|
Chapter 6
Celibacy and Virginity
The fourth cycle of Pope John Paul II’s
Theology of the Body series (nos. 73-86) takes up the important
question of virginity and celibacy and its meaning for the body. This
fourth cycle begins the application of some of the principles
previously deline ated in the first three cycles of the series. As
mentioned towards the beginning of the last chapter,
the first three cycles of the Theology of the Body series
considered the three “words” of Christ on marriage: His teaching about
divorce in an answer given to the Pharisees;
his remark during the Sermon on the Mount about committing adultery in the
heart;
and his answer to the Sadducees on the question of the Resurrection.
In this fourth cycle, the unmarried state chosen for the sake of the
Kingdom of God is considered. In the fifth cycle, John Paul takes up
marriage and in the sixth cycle, he studies the relationship of marriage
and procreation.
The topic of virginity and celibacy is a difficult one in the context of
the Theology of the Body series. The Pope has clearly and brilliantly
shown that God created human beings in His image and likeness, i.e., as
persons, with bodies. As images of God, human beings are called to do what
He does, i.e., to love one another as He loves Himself in the mystery of
the Trinity and as He loves all created persons. This call, this “innate
vocation” of every human being is “inscribed in the humanity of man and
woman,”[5] i.e., the vocation of each human person is clear first to Adam,
and then to Eve, and then to every human person born into this world. It
is crystal to clear to all of us because this meaning is “inscribed” in
our very flesh. Our masculinity and femininity is the physical sign given
to us so that we might know that we are called to enter a loving communion
in imitation of the Trinitarian communion. This is what John Paul has
called the nuptial meaning of the body.
However, our bodies not only reveal to us that we are to love others as
God loves Himself and us, they also are the means of expressing or
manifesting this love in the world. As we enter loving communions, we
express our love in and through our bodies. Human persons are constructed
by God in a body-person unity so that our acts (at least most of
them---there are purely internal acts) would be visible. When acting as
God acts and expressing those acts outwardly in and through our bodies, we
become visible images of God. We are, in effect, the only beings God has
created who can be (and are meant to be) visible images of the Creator
Himself.
Marriage is, of course, the primary communion. After creating them “male
and female,” God called them to imitate His own loving Trinitarian
communion by inviting Adam and Eve to “be fertile and multiply,”[6] i.e.,
to become the first human married couple. With an eloquence which betrays
his love of language in drama and poetry[7], the Pope strikingly describes
the incredible blessing and goodness God has conferred on the human race
in inviting each of us to imitate His own Trinitarian communion through
marriage. John Paul’s Theology of the Body addresses, most especially the
first two cycles of the series, has one of the most exalted and noble
theological word paintings of marriage the Church has ever proposed.
Given this true, but nevertheless, exalted description of the spousal
communion, the whole question of virginity and celibacy for the sake of
the Kingdom of God takes on a certain urgency. The question is obvious: If
marriage is such an exalted calling, willed by the Creator Himself,
inscribed in the very flesh of every human person, why would anyone choose
not to enter into such a communion—especially for the sake of the KINGDOM
OF GOD. This choice seems almost contradictory to the very will of God
manifested, most obviously, when He created us male and female and again
when He said, “It is not good for the man to be alone.”[8]
John Paul admits this paradox. In speaking about Christ’s words regarding
virginity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God[9], he writes
that Christ “expresses Himself [in recommending virginity and celibacy to
those who can accept it], in a certain sense, even in opposition to that
‘beginning’ to which He Himself had appealed.”[10] Of course, John Paul’s
reference here to Christ’s teaching on the “beginning” recalls Christ’s
answer to the Pharisees’s question on divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to
divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not
read that from the beginning the Creator made them ‘male and female’. For
this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his
wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but
one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must
separate."[11] It was from this reference of Christ to the “beginning”
that John Paul began his analysis of the first pages of Genesis because,
as the Pope has taught us, when Christ referenced the “beginning,” He was
saying to the Pharisees that the true nature of marriage is to be derived
from the state of the human race before sin. In admitting that Christ’s
words about virginity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God seem
to be in opposition to the “beginning,” the Pope is admitting that
virginity and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom seem to be opposed to
Christ’s own exalted teaching on the beauty of marriage.
On the other hand, Christ’s words on virginity and celibacy are just as
much part of His teaching as are His words on marriage. Therefore, even
though there seems to be a paradox, ultimately these two aspects of
Revelation cannot be in opposition to one another. In fact, there are many
paradoxes in the teaching of the Lord, e.g., death to self as a means of
living life to the fullest (and there are many, many more).[12]
It is interesting to note that Christ’s call to virginity and celibacy for
“those who can receive it” is found in the very same passage that his
answer to the Pharisees’s question on divorce is found. After answering
the question of the Pharisees, Christ’s disciples say to him that it might
be better not to marry (because divorce will no longer be accepted as a
moral option). Christ responds to this remark and says: “Not all can
accept [this] word, but only those to whom that it is granted. Some are
incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were
made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake
of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept
it’."[13] Obviously, Christ did not consider his teaching on marriage and
his teaching on celibacy and virginity to be contradictory.
In fact, it is not. The essential points of John Paul’s analysis of the
human body is that it is the expression of the person. In his meditations
on the Stations of the Cross, given as part of his retreat preached to
Pope Paul VI in 1976, the Pope writes about Christ at the tenth station
(Christ is stripped of His garments): “With every wound, every spasm of
pain, every wrenched muscle, every trickle of blood, with all the
exhaustion in its arms, all the bruises and lacerations on its back and
shoulders, this unclothed body is carrying out the will of both Father and
Son.”[14] Christ’s body expressed His Person because through His body His
choices, the acts of His will, were expressed or manifested. Clearly,
these choices rested on His knowledge in His intellect. Therefore, His
body expressed His person because through it He manifested and outwardly
demonstrated what He was thinking and choosing.
The human body, not just in Christ, but in all of us, is to express our
persons, i.e., make apparent what we are thinking and choosing. In coming
to know another person, a future spouse, a man or woman might first be
drawn by beauty or handsomeness, by a sense of charm or strength; in short
by all those characteristics that we label as masculine or feminine. But,
if this relationship is to rest on a firm foundation, eventually one must
come to see the dignity with which that other person was created by God.
He or she comes to understand that here is another person who is also an
image of God. In coming to understand the dignity and value of the other
person, sometimes love develops—a deliberate choice in the will to give
oneself to this other person because of the great treasure, the infinite
value, of the other person as understood by the mind. When such a choice
is met by a similar choice made by the other, there is a mutual commitment
which is then sealed by the marriage vows repeated before a witness of the
Church. The vows establish the marital communion. The martial communion is
then expressed by the union of the two in one flesh. The bodily expression
of the communion is the direct result of the spouses knowledge of each
other and their mutual choice to give themselves to one another.
But, just as obviously (it happens all the time every day), people can
freely choose not to enter such a communion. If the marital communion
rests on the knowledge of the dignity of another and on a free choice to
give oneself to that other person, then it is obvious that people are not
forced to make such a choice. (In fact, force is contrary to love and
invalidates marriages. For example, “shotgun” weddings are not recognized
because force is opposed to love which is, in its essence, a free choice.)
Every person can choose not to enter into a marital communion. Perhaps an
individual is not suited to marry. Another may not yet have met someone
appropriate. A third might choose not to marry because he or she desires
to remain unmarried.
If the nuptial meaning of the body shows that we are called to love God
and others as Christ loves us and express that love in and through our
bodies: why could someone not choose to express one’s love for Christ and
all that He did through His passion and death, by devoting one’s life to
Him, i.e., by loving Him without entering the marital communion? Why could
not someone imitate Him in His celibate, virginal state? Of course, as the
Church has taught from the beginning, this is not only possible, but
praiseworthy if one is called to this vocation. As the Pope puts it: “man
(male and female) is capable of choosing the personal gift of his very
self, made to another person in a conjugal pact in which they become ‘one
flesh,’ and he is also capable of freely renouncing such a giving of
himself to another person, so that, choosing continence ‘for the sake of
the Kingdom of Heaven,’ he can give himself totally to Christ. On the
basis of the same disposition of the personal subject [a personal subject
is constituted by the faculties of mind and will] and on the basis of the
same nuptial meaning of the being as a body, male or female, there can be
formed the love that commits man to marriage for the whole duration of his
life (cf. Mt. 19:3-10), but there can be formed also the love that commits
man to a life of continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt.
19:11-12).”[15]
Obviously, if the celibate or virginal life is to be an act of love
expressed in and through the body, it must be freely chosen because if it
were not, as we have seen, it would not be an act of love—it would not be
an adequate human alternative to the spousal union (as seen from the point
of the human subject, who can only act in a human way through knowledge
and free choice). Therefore, one of the essential characteristics of
virginity and celibacy in the teaching of Christ is that it must be
chosen. In fact, the Lord’s invitation to celibacy or virginity as a
vocation makes this characteristic abundantly clear. Following Christ’s
comments about divorce in Matthew,[16] His disciples said to him, "If that
is the case of a man with his wife, [i.e., that divorce is not permitted]
it is better not to marry." He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word,
but only those to whom that is granted. Some are incapable of marriage
because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others;
some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of
heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."[17] Christ cites
three reasons why one would not marry: born incapable of marriage;
rendered incapable of marriage by others; and having chosen not to marry
for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. The first two categories concern
physical defects which are the result of congenital difficulties or human
intervention. In both these cases, the one who is incapable of marriage
has had no choice in the matter. The third category listed by the Lord are
those “having chosen not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
This third category is distinguished from the other two first because it
is freely chosen by the individual and second because it is for heaven,
i.e., for a supernatural reason.
The requirement for those embracing celibacy or virginity explicitly
choose this sate for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven distinguishes their
path of life from the unmarried state after the resurrection of the body
(after the Second Coming) in heaven, at the end of the world, when our
souls and bodies will be reunited in the glory. As the Pope writes, “There
is an essential difference between man’s state in the resurrection of the
body and the voluntary choice of continence for the Kingdom of Heaven in
the earthly life and in the “historical state” of man fallen and redeemed.
The eschatological absence of marriage will be a ‘state,’ that is, the
proper and fundamental mode of existence of human beings, men and women,
in their glorified bodies. Continence for the Kingdom of Heaven, as the
fruit of a charismatic choice is an exception in respect to the other
state, namely that state in which man ‘from the beginning’ became and
remains a participant during the course of his earthly existence.”[18]
There is no contradiction between Christ’s teaching on celibacy (or
virginity) and his teaching on marriage. Both rest on the body-person
unity of the human being. Both rest on, as the Pope would say, the
disposition of the personal subject (knowledge and choice) toward another:
either Christ or a spouse. Both represent an act of self-donation, an act
of love, which is expressed in and through the body. Both rest on the
revelation that the human being is called to love and to express that love
in and through his or her body.
That the commitment to a spouse and the commitment to virginity or
celibacy are not in conflict is graphically and symbolically demonstrated
in some religious orders of women. In some of these orders, those to be
received into the order dress themselves in wedding gowns because they are
the brides of Christ. During the ceremony they make their vows to Christ.
The ritual is in some ways not unlike the marriage ritual. If the
commitment to celibacy or virginity were not a commitment of love
expressed in and through the human body (as marriage is), the practice of
these religious orders would be offensive.
It should be noted that Christ’s teaching on virginity and celibacy
clearly indicate that this vocation is complementary to the marital
vocation. John Paul notices that Christ’s teaching on virginity or
celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is not placed together with
his answer to the Sadducees on the question of the woman who married the
seven brothers. The Sadducees asked Christ whose wife she would be in
heaven since she had married seven men. He responded that in heaven “they
neither marry nor are given in marriage.”[19] Even though Christian
celibacy and virginity is for the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ did not place
this teaching together with the teaching on the resurrection and the way
the human body-person unity will be in heaven. He did not put this
teaching together with the heavenly body-person unity because virginity
and celibacy in this life chosen for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven is
a choice made in the context of “historical man,” the fallen (because of
original sin) state of all human beings now on earth. In this way, the
choice of Christian celibacy parallels the choice of marriage. Both
vocations are chosen in the context of the heritage of original sin and
its effects.
Christ’s placing of this teaching on celibacy and virginity for the sake
of the Kingdom of Heaven immediately after his teaching on marriage
clearly indicates that marriage is the norm and Christian celibacy and
virginity is an exception. That Christ first talks about marriage and then
about celibacy and virginity demonstrates this as does his remark that
“whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Further, the idea that it is
“for the Kingdom of Heaven” indicates that this choice is not looking
towards an earthly and natural result, e.g., as would marriage with the
possibility of the procreation of children, but towards a supernatural one
which would not be the norm for earthly existence.
Both vocations are expressions of love. They both are rooted in the
discovery of the nuptial meaning of the body, i.e., of the discovery that
human beings are called to love in imitation of the Trinity and to express
that love in and through their bodies. The married person expresses love
in the familial communion and the celibate or virgin does it in the
communion of the Church which is, of course, the union of Christ with each
member of the Church and with the Church as a whole. The vocation of
marriage and the vocation of the celibate or virginal state confirm and
mutually support one another. The celibate or virgin is the signpost of
the love all men and women owe to God for all His gifts to us, most
especially His gift to us in Creation when He created us in His image and
likeness and called us to love as He loves. Celibates and virgins also
testify to the true destiny of human persons in their body-soul unity:
heaven. Those who are married give witness to the intent of the Creator
when He made them “male and female.” Families give life to new human
persons and through this cooperation in God’s creative act, testify to
God’s ongoing gift of life/love (these are one reality because life is
always part of love) to humanity. Without the constant reminder of God’s
gift of life/love, how could celibates and virgins maintain their
vocation: the vocation which reminds every one of the God’s gift to us in
Creation? And, obviously, families look towards the true destiny of
humanity because parents know that their fundamental calling is to help
each other and their children to come to the glorification of the
body-person in heaven after the resurrection of the body.
The entire logic of the vocation of marriage and the vocation of celibacy
and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven rules out any notion
that celibacy or virginity is in any way an implicit criticism in of the
marital union. In fact, the case is just the opposite. The vocation of
celibacy or virginity is chosen on the very basis of the nuptial meaning
of the body. In fact, the vocation of remaining unmarried for the sake of
the Kingdom of God is an affirmation of the nuptial meaning of the body,
i.e., an affirmation that our masculinity and femininity is intended as a
gift to another person.
It would also be an error to see celibates and virgins as living in the
perfect Christian state and married people as living in an imperfect
state, as though the Church were divided into two tiers and the virgins
and celibates were the more exalted members of the Church.
Christ’s teaching on virginity and celibacy shocked the Apostles. In the
religious beliefs of the Chosen People of the Old Testament, marriage was
a sacred and holy state. In God’s promise to Abraham to make him “the
father of a host of nations,”[20] marriage and procreation became the
means by which this divine promise would be fulfilled. As John Paul
writes, “In the Old Testament tradition marriage, as a source of
fruitfulness and of procreation in regard to descendants, was a
religiously privileged state: and privileged by Revelation itself.”[21]
This divine approbation of marriage through the covenant with Abraham was
built on and expanded the previous divine invitation to the entire human
race given in the first chapter of Genesis to “be fertile and
multiply.”[22] Even before Christ’s exalted teaching on marriage, the
Apostles would have held marriage as an exalted state willed by God at the
very dawn of Creation and specifically endorsed by God for the Jewish
people as the means of fulfilling the covenant God made with them through
the patriarch, Abraham.
In hearing Christ recommend virginity and celibacy for the sake of the
Kingdom of Heaven, i.e., for the sake of God, the Apostles would have been
stunned! Marriage and procreation was the means of building the Kingdom of
God according to the promise God made with Abraham. Making Abraham the
father of a host of nations through procreation and expansion of the
Jewish kingdom was THE fulfillment of the covenant sealed between Abraham
and God. In the minds of the Apostles and according to the entire Old
Testament tradition, the building and expanding of the Jewish Kingdom was
identical to building the Kingdom of God. This notion was one of the
reasons why the Apostles and disciples of Christ had such a difficult time
understanding that His Kingdom was not of this world. Marriage and
procreation was identified with the covenant and with the blessings of God
on the Chosen People. Of course, this theological status of marriage and
procreation was one of the reasons why infertility was seen as expressing
the displeasure of God.
How could the Apostles who heard Christ’s teaching on virginity and
celibacy for the Kingdom of God have accepted what Christ taught? To ask
this question is to ask a whole series of related questions, e.g., how
could they have accepted His teaching on the Eucharist when He taught them
that they were to “eat his flesh and drink his blood?”[23] The Apostles
did not leave Him on this occasion, as many others did, because He “had
the words of eternal life.”[24] In other words, they accepted what Christ
said because He was the Revelation of the Father and they knew this
through the gift of the Holy Spirit: “Flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but my heavenly Father.”[25] They entrusted themselves to the
Lord and believed what He taught. Similarly, on the question of virginity
and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God, they accepted what He
taught them because HE said it and because He lived what He said: He was
unmarried. The Lord’s testimony and His own celibate life was the only
basis they had for accepting this teaching.
Of course, there was a further testimony to the goodness of continence for
the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven: the marriage of Mary and Joseph. It was
not just the Lord’s public life which testified to the goodness of
virginity and celibacy; it was His entire life from His conception to His
Ascension. Jesus was conceived by a virgin who remained a virgin her
entire life even though married to a husband, Joseph. And Joseph, even as
a husband lived a celibate life! The Apostles did not know this history of
Christ’s parents, conception, and birth, but as the Church came to know
the marvelous fruitfulness of Joseph and Mary’s virginity and celibacy, it
could appreciate Christ’s teaching on virginity and celibacy in an
entirely new way! And of course, after the Resurrection on the first
Easter, the Apostles must have heard from Mary the profound truths of the
Christmas story. In Mary and Joseph, the nuptial union was realized in a
complete gift of each of them to one another and to God for the sake of
the Kingdom of Heaven. It was through them that the full reality and
truth of the Kingdom of God was announced because this is precisely the
Good News their Son gave to the world. How could celibacy and virginity do
more for the Kingdom of God? At the same time, in their union at Nazareth,
they were as committed to one another in love as any couple could have
been. John Paul notes this wonderful mystery when he writes: “The marriage
of Mary and Joseph (in which the Church honours Joseph as Mary’s spouse,
and Mary as his spouse) conceals within itself, at the same time, the
mystery of the perfect communion of the persons, of the man and the woman
in the conjugal pact, and also the mystery of that singular ‘continence
for the Kingdom of Heaven:’ a continence that served, in the history of
salvation, the most perfect ‘fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit’.”[26] The
apparent contradiction between the goodness of marriage, on the one hand,
and celibacy and virginity for the sake of the Kingdom of God, on the
other, is completely resolved in the marriage of Mary and Joseph. In
learning this mystery, sometime after the Lord’s Resurrection, the Church
could understand Christ’s teaching on celibacy and virginity, given to the
Apostles before His Resurrection, in a much better way. Still, it is to
the Apostles’s credit that without knowing of the example of Mary and
Joseph, they still accepted Christ’s teaching on the goodness of virginity
or celibacy when embraced for the sake of the Kingdom of God.
Even more to the Apostles’s credit is that they accepted Christ’s teaching
even though in proclaiming His teaching on virginity or celibacy for the
sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ implicitly rejects a conclusion the
Apostles had reached. The Apostles responded to Christ’s teaching on
divorce with the remark, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it
is better not to marry."[27] They conclude it is better not to marry
because if divorce and remarriage are morally unacceptable, marriage would
lead people to sin because no one could live such a marriage. It is as if
the Apostles were saying to Christ: “No married person can continue to
live marriage as you expect. Married people will divorce and remarry and
so it is better not to marry.” It is at this point that Christ offers his
teaching on virginity and celibacy. However, the Lord teaches that
virginity and celibacy are to be embraced by those called to those
exceptional vocations not because marriage without divorce is too hard and
would lead people to sin. Rather, Christ invites those called to virginity
and celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God to live this renunciation
of marriage and family life not because family life leads to sin or is
hard, but because it is so good. Only the sacrifice of something truly
good can be a meaningful renunciation for God. One is reminded of the
comment of the fifth grader, “I will give up homework for Lent.” He knows
it is a joke and everyone laughs because to him, homework is not a good
thing. It is work and sometimes unpleasant. Sacrificing homework would
hardly be a sacrifice. Giving up his favorite TV show is something
different because it is something the fifth grader perceives as good. The
only meaningful sacrifice for the Kingdom of God is something that is
good. The renunciation of marriage for the sake of the Kingdom of God only
makes sense if it is truly good and holy, a significant blessing of God to
the human race. In teaching that celibacy and virginity for the sake of
the Kingdom of God should be embraced by those called to this vocation,
Christ implicitly rejected His Apostles’s conclusion that marriage was not
to be lived because it would lead people to sin by divorce and remarriage.
Marriage and family life as a blessing from God is the normal vocation for
men and women. Christ makes this perfectly clear when He teaches about
virginity and celibacy embraced for the sake of the Kingdom of God that
“Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted. .
. . Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."[28] Further, Christ
clearly indicates in these lines that virginity and celibacy are
“granted,” but also should be “accepted.” Here, we enter into the mystery
of a vocation. Whether called to marriage or celibacy, the gentle action
of the grace of the Holy Spirit calls us to a specific path to heaven, a
specific vocation. This is the “granting” which Christ speaks of. But this
gentle stirring of God’s grace in our hearts must be chosen in our wills.
In any vocation, there are two aspects: the gift of God and the acceptance
on our part. Obviously, we can be so attuned to ourselves and our own
situations that we do not perceive the sometimes almost imperceptible
stirrings of God’s grace. If we do perceive them, we can choose to ignore
them. Those called to virginity and celibacy “ought to accept” this
vocation, i.e., they ought to choose it wholeheartedly in their wills,
just as those called to marriage should choose marriage wholeheartedly in
their wills.
But since every vocation is “granted,” i.e., since every vocation is a
gift from God, we cannot simply choose our own. Of course, people try to
do this all the time. If called to marriage to a specific person,
sometimes people will not cooperate with this grace of God. They may doubt
that they are actually called to marriage or to marriage with a specific
person. If they realize that God is nudging them towards marriage with a
specific person, they may decide not to enter marriage, i.e., they may
refuse the vocation God has granted. Usually, in refusing such a gift from
God, their paths to heaven are more difficult. It is not so much that
there is only one vocation (one way to heaven) for each of us (e.g., that
we are only suited for marriage, or, more specifically, that there is only
one possible spouse for those of us called to marriage), but it seems God
calls us to the best possible vocation suited to our personalities and
talents. If we refuse to accept this vocation, then there will always be
other alternatives, but they may not be the best possible ones for us. If
there were not more than one possible, but not best, vocation for each of
us, then a vocation could not be “accepted.” The role of our own human
free will, what the Pope would call, human subjectivity, would not exist
because in God’s mercy He would “compel” us to choose the only vocation
leading to heaven. But this “compulsion” would be impossible because it
would be an attack on the dignity of the human person. Constituted as
persons by the creative act of God Himself, human persons can only act by
their own free choice and in light of their own knowledge. God would NEVER
violate His own creative act by compelling human persons to act in a
certain way. (This is why God “tolerates” the choice to sin.) Therefore,
there must be more than one possible path to heaven for each of us.
In the case of a vocation to virginity or celibacy for the Kingdom of
Heaven, it first must be granted. Second, it must be accepted by the
individual. Third, since it is “for the Kingdom of Heaven,” this
vocation is one that serves the Kingdom of God on earth, i.e., the
Church. The Church therefore discerns for itself whether an individual
truly is called by God to virginity or celibacy. Certainly, sometimes
people believed they are stirred by God’s grace towards the religious
life when, in fact, they have not received such a grace from God. In the
best of times, the Church gently tries to help individuals who may have
made a mistaken judgment about a call to virginity and celibacy. In more
difficult times, the Church’s structures which exist to help discern the
action of God’s grace with respect to the religious vocation, do not
function the way they should. In these times, sometimes people are
treated harshly, much too harshly, and sometimes people enter religious
life when they probably are called to a different vocation.
There is an essential truth hidden in the mystery of God’s calling each
of us to a specific vocation which is very often overlooked in
discussions of the religious life in relation to marriage. We do not
choose our own vocation independent of God. We are called and then we
choose to follow (or not to follow) God’s invitation. The best vocation
is the one that God has invited us to follow. For most, that vocation is
marriage. A married person living his or her vocation properly and doing
all that he or she can to live out God’s invitation to him or her is far
holier than a celibate or virgin who either should not have embraced a
religious vocation (because he or she was not called to that vocation)
or who only embraced such a vocation reluctantly and with bitterness. It
is next to impossible (except in the most general sense) to speak of
vocations in the abstract. For example, it is not very helpful to claim
that this or that vocation is “better” than another. What is “best” for
an individual is the vocation God has invited that person to embrace.
Ultimately, the judgment on every vocation must be based on what God has
“granted” that person and how that person has embraced (chosen) it. “If
anyone chooses marriage, he must choose it just as it was instituted by
the Creator ‘from the beginning,’ he must seek in it those values that
correspond to God’s plan. If on the other hand anyone decides to pursue
continence for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, he must seek in it the
values proper to such a vocation. In other words, one must act in
conformity with his chosen vocation.”[1] And the “best vocation” for
each of us is the one God grants us and the one we can most easily
embrace and live.
Not every one in the history of the Church has presented the
relationship between the marital vocation and the celibate or virginal
vocation in the way John Paul does. Quoting St. Paul (1 Cor. 7:38), “So
then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not
marry her will do better,” some have argued that St. Paul teaches that
the virginal or celibate state is “better” than the married state, i.e.,
not just better for a particular individual, but better in an objective
sense. In other words, the claim sometimes made is that celibates or
virgins are, by the very state of their lives, holier than those who are
married. (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux in the twelfth century suggested
that it was hardly possible for a monk to attain to the glories of
heaven and next to impossible for anyone not in the religious life.)
John Paul takes up Saint Paul’s teaching on marriage in the First Letter
to the Corinthians in nos. 82-86, the last five addresses in the fourth
cycle (nos. 73-86).
John Paul notes that in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians, Paul
is speaking in response to questions addressed to him by the Church at
Corinth. The very first lines of the chapter are: “Now in regard to the
matters about which you wrote.”[2] He is answering questions about
marriage and virginity presented to him by his disciples at Corinth. It
is the response of a pastor to a particular problem. While this does not
mean that Paul’s teaching does not have force beyond the immediate
context, it does mean that the passage must be read in accordance with
Paul’s pastoral approach to a problem
It is also very important to note that Saint Paul is responding not only
in an abstract way, but very personally. He writes, “Indeed, I wish
everyone to be as I am,” i.e., celibate.[3] He also writes, “I should
like you to be free of anxieties,” i.e., the anxieties of a married
person. These are very personal notes drawn from his own life and his
pastoral observations of married persons.
There are also passages which contain very clear doctrinal teaching in
the seventh chapter of First Corinthians, e.g., “To the married,
however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should
not separate from her husband.”[4] The task then of properly
understanding Saint Paul’s intent is to re-read First Corinthians 7 in
accordance with the doctrinal teaching (clearly delineated and laid
down), interpreting the personal and pastoral notes in light of that
doctrinal teaching. This is the task John Paul has accomplished in the
last four addresses of the fourth cycle.
No less than three times in the seventh chapter of First Corinthians,
Saint Paul speaks about God calling people to a particular vocation. In
verse 7, he writes, “Each has a particular gift from God.” In 17, we
read, “Only, everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God
called each one. I give this order in all the churches.” (It is very
important to realize that in this passage, Saint Paul teaches this
principle as a command, i.e., an order.) Finally, in verse 20, we hear
that “Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.” In
all three of these verses, Saint Paul is talking about a vocation, a
call from God. He is also clearly saying that everyone should follow the
vocation given to him or her by God and remain in that vocation.
Everything else in Paul’s remarks about marriage and virginity or
celibacy must be read in light of these “orders” he has laid down.
The questions to which Paul is responding are from individuals in the
Church at Corinth in the first century. These people are Gentile
converts to Christianity. They were not steeped in the traditional Old
Testament Jewish understanding of marriage and procreation. Their
understanding of marriage had been shaped by the pagan culture which
existed in the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. “Marriage, in this
ambience, was understood as a way of ‘making use of the
world’—differently from how it had been in the whole Jewish tradition
(despite some perversions which Jesus pointed out in His conversation
with the Pharisees and in His Sermon on the Mount.)”[5] In speaking
about marriage and virginity to his Corinthian flock, Paul had not only
to hold out the possibility of virginity and celibacy for the sake of
the Kingdom of God, but he also had to insure that his followers
understood marriage in the proper Christian context. Therefore, Paul
stresses the transience of this world. In verse 29, he insists that
“time is running out” because he wants to stress the future world of
heaven to which all are called. He repeats this thought, in verse 31:
“For the world in its present form is passing away.” To those who had
had the practice of enjoying all the pleasures of this world (and
marriage was one way of “using the world” in this way) Paul admonishes
his readers that this world is not everything, that there is a future
world to which all Christians, married or unmarried, are destined. In
his pastoral way, Paul is telling his married readers that they need to
live marriage differently than their culture would dictate.
“Undoubtedly, all this explains the style of Paul’s answer. The Apostle
is well aware that by encouraging abstinence from marriage he at the
same time had to stress a way of understanding marriage that would be in
conformity with the whole evangelical order of values.”[6] To interpret
Paul’s remarks as a criticism of marriage is a misinterpretation and
directly against what St. Paul also teaches in this passage: “If you
marry, however, you do not sin.”[7] He repeats the same thought in verse
36.
Saint Paul, as pastor, was addressing in part a particular mis-understanding
of marriage on the part of his flock. He is also responding to questions
asked of him about marriage and virginity or celibacy: “Now in regard to
the matters about which you wrote."[8] We do not know what the question
was, but there are hints in the passage Paul writes. Perhaps one of
Paul’s new converts was asking whether or not marriage was sinful – in
light of the new Gospel of Christ. It might have been a young man trying
to decide whether he should marry or not. Even more likely, it could
have been a parent or guardian trying to decide whether to arrange a
marriage for a young woman. In first century Corinth, “decisions in
general belonged more to parents and guardians than to the young people,
themselves.”[9] It could also have been a newly converted husband who
was wondering how he should live his marriage now that he was a
Christian. He might have been asking if the new Gospel required him not
to enjoy the privileges of marriage. At any rate, the context of Paul’s
answer clearly reveals a question about the relationship between
marriage and virginity and how marriage should be lived. But it is
important to realize that Paul was responding to a specific question or
questions. The question determines not just the answer, but very often
the tone of the answer. Therefore, Paul’s teaching in the First Letter
to the Corinthians must be read with the understanding that he is
responding to a question. In fact, as in many cases, he might have
preferred to address the whole matter more systematically or in a
different way. But the question and the confines of a letter may have
prevented him from addressing this topic in a way different than he did.
The mis-understanding of the Corinthian Christians about marriage in
light of the Gospel and the question asked of Paul give a certain
“coloring” to his response. In light of this pastoral “coloring,” it
would be a grave misinterpretation to ignore the definitive teaching,
e.g., that everyone has a vocation given to him or her by God, and
interpret marriage in a negative sense only because of certain phrases
such as, “So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who
does not marry her will do better.”[10] Having said that there is no sin
or evil in marrying,[11] the passage about he who marries does well and
he who does not does better, must be seen in light of the previous
teaching regarding marriage and virginity or celibacy as a vocation from
God. Seen in this light, with the pastoral “coloring,” Paul is not
saying anything different from Christ when He taught that those who are
granted the vocation of virginity or celibacy should accept it.[12]
There is a further pastoral note in the passage from the seventh chapter
of First Corinthians which is very important. Paul writes, “If you
marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she
marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly
life, and I would like to spare you that.”[13] The Pope writes about
this phrase and similar ones in the Pauline texts:
“Would this be an expression of the Apostle’s
personal aversion with regard to marriage? In this realistic observation
we must see a just warning for those who – as at times young people do –
hold that conjugal union and living together must bring them only
happiness and joy. The experience of life shows that spouses are not
rarely disappointed in what they were greatly expecting. The joy of the
union brings with it also those ‘troubles in the flesh’ that the Apostle
writes about in his Letter to the Corinthians. These are often
‘troubles’ of a moral nature. If by this he intends to say that true
conjugal love – precisely that love by virtue of which ‘a man cleaves to
his wife and the two become one flesh’ (Gen. 2:24) – is also a difficult
love, he certainly remains on the grounds of evangelical truth and there
is no reason here to see symptoms of the attitude that later was to
characterize manichaeism.”
Saint Paul is speaking as a realistic pastor who has seen troubled and
difficult marriages. He wants to “spare” his flock of these difficulties
just as any pastor would. How many deacons, priests, bishops, even popes,
as well as marriage counselors and all those in the “helping” professions
have not had a similar thought from time to time when faced with some of
the difficulties presented by their married parishioners or clients? Just
because one wants to spare people difficulties in marriage does not mean
that one necessarily is against all marriages. And clearly, Paul was not
against marriage! He talks of a Christian wife or husband sanctifying an
unbelieving spouse;[43] he speaks of husbands and wives not
separating;[44] he clearly states that marriage is not sinful and that it
is a call assigned by God; and finally he teaches that those who marry do
well!
In addition to the pastoral comments, there are personal reflections
included in Saint Paul’s remarks about the relationship between marriage
and virginity or celibacy. As any pastor will testify, in responding to
questions about the faith in relationship to personal difficulties, there
is most often a mixture of doctrinal or moral teachings, pastoral
applications of those teachings, and personal reflections. But Paul
clearly distinguishes between personal opinions, founded on his own
experiences, and the commandments of the Lord. For example, in verses 7-8,
he writes, “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, . . .Now to the
unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as
they are, as I do.”[45] This is a personal reflection founded on his own
life as is clear from the phrase “I wish everyone to be as I am.” There is
no invocation of a commandment from the Lord. A little further on in the
passage we read, “Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the
Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is
trustworthy.”[46] Again, here, there is a personal opinion. He states
flatly that he “has no commandment from the Lord.” As further evidence
that this remark is a very personal one, he invokes his own
trustworthiness and his readers’s knowledge of that trustworthiness as a
motive for accepting his opinion. A totally different note is struck in
verse 10: “To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but
the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband.”[47] Here, he
clearly is invoking the authority of Christ. Another personal opinion
follows only two verses later: “To the rest I say (not the Lord): if any
brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she is willing to go on
living with him, he should not divorce her.”[48] “The greatness of Paul’s
teaching consists in the fact that in presenting the truth proclaimed by
Christ in all its authenticity and identity, he gives it a stamp of his
own, in a certain sense his own ‘personal’ interpretation.”[49] Just as it
would be a mistake to read Paul’s pastoral remarks without the light of
his doctrinal statements, it would also be a grave mistake to read his
personal comments without the whole context of the entire body of his
teachings, including the doctrinal statements.
There are a number of passages in the seventh chapter of First Letter to
the Corinthians which might lend one to believe that St. Paul saw marriage
simply as a remedy for concupiscence. Of course, this interpretation has
not been lacking in the Church’s reflections on St. Paul’s teachings. For
example, he advises that it is better to marry than to be “on fire.”[50]
In the first couple of verses, he writes that “"It is a good thing for a
man not to touch a woman, but because of cases of sexual immorality every
man should have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.”[51] These
passages could easily be interpreted that marriage is only for the weak
who cannot control their own sexual passions and desires. But these
passages must be contrasted with verse 7 where he writes that “each has a
particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.” Both
vocations are gifts from God. One is not a refuge for those who are weak!
“Does the Apostle, in his First Letter to
the Corinthians, perhaps look upon marriage exclusively from the
viewpoint of a ‘remedy for concupiscence,’ as used to be said in
traditional theological language? The statements mentioned a little while
ago would seem to verify this. However, right next [the phrase “on fire”
is in verse 9; the phrase about a “particular gift from God is in verse 7]
to the statements quoted, we read a passage that leads us to see
differently Paul’s teaching as a whole, contained in the seventh chapter
of his First Letter to the Corinthians: ‘I wish that al were as I
myself am; (he repeats his favorite argument for abstaining from marriage)
– but each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind, and one of
another (1 Cor. 7:7). Therefore, even those who choose marriage and live
in it receive a ‘gift’ from God, his ‘own gift,’ that is, the grace proper
to this choice, to this way of living, to this state. The gift receive, by
persons who live in marriage is different from the one received by persons
who live in virginity and choose continence for the sake of the Kingdom of
God. All the same, it is a true ‘gift from God,’ ‘one’s own gift, intended
for concrete persons, and ‘specific,’ that is, suited to their vocation in
life.”
Saint Paul speaks about the “fire” of
desire not because he wishes to propose marriage merely as a remedy for
it. (He has already spoken of his wish that everyone would remain as he
was, i.e., celibate. Further, as we have seen, He later in the seventh
chapter of the First Letter to the Corinthians speaks of his desire to
“spare” his flock the difficulties of marriage!) Rather, he is writing as
a pastor who has a concrete understanding of the fallen nature (because of
original sin) of all human persons. In Paul’s First Letter to the
Corinthians, “the whole realism of the Pauline theology of the body is
revealed. If in the letter the Apostle proclaims that ‘your body is a
temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you (1 Cor. 6:19), at the same time he
is fully aware of the weakness and sinfulness to which man is subjected,
precisely by reason of the concupiscence of the flesh.”[53]
If marriage is a gift from God, as well as virginity and celibacy, and it
is not a refuge for the weak, why would anyone choose such a life? Saint
Paul answers this question also in this seventh chapter of his first
letter to the Corinthians: “I should like you to be free of anxieties. An
unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please
the Lord. But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how
he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin
is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both
body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the
things of the world, how she may please her husband.”[54] There are then,
according to Paul, two reasons to embrace celibacy or virginity: to be
anxious about the things of the Lord and to please the Lord. The first of
these reasons, to be anxious about the things of the Lord, is to throw
oneself into apostolic work. It is, in a word, to embrace the task of
spreading the Gospel of Christ and to help people live that Gospel in
their daily lives. This effort takes both time and commitment and those
without families are able to devote themselves totally to this effort. But
the motive for embracing such total and difficult work is found in the
second reason: “to please the Lord.” This phrase is the one Christ used
about himself: “I always do what is pleasing to him [i.e., the
Father]."[55] To do what is pleasing to someome means to unite one’s will
with that person – to do what the other person chooses. In effect, do what
is pleasing is to love. The motivation for embracing the evangelical work
of the Gospel is the love of God.
But Paul also writes that the married person is “divided.” The married
Christian is committed not only to his or her spouse, but also to God.
This causes the “division” Paul speaks of since the Christian married
person is called not only to the love of his or her spouse, but also to
the love of God. There are a number of points which must be kept in mind
for an adequate understanding of what Paul is saying. First of all, as has
been said above, Paul is writing to new converts to Christianity who have
not yet had an opportunity to develop a truly Christian married life. They
were still steeped in a more secular and even pagan idea of marriage. This
first-century Greek cultural understanding of marriage was far from the
Christian one. Such a way of living a marriage would of course have left
them “divided.” Second, it must be remembered that Paul is writing from
his own experience. With his missionary work, he clearly understands that
for him, personally, it would have been next to impossible to have the
cares of a wife and family. Third, he is writing from his own pastoral
experience. He has probably actually witnessed such “division” among the
married members of his flock, especially in the case of marriages between
a Christian and a non-Christian. (He speaks about such marriages in this
same chapter of his letter.[56]) Fourth (and very importantly) as has been
emphasized, everything in this seventh chapter of the First Letter to the
Corinthians MUST be taken in light of the doctrinal principle, laid down
towards the beginning of the chapter, that “each has a particular gift
from God, one of one kind and one of another.”[57] If one called to the
vocation of marriage tried to ignore that call and live a celibate or a
virginal life, he or she would probably be very “divided” because the
person would not be able to “please the Lord” or to “be anxious about the
things of the Lord.” Such an individual would find it hard to live a
committed celibate or virginal life because he or she would constantly be
longing for a spouse and for family life. Each of us is called to
particular vocation and given the graces sufficient for that vocation.
When someone tries to live a vocation to which one is not called, there
are usually many, many difficulties. The only “best” vocation for each one
is the one to which God calls each of us. Fifth, in the developed
understanding of Christian marriage, the baptized spouse is Christ and the
family is a domestic Church, a “subset” of the universal Church. In loving
one’s wife, one loves Christ. In caring for the family, one does the
missionary work of the Church because one must evangelize and catechize
the children and sometimes, even the spouse. Today, pastors and teachers
would probably not use the term “divided” for the Christian married
person. Rather, Paul’s idea would be conveyed by the idea that the
celibate or virgin “pleases the Lord” and is “anxious about the things of
the Lord” in the universal communion of the Church and the married person
“pleases the Lord” and is “anxious about the things of the Lord” in the
domestic Church, the family. Certainly, this is the thought of John Paul
II in his Apostolic Exhortation on the Family, Familiaris Consortio.[58]
In this fourth cycle of the Theology of the Body addresses (nos. 73-86),
John Paul has certainly tackled a very difficult and long-standing problem
on Catholic moral theology: the relationship between the vocation of
marriage and the celibate and virginal vocation for the sake of the
Kingdom of God. His phenomenological analysis both of Christ’s and St.
Paul’s words (because he brilliantly takes into account the personal and
concrete circumstances in which those words were said or written)
clarifies and solves some thorny theological difficulties. At the same
time, the analysis is carried out on the basis of the principles he has
already taught in the previous three cycles of the Theology of the Body
addresses. Having discussed God’s establishment of marriage in His
creative act (1st cycle), the situation of “historical” man, i.e., the
human being after sin, (2nd cycle), the teaching on the resurrection of
the body (3rd cycle), celibacy and virginity (4th cycle), the remaining
topics are marriage for “historical” man according to the new covenant in
Christ (5th cycle) and the whole question of procreation in marriage (6th
cycle). The next chapter will discuss the fifth cycle, nos. 87-113.
For Chapter 7
[1] See above, Chapter 5: “The Resurrection of the Body.”
[2] See Matthew 19:3-9. See also above, Chapter 2: “The Nuptial Meaning
of the Body.”
[3] See Matthew 5:27-28. See also above, Chapter 3: “Sin and Shame.”
[4] See Matthew 22:23-32. See also Mark 12:18-27 and Luke 20:27-38. See
also above, Chapter 5: “The Resurrection of the Body.”
[5] See John Paul II, “The Apostolic Exhortation on the Family,” no. 11.
[6] See Genesis 1:28.
[7] Certain works of physics, e.g., Stephen Hawking’s more popular works,
have been called “physics for poets” because of the beauty of the universe
they convey. It seems to me that much of John Paul’s theological writings
can be called “theology for poets” because they convey the most astounding
truths about humanity in language which is indescribably clear (when you
understand some of the vocabulary) and incredibly moving because of their
beauty. I made the same point above, see Chapter 2: “The Nuptial Meaning
of the Body,”, footnote # 21.
[8] See Genesis 2:18.
[9] See Matthew 19:11-12.
[10] See no. 76, Theology of the Body, March 31, 1982: “Continence An
Effective and Privileged Way,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition),
vol. 15, nos. 14-15.
[11] See Matthew 19: 3-6.
[12] See no. 81, Theology of the Body, May 5, 1982: “Celibacy For the
Kingdom Affirms Marriage,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition), vol.
15, no. 19.
[13] See Matthew 19: 11-12.
[14] See Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II), Sign of Contradiction, (New
York: Seabury Press, 1979), p. 192.
[15] See no. 80, Theology of the Body, April 28, 1982: “Celibacy is a
Particular Response to the Love of the Divine Spouse,” L’Osservatore
Romano (English Edition), vol. 15, no. 18.
[16] See Matthew 19:3-9.
[17] See Matthew 19:10-12.
[18] See no. 73, Theology of the Body, March 10, 1982: “Virginity or
Celibacy For the Sake of the Kingdom,” L’Osservatore Romano (English
Edition), vol. 15, no. 11.
[19] See Mark 12:18-27.
[20] See Genesis 17:4.
[21] See no. 74, Theology of the Body, March 17, 1982: “The Vocation to
Continence in this Earthly Life,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition),
vol. 15, no. 12.
[22] See Genesis 1:28.
[23] See John 6:54.
[24] See John 6:68.
[25] See Matthew 16:17.
[26] See no. 75, Theology of the Body, March 24, 1982: “Continence For the
Sake of the Kingdom Meant to have a Spiritual Fulfillment,” L’Osservatore
Romano (English Edition), vol. 15, no. 13.
[27] See Matthew 19:10.
[28] See Matthew 19:11-12.
[29] See no. 79, Theology of the Body, April 21, 1982: “The Value of
Continence is Found in Love,” L’Osservatore Romano (English Edition), vol.
15, no. 17.
[30] See 1 Cor. 7:1.
[31] See 1 Cor. 7:7.
[32] See 1 Cor. 7:10.
[33] See no. 84, Theology of the Body, July 7, 1982: “Everyone Has His Own
Gift From God, Suited to Each One’s Vocation,” L’Osservatore Romano
(English Edition), vol. 15, no. 28. See also 1 Cor. 7:31 where Paul
advises the Corinthians using the world not to use it fully. The Pope
makes reference to this phrase in the quotation cited.
[34] See no. 84, Theology of the Body, July 7, 1982: “Everyone Has His Own
Gift From God, Suited to Each One’s Vocation,” L’Osservatore Romano
(English Edition), vol. 15, no. 28.
[35] See 1 Cor. 7:28.
[36] See 1 Cor. 7:1.
[37] See no. 82, Theology of the Body, June 23, 1982: “Voluntary
Continence Derives From Counsel, Not From Command,” L’Osservatore Romano
(English Edition), vol. 15, no. 26.
[38] See 1 Cor. 7:38.
[39] See 1 Cor. 7:28.
[40] See Matt. 19:10-12.
[41] See 1 Cor. 7:28.
[42] See no. 83, Theology of the Body, June 30, 1982: “The Unmarried
Person is Anxious to Please the Lord,” L’Osservatore Romano (English
Edition), vol. 15, no. 27.
[43] See 1 Cor. 7:14.
[44] See Cor. 1:10-11.
[45] See 1 Cor. 1:7-8.
[46] See 1 Cor. 1:25.
[47] See 1 Cor. 7:10.
[48] See 1 Cor. 7:12.
[49] See no. 82, Theology of the Body, June 23, 1982: “Voluntary
Continence Derives From Counsel, Not From Command,” L’Osservatore Romano
(English Edition), vol. 15, no. 26.
[50] See 1 Cor. 7:9.
[51] See 1 Cor. 7:1-2.
[52] See no. 84, Theology of the Body, July 7, 1982: “Everyone Has His Own
Gift From God, Suited to Each One’s Vocation,” L’Osservatore Romano
(English Edition), vol. 15, no. 28.
[53] See no. 85, Theology of the Body, July 14, 1982: “The Kingdom of God,
Not the World, Is Man’s Eternal Destiny,” L’Osservatore Romano (English
Edition), vol. 15, no. 29.
[54] See 1 Cor. 7:32-34.
[55] See John 8:29.
[56] See 1 Cor. 7:12-16.
[57] See 1 Cor. 7:7.
[58] See especially the third part of this document.
August 4, 2003 ---- Fr. Richard Hogan
|
