In my morning newspaper today:
Bernadette Snyder, age 29, became one of only 200 american women in the Catholic church to pledge eternal chastity in the rite that is called "Consecration to a life of Virginity of Women Living in the World". Ms. Snyder has a BA in math, and a post BA degree in geographic information systems. She works as a research analyst in the Catholic church Diocesan Office of Pastoral Planning, working on a strategic plan to help parishes facing a priest shortage. To clarify the nature of Ms. Snyder's committment, she is NOT becoming a nun. Yes she nows wears a "Bride of Christ' ring, but she has not taken the vows of poverty or obedience. She can work whatever job she wants to work and keep the money, and live her own life as long as she nevers has sex.
When asked about her decision, Ms. Snyder said: "My love for God consumes me. It is my reason for living. I love serving his people and being a part of the church. It's not that I didn't like the thought of getting married or raising a family-it was simply that I wanted to give God all of me, that I wanted to devote all my time and energy to prayer, ministry, and outreach, and the only way for that to happen was to remain single. With a husband and children, my time and attention would have been divided."
My reaction to this story is one of bemusement, but I want to try to keep it all in perspective. I was born into the Catholic Church, and left it in my early teens because of my perception that the Church performed "wrong thinking" on a massive scale. On one level, I wish Ms. Snyder all the best in her future life. On another level, I think that the thought that sexuality is more sinful than chastity is one of the problems that Christianity shares with Islam. Catholics assume that chastity is best, then get puzzled about why it is so hard to recruit new Priests who are not child molesters. Hardline Wahhabi muslims insist that sexuality is sinful, and that the only solution is to cover women from head to toe and watch them like a hawk and beat them with a stick if they dare to appear in public with a male who is not their brother or their husband.
Our sexual lives as humans are terribly complex and demanding, as well as potentially rewarding, and yes, uplifting. Sadly, each generation of humans must learn hard lessons about this, and often do so only through trial and error at tremendous cost. I believe that our burden is to stop viewing sex as something that inevitably sullies the participants, while keeping in mind that under the wrong circumstances it can be something that degrades the participants. We seem to think that women are always the losers in sex and men always the winners, but the reality is not so black and white. Women continue to suffer the brunt of intimate violence, unwanted pregnancy, and too many children in many places on our planet. It is men who are responsible for this, not simply by virtue of having a penis, but by virtue of using that penis with selfishness, cruelty, and lack of vision.
Jesus once spoke of becoming a man and putting away childish things when that time arrives. This I think is the context of our sexuality, and the belief framework with which we approach our sexuality. Sexuality is not inherently sinful, but it can be like a loaded gun in the hands of a child. We cannot make sex free of potential for harm, but we could raise our children better able to deal with that potential. We need to be able to reject the ignoble and damaging approach to sexuality, even at times when desire whispers into our eager ear.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 13
I would add a suggestion that intertwined with the concept of sex as a sin is the concept of power and control. So much of what we call sin is simply the powerful exerting their control over the less powerful.
Consider this - with wars rampant both now and historically, as well as murders, rapes, thefts, terrorism, and all the rest...wouldn't having something as mundane (and biologically necessary) as sex deemed a sin seem more than just a little petty? Clearly this is a human construct designed to control.
I, too, was raised Catholic. I guess you could call me a fallen angel. I consider myself more spiritual than religious. I agree with you as far as priests are concerned. If the Church wants more priests, then they should allow them to marry. Just because you love a woman doesn't mean you can't love God, too.
Humans were made to procreate and in order to do this, sexual intercourse is necessary.
As to the words, there is a difference between sexuality and sex. Sexuality includes fulfilling oneself in gender role and relationship within the context of household, family and society ... which may or may not include performance of the "sex act". She does not need to forswear her sexuality to take this vow. Priests and nuns will tell you that their vow of chastity does not change their sexuality -- just how they direct those energies.
Debra- yes sexual identity does go far beyond the sex act. But the notion prevalent in certain catholic circles, that BEING gay is okay, but DOING gay sex is sinful, seems foolish and anti-human. It is a package deal. One can decline to be sexually active, and there is nothing inherently crazy about that, we all are celibate for periods in our lives. My concern here is that when you dam a river you can get flooding upstream, or a catastrophic dam collapse. Okay, maybe that is a stupid analogy, but we all are aware of the Priest child abuse scandal. They could not have sex with a woman, or for those among them who were gay, an adult male. So they rationalized their inability to resist their desire by abusing underage boys and girls. The cure of celibacy is sometimes worse than the disease of desire.
Your attributing turning to pedophilia as cure for celibacy is way off base in my opinion. It is somewhat analogous to the silly theory that not never having had sex with a "real' or "good" member of the opposite gender is the reason a woman is a lesbian or a male is a homosexual.
As for celibacy, we live in a society where sex is highly overrated and the lack of a strong sex drive is looked upon as abnormal when in reality it may only be a matter of hormone levels, which for all we know could be nature"s way of preventing the reproduction of certain characteristics and promoting the reproduction of others. Please note the "for all we know" in the preceding, it is merely a thought that emerged from my having perceived a apparent inability of the human species to objectively consider (or research) matters relating to sexuality. If there is any validity to it, the good or bad characteristic might not even be one that exists in the present and nature could merely be trying to prevent its emergence or increasing the emergence of a good characteristic. What's more nature could only try because of the degree to which the human psyche and individual experience influence the subject and our perceptions.
The sex drive being such a dominating influence, a reduced sex drive could also be nature's way of promoting the development of certain psychic or intellectual abilities. There are many possibilities to which only the future may hold the answer. Until we know I think we need to stop thinking of any level of sex drive as normal. They may all be normal and the key may be how we as individuals deal with the level that we have to promote a better future for all of humankind.
Your point is well taken that sex drives vary. Ultimately I am fine with people remaining celibate for life- I only object to the notion that celibacy is in some way more moral and virtuous than being sexually active.
On the subject of child molesters, you are correct that I oversimplified. I agree that I was off base. With brain perhaps more in gear, I opine that the Priest sex abuse scandal was complex, but many of the offenders appear to have had a predilection for child abuse, rather than a frustrated desire to have intercourse with adult women. Some of the offenders doubtless lied to themselves about their activities and their psychology, just as the church hierarchy lied to itself about the extent of the activity. There are human males who consider any sexual outlet to be fine. It is much more common for males however to have a strong preference for adult females (majority), adult males (minority) or children of one or both genders (smaller minority). For one example of self-deception on this topic, see Senator Larry Craig.
this harms no one despite her thinking on why she chose as she did.