Replies

I have to ask myself what kind of young man in his teens or early 20s makes a decision to forego, for life, his most basic biological impulse? Is he normal, with a calling, or is he immature, abnormal, and full of hubris as to what he can deny? My suspicion is that the kind of young men drawn to that life are not stable, well balanced individuals - and that if they were required to work in the world and be normal, productive citizens into their 30s, you'd get a sexually mature cleric who understood human life and society (this would help in the interaction with the laity as well - they'd all know how to balance a checkbook).

As to gays in cultures where Eastern Christianity is most prevalent, I know they exist, but also tend to think that they tend to be more subdued, less flamboyant, and aren't out to crush the rest of society. Why? I have no idea.

As to your comments on the gender separation in monastic societies, there isn't a real analogy between the West and the East. Superficially, they're similar, but underneath, they're quite different. In the East, it was a place of honor - a pinnacle representing a level of devotion that very few could ever reach. In the West, I always got the feeling that they were far less "choosey", and that they'd take anyone as a default position.

I do think you're getting somewhere about the overnuancing of sexual morality in the Latin West. When every activity (no matter how mundane) is a grave sin, no activity is sinful. In ther words, be careful about how many rules you make - if you make too many, all will be ignored.

As to the married couples and attraction, I can say i know some who still maintain that physical attraction - but you're right about that emotional bonding and fidelity - it maintains you even when that chemical spark isn't so bright anymore.

have to ask myself what kind of young man in his teens or early 20s makes a decision to forego, for life, his most basic biological impulse? Is he normal, with a calling, or is he immature, abnormal, and full of hubris as to what he can deny? My suspicion is that the kind of young men drawn to that life are not stable, well balanced individuals - and that if they were required to work in the world and be normal, productive citizens into their 30s, you'd get a sexually mature cleric who understood human life and society (this would help in the interaction with the laity as well - they'd all know how to balance a checkbook).

I think they are victims of unrealistic expectations, coupled with cultural pressure and expectations. It really seems to me that a lot of vocations, not necessarily abnormal sexually, are by default because they don't seem to fit any other mold. There are many heterosexuals in the priesthood who are emotionally immature; some are unbalanced; others seem quite normal and stable. I haven't come to the above thinking entirely on my own; others have noted immaturity on the part of the clergy.

The laity are part of the problem. They need the ideal and expect priests to be something they could never be themselves. They have put them on pedestals because they have to believe the fantasy that they are holier, merely because of their vocation, than others.

When you read about the apostles, they come across as fairly normal men, even though information about their private lives isn't given. I had trouble with St. Paul for awhile, but I do admire him that he worked and didn't expect a free ride from his parishioners. That probably wouldn't be practical today. In large parishes a priest couldn't really do his job with so many sacramental obligations, without burnout.

Sometimes I wonder if Augustine would have made a holier choice if he had married the mother of his child. I'm told they may have been unequals socially. His later philosophy, while not necessarily bad, may have been trying to rationalize his own conflict between his mother and the woman and the normal right thing to do. That may not be the case, but I'm weary of trying to see holiness where it may have been absent

Many catholics seem to be able to comfortably ignore all the rules, which in some cases seem to be excessive and exaggerated. Same with our society where there are so many laws now, people don't even know they have broken one until they get caught. People start to think, "I'm going to sin (or break some law) anyway so why worry about it any more?"

As to your comment about convents in the east vs. convents in the west, I wouldn't know. The east culturally had a tendency to hide their women in the world. The early Christian singles in the NT seemed to fit in quite wholesomely with the others and were a part of normal Christian everyday life.

I think that is why we are losing vocations and I'm not convinced it is necesarily a bad thing. How is a nun holier (and she is treated as such in the church as a given) as a laywoman who does the same things, prayer, continence, charitable works, etc.). I do acknowledge that historically it wasn't safe or economically feasible for single women to remain in the world. Furthermore, marriage entailed so many different sorrows in those times, that many women would be tempted to escape them.

There is really no right or wrong about these customs per se but presenting a false picture to the young about various aspects of a narrow interpretation of holy living can cause a lot of unnecessary unhappiness and conflict. The bottom line is fully mature, informed, voluntary consent to such choices.

You seem to be biased towards the east; from my vantage point, both east and west seem to have perpetuated customs that are difficult to understand in our modern world. In some ways, it does seem that the east wasn't quite so stringent other than the Lenten fast. I can't imagine being able to keep up with that, but that is cultural, too . . . In many ways, it's the same in the world. People are held to narrow channels, career paths, etc. It's seems to be a human and societal tendency to control peoples lives more than is really warranted.