Unrestrained Sex and the Celibate Witness

Young, Evangelical, and Catholic ^ | 8/14/2010 | Brantly Millegan

[markomalley]

"As women, we have the right to make decisions regarding our bodies. These include decisions regarding the ability to control if and when we have children, regardless of whether we want several children or no children at all. Birth control is fundamental to our ability to have autonomy in our lives, and it helps us to understand our bodies and to enjoy our sexuality safely with men.” – Our Bodies, Ourselves 2005

The above quote captures the sentiment of many pro-contraceptive women, as well as men, non-Christian and Christian.

The quote seems to make a good point. We do have the right to make decisions regarding our bodies. The problem is that its logic has one glaring problem. The author, as many who would agree with her often do, assumes that such control is gained through the use of birth control, presumably contraception.

Maybe I’m just stuck in Christendom as it existed from the first century until the mid-20^th century, but I thought the way to avoid children was to not engage in the behavior that leads to children, or in other words, not have sex. For the above author, and many in our society today, such an option is no option at all. Sex is a given. Of course people will be having sex. For someone not to have sex is unhealthy, and worse, oppressive.

Sadly, evangelicals have walked like lemmings right along with the world, except for maintaining the caveat that sex is only for marriage. Many evangelicals consider sex for married people to be like food – it’s inappropriate, unhealthy, and even wrong to expect or encourage married couples to abstain from sex for any period of time.

And like lemmings, they have followed the world off a cliff.

Since when is sex something that we must have, especially married people? The world and our separated brethren think that birth control gives them control over their bodies, when all along what it really does is encourage them to have no control over their bodies. It’s all a big lie. What they call freedom is actually slavery. True control over one’s body is the ability to not have sex when one doesn’t want to have a baby.

In other words, the answer isn’t birth control, it’s self control. This is the true freedom.

But people in our society today have so little control that the option to abstain cannot even be considered. It’s not even entertained as a virtue to which we should aspire. In their minds the choice really is between all women being pregnant their entire reproductive lives, or the use of contraception, something that all Christians for millennia had deemed a grave perversion, until Protestants, even supposedly conservative evangelicals, decided to follow the world in the mid-20^th century.

So it is now more than ever that our world needs the celibate witness. Celibate priests, monks, and nuns, even lay people who are living the single life – we need you to stand as witnesses to the world and to our separated brethren, and as a constant reminder to married couples within the Church, that we do not need sex, that sex does not lead to happiness. Unrestrained sex is not the answer. Lust will never be quenched. It is a black hole that leads only to hell, in this life and the next.

There is another way.

We do not need a pill that makes the woman’s body act as if it is diseased to be free. We do not need a piece of plastic to ‘protect’ the woman from the man’s seed. We need the grace of Jesus to help us all to have self-control over ourselves, especially the sacred gift of our sexuality. Our celibate brothers and sisters prove to us that sex isn't required for the happiest and most meaningful lives.

Some evangelicals have just recently started to reevaluate the Reformation’s almost total rejection of celibacy as an option. I encourage those that are feeling the call: look to the Church. It is a beacon. Although Protestants have lost their way, the Church has stood as the city on the hill. The Church has maintained the true teaching all these years. You do not need to reinvent a theology of celibacy. There is already a place, the only place where it can be truly lived, the only place where it has its full meaning, the Church, where you can join in and be, in an age of unrestrained sex, the celibate witness.

[markomalley]

While I think the author has good points regarding celibacy, I probably would not have been as "in your face" as he was about the subject (for example, "followed the world off a cliff" would not be my choice of wording...but, on the other hand, is he speaking from experience there??)

St. Paul had the following to say about the subject in his first letter to the Church in Corinth (chap 7):

25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful. 26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be. 27 Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. 28 But if you take a wife, you have not sinned. And if a virgin marries, she has not sinned: nevertheless, such shall have tribulation of the flesh. But I spare you. 29 This therefore I say, brethren: The time is short. It remains, that they also who have wives be as if they had none: 30 And they that weep, as though they wept not: and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not: and they that buy as if they possessed not: 31 And they that use this world, as if they used it not. For the fashion of this world passes away. 32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. 33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided. 34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinks on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinks on the things of the world: how she may please her husband. 35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. 36 But if any man think that he seems dishonoured with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will. He sins not if she marry. 37 For he that has determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and has judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, does well. 38 Therefore both he that gives his virgin in marriage does well: and he that gives her not does better. 39 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives: but if her husband die, she is at liberty. Let her marry to whom she will: only in the Lord. 40 But more blessed shall she be, if she so remain, according to my counsel. And I think that I also have the spirit of God.

[PGR88]

“...In other words, the answer isn’t birth control, it’s self control. This is the true freedom...”

I’ve heard a Priest asked: Isn’t the celibacy, the self-denial, the life of poverty - isn’t it difficult?

The answer, which blew me away: No, its all for my own benefit, and in my own self-interest!

[ansel12]

This writer talks a good game about Protestants, Evangelicals, and Catholics and who has “lost their way”, but the reality of who believes what is in which agenda that they actually push by law and vote.

Catholics vote majority pro-abortion left, and Protestants always vote pro-life right. There seems to be a disconnect between Catholic theories and writings about themselves and Protestants, and reality.

[markomalley]

The author, a convert from Evangelical Protestantism, makes a claim that the virtues of a celibate life (not specifically about staying chaste before marriage, but living a life of celibacy) are not taught in Evangelical churches.

Is he accurate in what he says? (I don’t know, not being an evangelical)

If he’s wrong, say so.

[Salvation]

The priest was indeed, giving himself, wholly to God, in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. His answer doesn’t surprise me at all.

[Salvation]

**But people in our society today have so little control that the option to abstain cannot even be considered. It’s not even entertained as a virtue to which we should aspire.**

And an excellent way to practice that virtue of self-control is Natural Family Planning.

Divorce Rate Comparisons Between Couples Using NFP & Artificial Birth Control

'Amazing Grace for Those Who Suffer'
Natural and Unnatural (father of 5 shocks mother of 1)
NFP — It Ain’t Your Momma’s Rhythm
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part Two [Open]
Responsible Parenthood in a Birth Control Culture, Part One [Open]
Contraception v. Natural Family Planning — Part 5 of 6 [Open]
Journey to the Truth (Natural Family Planning) [Open]
Enslaving Women One Pill at a Time (Birth Control Pills and Natural Family Planning)
New Study Shows Natural Family Planning Technique More “Effective” Than Contraception
Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning

Making Babies: A Very Different Look at Natural Family Planning
Clerical Contraception (Important Read! By Fr. Thomas J. Euteneuer)
(Fargo) Diocese set to require pre-marriage course in natural family planning
Natural Family Planning Awareness Week, July 25, 2004
IS NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING A 'HERESY'? (Trads, please take note)
Thanks Doc: More (and Younger) Doctors Support Natural Family Planning
Couple say Natural Family Planning strengthens marriage
Reflections: Natural family planning vs sexism
British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Catholic Chrch
Natural Family Planning

[bubbacluck]

It is taught that there is a “gift” of celibacy. Not all have it. One can’t live a celibate life if not gifted this way. That is my understanding.

[Señor Zorro]

This article is a real mixed bag. On the one hand, he makes some good points against the culture of the day, but he then turns around and lauds the Catholic church for the very things they have been wrong about for centuries.

For example, the author writes: “ Many evangelicals consider sex for married people to be like food – it’s inappropriate, unhealthy, and even wrong to expect or encourage married couples to abstain from sex for any period of time.”

His characterization of the evangelical position is wrong—quite wrong. Here is what the scriptures say:

“The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.” 1 Corinthians 7:4-7.

You will note that married celibacy is all but forbidden to the married. That it is only allowed for a limited time, “for prayer” (i.e. not for “family planning”).

Celibacy for the kingdom is encouraged, but only to those have it as a special gift of God. It is NOT a requirement to dedicate one’s life to the church:

“This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. Don’t we have the right to food and drink? Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?” 1 Corinthians 9:3-6.

Of note here is the fact that Paul had, not only permission, but a right to take a wife with him in his work—a direct contradiction of the Roman Catholic’s position regarding clerical celibacy, when the passage above is also taken into account.

Indeed, I find such authors has this to be troubling to the sensitive consciences in the church because of his error. From the article again:

“So it is now more than ever that our world needs the celibate witness. Celibate priests, monks, and nuns, even lay people who are living the single life – we need you to stand as witnesses to the world and to our separated brethren, and as a constant reminder to married couples within the Church, that we do not need sex, that sex does not lead to happiness.”

Of interest is that, here, celibacy is praised in and of itself, running down the value of sex. Biblical sex is not merely permitted, but beautiful and natural, ordained by God and as natural an aspect of the human condition (fallen or unfallen, in this case) as food.

“”For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.” Ephesians 5:31

As with food and the other pleasurable gifts of God, it has been warped and perverted by a warped and perverted world—it is this that we ought to stand tall and firm against (Ephesians 5:3-7), not sex itself. Celibacy is valued in scripture only to the extent that for the given individual it further advances the kingdom of Christ.

“I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” 1 Corinthians 7:32-34.

[newguy357]

He’s wrong.

I grew up in evangelical church circles, and abstinence was always faithfully preached for all unmarried people.

This article is the usual case of an over-excited recent Catholic convert. As is often the case, anyone who recently converts to something is a bit overexcitable about the perfect of his new path....

[markomalley]

Thanks for the thorough response. Is there any way I could ask you to go over and post them to the author’s blog?

[markomalley]

I grew up in evangelical church circles, and abstinence was always faithfully preached for all unmarried people.

That wasn't what he said. In fact, he acknowledged your point: except for maintaining the caveat that sex is only for marriage.

[ansel12]

Catholics are a liberal voting block and have been since they started showing up in America, the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism, yet article after article gives the impression that Catholics are conservative and are trying to stop Protestant liberalism, it is bizarre.

To a conservative it is a troubling to see someone move from our most conservative religious category to a liberal church and then start lecturing the conservative Christians.

[ansel12]

The article has an arrogant put down tone to it.

[markomalley]

Catholics are a liberal voting block and have been since they started showing up in America, the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism, yet article after article gives the impression that Catholics are conservative and are trying to stop Protestant liberalism, it is bizarre.

To a conservative it is a troubling to see someone move from our most conservative religious category to a liberal church and then start lecturing the conservative Christians.

And this has what to do with the article? This is on-topic how???

If you want to talk about all Catholics being liberals and starting a movement to have all Catholics kicked off of Free Republic unless they renounce Catholicism, then be my guest...on your own thread.

In the meantime, if you have an issue with something the author said, why don't you address the points in the article rather than engage in a non-sequitur attack on the author (and, for that matter, all Catholic FReepers)?

[ansel12]

Some evangelicals have just recently started to reevaluate the Reformation’s almost total rejection of celibacy as an option. I encourage those that are feeling the call: look to the Church. It is a beacon. Although Protestants have lost their way, the Church has stood as the city on the hill. The Church has maintained the true teaching all these years

The writer wrote a snarky article about converting people to Catholicism, the Democrats already have enough Catholics and millions more are being imported from Mexico, what we need right now to bring morality back to America are more conservatives, not more liberals.

[Campion]

the Protestant vote is almost a perfect record of supporting conservatism

On what planet???

Yeah, the voting record of conservative, pro-life, pro-family Protestants is conservative, pro-life, and pro-family. Duh. That's a self-selected group; of course they behave consistently with their self-selection.

Check out the voting record of Catholics who demonstrate in front of abortuaries, or attend the "Defending the Faith" conference in Steubenville, or are involved in Opus Dei, the Serra Club, or any of a number of other lay apostolates. Or visit any parish where the TLM is celebrated, and see if you can find an Obama voter. Good luck!

OTOH, ELCA Lutherans are still "Protestant" in any meaningful, historically accurate sense of the word. Think they vote conservative and pro-life? Don't bet on it.

The last four Democratic Presidents were all at least nominally Protestants. Want to tell us how "conservative" they were?

(And no, I'm not going to tell you Jack Kennedy was any better.)

Catholics voted for Protestant George Bush over faux-Catholic John F. Kerry 52 to 45 percent in 2004. Catholics who attend Mass weekly voted for the faux-Republican John McCain over the Muslo-Marxist usurper 50 to 49 percent. That's the definition of a swing vote, not a "liberal voting block".

I think a certain percentage of FR anti-Catholics are liberal as all heck, and are agents provocateurs, here to drive a wedge between Catholics and the conservative movement.

Are you one of them?

[ansel12]

On what planet??? Yeah, the voting record of conservative, pro-life, pro-family Protestants is conservative, pro-life, and pro-family. Duh. That's a self-selected group;

No it isn't, the "Protestant" vote includes all Protestants, blacks, Hispanics and all of the none Catholic Christians no matter how left wing, yet the Protestant vote still ALWAYS goes majority conservative, if you leave out 1964 and 1932/1936, Roosevelt could not even win the Protestant vote in 1940 and 1944, nor Truman, or Kennedy, or Carter, or Clinton, (they all and more, of course won the Catholic vote) etc.

Catholics on the other hand have almost always voted left, there are some modern exceptions of course, you mentioned 2004 (but left out the 2000 Catholic Gore vote) when Catholics voted 52% Republican, Hispanic Protestants voted 56% Republican in that election though.

Hispanic Protestants are voting to the right of the Catholic vote, in 2008 for instance when Obama was winning 54% of Catholics, he was only winning 52% of Hispanic Protestants. We do not need more Catholic voters.

[daisy mae for the usa]

Thank you for “rightly dividing the Word of Truth” on this subject. If people would spend more time reading God’s word in it’s completeness, rather than taking a verse here and there to support a view, or worse, simply letting someone else tell them what it says, we would have far less societal problems.

[msamizdat]

Please not the NFP post. What next Theology of the Body? No thanks. Part of being Catholic is being “open to life” “being generous” and “trusting God”. NFP is the exact opposite- taking control from God because we don’t trust Him, the Master of our lives to bless us with a baby, or we are too lazy and selfish to want to have a baby.

[msamizdat]

Please not the NFP post. What next Theology of the Body? No thanks. Part of being Catholic is being “open to life” “being generous” and “trusting God”. NFP is the exact opposite- taking control from God because we don’t trust Him, the Master of our lives to bless us with a baby, or we are too lazy and selfish to want to have a baby.