of people living in circumstances where they are (or believe themselves to be) involuntarily and indefinitely prevented from marrying.
But neither does Vines’ argument in my opinion. I think the main problem with it is that he doesn’t seem to distinguish between celibacy and sexual continence. Celibacy may be supererogatory, but chastity is not. For people currently unable to marry, we might very well sympathize with them, and recognize reduced culpability for their failures in living out chastity. But the burden of sexual continence can’t transform an unchaste relationship into a chaste one.
The key question then, which Vines seems to overlook, is whether same sex relationships are chaste? If they are, Vines et al’s argument (at least as you’ve presented it) is superfluous; there’d be no need for this sort of lateral justification. If they aren’t, then the argument is relativistic sophistry, or at best, incompatible with Christian ethics. You can’t come away from the sermon on the mount thinking ‘we’re excused from moral precepts if they are a burden.’
In spite of my frustration with their thought, I do think Vines and McInerney have a lot that’s worth salvaging. seeing celibacy as a gift requiring grace, (and not as the product of human willpower) is especially important. If more people understood this, it would go a long way in reducing the dysfunction and shame which are running rampant in the Church right now. I am interested to see your future efforts to integrate their thought with the Church’s understanding.
You need to first understand that celibacy, largely involuntarily accepted for the job and only practiced inconsistently in the case of catholic clergy, is a post apostolic aberration explicitly rejected in practice based on 1 Timothy. And it's not based on Jesus' life either - we know virtually nothing about almost all of his adult life. That was intentional on the part of the Gospel authors.
Fall in love. Get married. Be fruitful and multiply (or adopt).
"Catholic tradition" in this case is not based even remotely on Christianity.
This approach seems to open up a wide playing field in which people can carve out exceptions for themselves as to why the Church’s traditional teaching on the expression of sexuality shouldn’t apply to them. Indeed, anyone who finds themselves in a circumstance of involuntary celibacy or continence could do that (and this is a large number of people). That’s a big problem for the side A argument—it leads to obvious absurdities when applied outside the situation of lesbians and gay men who are unable to express their sexuality. For example, those whose spouses are in a coma, those unable to find or attract a spouse due to chronic illness or financial insolvency, all of these have had celibacy or continence dropped on them by happenstance. My own feeling is that celibacy and the married state are not simply identifiable as a “gift” or as a natural state—many folks throughout history have had marriage forced on them, for example. We spend the first 18 years of our lives, and the first 3-6 years (at least) of our sexual maturity in a celibate state. So it’s a complicated matter, but at the end of the day, we’re not Pelagians, and God gives us grace through e sacraments to be holy in whatever state of life we find ourselves. Celibacy being impossible without supernatural grace is not the same as “only a few people could ever do it.” I would argue that being a great parent and spouse in a fallen world is impossible without supernatural grace as well.
Thanks for this thoughtful, well-informed essay. I wasn't familiar with these sources and it's fascinating to know that even on the Church's own account, celibacy can't be kept through an effort of human will alone.
Marriage is natural, celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is supernatural. The desire LGBT people have for love and companionship and even sex is natural. But I have a hard time seeing the sexual acts they are capable of performing as anything other than unnatural (the same goes for when those acts are performed by heterosexual couples).
Here's an aspect of your position I fail to understand. I don't see it as a way to control the LGBTQ community. I see it as God's law. I'm a straight, divorced Catholic man. I have been celibate for well over 12 years, perhaps fifteen. At 70 years of age, I no longer see marriage (the covenant within which I see sexual conduct a blessing) as a likely option for me. How do you view the concept of fornication, which would apply to gay & straight alike? Am I to simply ignore what I believe to be the Word of God for temporal pleasure? Are you?
I'm confident that it's the RIGHT thing to do. It's far from being an easy thing to do! The right thing is often difficult. But an eternity experiencing the Beatific Vision versus short term physical pleasure in this world seems a reasonable exchange.
I was blessed to be able to interview Ralph McInerny at a conference called "Art and Soul" at Baylor. He was witty, and truly a gentleman in every sense of the word. I've read many of his mystery novels, and this essay has caused me to want to read the memoir. What I loved about his fiction was that he never took himself or his characters too seriously.
Hi Chris, as a seminarian discerning (and at times intensely wrestling with) a potential call to celibacy, I must say I wasn’t impressed by McInerney’s anecdote. His shrug and a wink manner of telling the story (and calling celibacy “a single life”) doesn’t leave me with the impression that he had a deep understanding of celibacy, or that he made a serious effort to live it out. I think you’re right to recognize the unjust contrast between the agony you have experienced, and McInerney’s blazé fumblings. His ‘I couldn’t keep myself away from the girls’ mode of discernment doesn’t do justice to the plight of people living in circumstances where they are (or believe themselves to be) involuntarily and indefinitely prevented from marrying.
But neither does Vines’ argument in my opinion. I think the main problem with it is that he doesn’t seem to distinguish between celibacy and sexual continence. Celibacy may be supererogatory, but chastity is not. For people currently unable to marry, we might very well sympathize with them, and recognize reduced culpability for their failures in living out chastity. But the burden of sexual continence can’t transform an unchaste relationship into a chaste one.
The key question then, which Vines seems to overlook, is whether same sex relationships are chaste? If they are, Vines et al’s argument (at least as you’ve presented it) is superfluous; there’d be no need for this sort of lateral justification. If they aren’t, then the argument is relativistic sophistry, or at best, incompatible with Christian ethics. You can’t come away from the sermon on the mount thinking ‘we’re excused from moral precepts if they are a burden.’
In spite of my frustration with their thought, I do think Vines and McInerney have a lot that’s worth salvaging. seeing celibacy as a gift requiring grace, (and not as the product of human willpower) is especially important. If more people understood this, it would go a long way in reducing the dysfunction and shame which are running rampant in the Church right now. I am interested to see your future efforts to integrate their thought with the Church’s understanding.
You need to first understand that celibacy, largely involuntarily accepted for the job and only practiced inconsistently in the case of catholic clergy, is a post apostolic aberration explicitly rejected in practice based on 1 Timothy. And it's not based on Jesus' life either - we know virtually nothing about almost all of his adult life. That was intentional on the part of the Gospel authors.
Fall in love. Get married. Be fruitful and multiply (or adopt).
"Catholic tradition" in this case is not based even remotely on Christianity.
This approach seems to open up a wide playing field in which people can carve out exceptions for themselves as to why the Church’s traditional teaching on the expression of sexuality shouldn’t apply to them. Indeed, anyone who finds themselves in a circumstance of involuntary celibacy or continence could do that (and this is a large number of people). That’s a big problem for the side A argument—it leads to obvious absurdities when applied outside the situation of lesbians and gay men who are unable to express their sexuality. For example, those whose spouses are in a coma, those unable to find or attract a spouse due to chronic illness or financial insolvency, all of these have had celibacy or continence dropped on them by happenstance. My own feeling is that celibacy and the married state are not simply identifiable as a “gift” or as a natural state—many folks throughout history have had marriage forced on them, for example. We spend the first 18 years of our lives, and the first 3-6 years (at least) of our sexual maturity in a celibate state. So it’s a complicated matter, but at the end of the day, we’re not Pelagians, and God gives us grace through e sacraments to be holy in whatever state of life we find ourselves. Celibacy being impossible without supernatural grace is not the same as “only a few people could ever do it.” I would argue that being a great parent and spouse in a fallen world is impossible without supernatural grace as well.
Thanks for this thoughtful, well-informed essay. I wasn't familiar with these sources and it's fascinating to know that even on the Church's own account, celibacy can't be kept through an effort of human will alone.
Marriage is natural, celibacy for the sake of the kingdom is supernatural. The desire LGBT people have for love and companionship and even sex is natural. But I have a hard time seeing the sexual acts they are capable of performing as anything other than unnatural (the same goes for when those acts are performed by heterosexual couples).
Here's an aspect of your position I fail to understand. I don't see it as a way to control the LGBTQ community. I see it as God's law. I'm a straight, divorced Catholic man. I have been celibate for well over 12 years, perhaps fifteen. At 70 years of age, I no longer see marriage (the covenant within which I see sexual conduct a blessing) as a likely option for me. How do you view the concept of fornication, which would apply to gay & straight alike? Am I to simply ignore what I believe to be the Word of God for temporal pleasure? Are you?
It sounds like you are very confident in your calling. So this piece probably isn’t so relevant to you
I'm confident that it's the RIGHT thing to do. It's far from being an easy thing to do! The right thing is often difficult. But an eternity experiencing the Beatific Vision versus short term physical pleasure in this world seems a reasonable exchange.
So it sounds like this piece isn’t doesn’t have much to offer you. Which isn’t surprising. It’s not for everyone