Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog

Celibacy is Not Just for Homosexuals or Roman Catholic Priests / and a critique of a post at another blog

I will start this post out in general terms and then proceed to offer a critique of a post by John Morgan, so excerpts from his post will be much farther below.

It appears to me that the Bible says that sex is reserved for married couples, with marriage being defined by Jesus Christ as being between one man and one woman.

When responding to a question about marriage by religious critics, Jesus referred back to Adam and Eve in the Garden, pointing out that it was God’s original intent for marriage to be comprised of one man, one woman.

However, it appears that many people associate the practice of, or the word, “Celibacy” with only homosexual singles these days, and for hundreds of years, with Roman Catholic priests.

I’ve seen several articles where some Roman Catholics are asking their church to repeal the celibacy requirement from priests.

Here are some examples of the recent discussion of celibacy in regards to homosexuality:

(Link):  Number of celibate gay Christians rises in traditional churches

(Link): Growing movement of gay Christians choosing celibacy

(Link):  Gay Christians choosing celibacy

(Link): Gay, Celibate, Christian?

(Link):  FDA Favors Year Of Celibacy Rule For Gay Male Donors

I follow the conservative blog “Hot Air” on Twitter. Hot Air moderators recently posted a blog page about celibate homosexuals. Here it is,

(Link): Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows – from Hot Air’s blog

I have more to say about this Hot Air article farther below.

At any rate. Since so many homosexuals claim they were born homosexual and cannot change their sexual orientation, I proposed over a year ago, before the “celibacy” topic became popular in various news outlets, that homosexual Christians practice celibacy.

I think it is a workable compromise: if you have homosexual leanings, feel attracted to the same gender, I don’t think that means you have to act upon sexual urges.

I have no idea why this idea would be considered controversial, but according to several news articles I have read, it is in fact considered a controversial idea among Christians, heterosexuals, and homosexuals.

I do not see why, as HETEROsexuals are also commanded by the Bible to remain celibate, unless they are married to an opposite gender person; people are permitted, by God, teaches the Bible, to have sex with their opposite gender partner, but in no other circumstances.

Lifelong celibacy is NOT impossible.

For example, see this post on this blog:

(Link): Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals” (ie, it’s supposedly an impossible feat for any human being to achieve)

Lifelong celibacy can be difficult at times, yes, but not impossible, yet many Christians keep depicting a life without sex as being a Herculean task only a tiny few are capable of, because, they wrongly assume, God sprinkles magic dust on celibate singles to remove sexual desire. This is false.

Celibates still experience sexual urges and desires and attraction, they simply choose not to act upon those feelings or attractions.

When married people are apart, they are expected, by the Bible, to abstain from sex.

Just because your husband is in the Marines and is spending twelve months in Afghanistan does not make it acceptable for you to have sex with the mail man, UPS guy, pool cleaner guy, because you are lonely or horny. Married people need to hear this message.

Being married does not excuse you from practicing celibacy when you are apart from your partner, or he or she has medical or emotional handicaps that prevents them from sexual performance.

Celibacy is not just for adult singles or teen aged kids.

Everyone needs to stop associating celibacy only with priests, heterosexuals (or some groups, with homosexuals only), and singles or college- aged people.

For some time, this guy named Morgan was showing up on my blog. I eventually had to ban him (you can read more about that here). He has his own blog, where he sometimes discusses sexual morality and celibacy.

Morgan seems to feel it is wrong for me to write a blog under a pen name, and feels I am untrustworthy because I do not write under my real name (despite the fact this is a very common habit among many bloggers).

He would not stop pestering me here, in e-mail, and on Twitter to reveal my real name and contact information, so I had to block him from all three after politely declining him for months and months.

Even though he feels I am untrustworthy, he apparently is still using my blog and/or my Twitter account to get story ideas for his blog. I’ve written a bit about that (Link): here.

Hot Air articles do not show up in Yahoo or Google News.

Because I follow Hot Air on Twitter with the account associated with THIS blog, those links of theirs show up in my Twitter feed (whenever I Retweet them), and the last several tweets I make are displayed on this blog on the lower, right side of this blog.

I at one point Re-tweeted the Hot Air link (the one about celibacy and homosexuals). That link sat there in the side bar of this blog for several days or a couple of weeks, since I was not using Twitter much at that time.

I just have a feeling this guy either went to my Twitter feed or saw that link on this blog. He copied that very same Hot Air link to his blog. I could be wrong, but I suspect he still visits this blog.

I also have a link to Christian Headlines site on the right side of this blog, and I sometimes retweet articles from their site. He also copied a story about celibacy from the Christian Headlines site on his blog.

In a blog post at his blog about celibacy and homosexuality, he was seemingly arguing that celibacy should not be conflated with or practiced by homosexuals.

Any time since I have blocked this guy from this blog but have critiqued his writings on my blog, he typically hides his blog from view. Seriously. He will make his blog private for two, three weeks, but then un-hide it and make it public again. It’s very odd.

So, if you click this link below, sometime in the week after Dec 26, 2014, you may get a “sorry this blog is private” message.

I have additional comments below this long excerpt:

(Link): Detaching Celibacy From Homosexuality by John Hugh Morgan

Here are a few excerpts:

  • ….Consider these recent headlines:
  • Gay Christians choosing celibacy emerge from the shadows
  • .http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2014/12/14/gay-christians-choosing-celibacy-emerge-from-the-shadows/
  • Evangelical Leader Russell Moore Denounces Ex-Gay Therapy
  • .http://www.christianheadlines.com/news/evangelical-leader-russell-moore-denounces-ex-gay-therapy.html
  • …According to the Oxford Dictionary, celibacy is “the state of abstaining from marriage and sexual relations.” There is nothing in that definition about homosexuality, the Catholic Church or vows. But these issues have worked their way into the definition to the point that the only example Oxford could offer for the word was “a priest who has taken the vow of celibacy.”
  • …But why is something so good wrapped up in a world of sexual immorality and abomination?
  • ….First, I think we can thank an ultra-liberal news media that feeds the American public a perpetual diet of decadence. Every other headline drips with stories about politicians caught with their pants down, teachers having inappropriate relationships with students, campus rape, pornography, abortion, same sex unions, etc
  • …Today we have a language that serves to normalize the perverted, sugarcoat the abominable and unspeakable, and make right everything that is wrong
  • …That’s why it always baffles me when I read that it’s women who are being objectified. I’m afraid it’s men too.
  • …  What was adultery is now no fault divorce. What was a virgin is now a single. What was fornication is now premarital sex.
  • What was marriage is now a wedding and a state contract.
  • … The very life that Apostle Paul honored and recommended as a gift for those eunuchals who careth for the things that belong to the Lord has been cast into the perverted world of unnatural lust and same sex attraction.
  • Even the phrase “celibate gay Christian” is an oxymoron. Such a thing does not exist. Celibate Roman Catholic lesbian? That headline actually made me laugh.
  • Wordsmiths, I encourage you to work on a new Christian vocabulary, because even putting the word “celibacy” in the same train of thought with homosexuality and the scandals of the Catholic church is offensive to those who have been called to a life without sex, to care for those things which are heavenly and outside the comprehension of this world.
  • …So keep this in mind – If you are not living a life of celibacy, you are not qualified to write about it. And if you do write about it, don’t automatically link it to ungodly lifestyles, unless you want to make God gay. Those who do live celibate lives could just as easily start referring to married couples as pedophiles. It follows the same kind of non-logic.

I would like to take this apart, quote by quote and offer my thoughts or critiques.

Again, you will notice he provided links from Hot Air and Christian Headlines, two sites I either retweet or maintain in my blog roll on the right side of this blog, and Hot Air stories do not show up in Google News, nor Yahoo News.

It could be a coincidence that he found those links and reproduced them, but I still feel he is taking material from my Twitter or blog. Which is pretty nervy, considering he’s accused me of being “untrustworthy” in the past, or some such description.  You can read more about that here:

Quote by Morgan:

  • But why is something so good [ie, celibacy] wrapped up in a world of sexual immorality and abomination?

Er, because people are supposed to be practicing celibacy rather than homosexuality and other forms of sexual immorality. How about that as a reason?

It’s not as though the word “celibate” is owned exclusively by never-married, virgin adults who are over 30 years of age.

Celibacy is for everyone, and yes, that includes homosexuals and others who are wont to practice sexual sin (e.g., hetero married men who are tempted to have sex with a mistress).

Celibacy is NOT the province of heterosexuals, never married adults, or hetero virgins only.

As the Bible presents it, celibacy is a concept that the Bible teaches is for all people, except for married couples who may and can have sex with their opposite-gender spouse.

Would Morgan prefer it if homosexuals acted upon their same sex attraction and had actual, literal sex with other men, or lesbians perform sexual acts on women?

Because that is the logical working of his view: if celibacy is only for heterosexual, never married, adult virgins, that means he’s arguing, in effect, that homosexuals might as well ignore celibacy and commence with sticking their penises in other men’s anuses, or performing blow jobs on each other.

I find that a very curious view for someone to hold who claims to care so dearly about sexual purity.

I do agree that secular culture and most of Christian culture conflates sexual purity and celibacy with nuns, priests, and homosexual Christians (not all ~ some Christians assume all homosexual adult singles are having sex constantly), but that does not mean it’s wrong for any of these groups to encourage celibacy amongst themselves.

That is actually something to support in our sex-saturated culture, not something to be upset by or criticize.

I have some links to very good articles by and for homosexual, Christian celibates on this blog that defend celibacy and adult singleness that are far better than most material I’ve read by HETERO, married Christian pastors and authors. (Not that hetero Christians write many articles in support of adult singleness and celibacy to start with. There is a lack of materials in this area.)

Quote by Morgan:

  • ….First, I think we can thank an ultra-liberal news media that feeds the American public a perpetual diet of decadence. Every other headline drips with stories about politicians caught with their pants down, teachers having inappropriate relationships with students, campus rape, pornography, abortion, same sex unions, etc

You’re blaming liberal news media for reporting on sins committed by people, including Christian people?

I am right wing, a social conservative, but – don’t shoot the messenger.

Just because liberals report on the wrong doing of people, whether Christian or not, does not invalidate those stories or trends.

And it’s not just liberal media. Conservative sites also report the same information.

There are moderate to right wing news outlets which report on sins and crimes of people and of Christians.

World Net Daily is a very far right wing, Christian news site, and they sometimes report on stories such as this:

WND is by no means a liberal or left wing site.

There are Christian forums, blogs, and sites, that is, sites operated by right- of- center, Bible- believing Christians, who regularly expose spiritual and child sexual abuse by other Christians.

Your own Bible warns you that there will be false teachers and false converts among the true, and you are to use discernment, and not associate with such people.

Apostle Paul said to Christians in one of his epistles expel such evil people from among you, and don’t take them back unless they repent – would Morgan accuse Paul of being a liberal?

How about the Lord Jesus, where Jesus said in Revelation that several churches were guilty of on-going sin, they were greedy, lukewarm, and so on?  Would Morgan say that Jesus was being a far left wing liberal for bringing up the shortcomings of those people?

It is a FACT that people who claim the name of Christ sometimes sin, and they sin horribly. There are men who claim the name of Jesus who have affairs, rape little girls, and who steal drugs. I have many examples on this blog of these things.

The fact that there are many self-professing Christians who rape children, abuse narcotics, or make child porn, is not the fault of the Liberal media, or that they cover such stories. Give me a break.

I am just not getting his connection between celibacy supposedly being redefined by some factors of culture and the fact that the media reports on sexual crimes.

Would Morgan propose that the media simply stop covering rape accounts, child abuse, the problem and prevalence of porn, and so on? Why should they stop doing so?

Quote by Morgan:

  • …Today we have a language that serves to normalize the perverted, sugarcoat the abominable and unspeakable, and make right everything that is wrong
  • …… What was adultery is now no fault divorce. What was a virgin is now a single. What was fornication is now premarital sex.

Only to a point can I agree here.

Take the word “virgin,” for instance. We have fornicators being told by Christian talking heads that even though they have literally had sex with hundreds of men prior to marriage that God can make them “born again virgins,” and they also teach an odd concept called “spiritual virginity.”

The Bible teaches no such thing. In regards to consensual sex, either a person is a virgin, or he is not a virgin.

A person can be forgiven of fornication (consensual pre-martial sex), but  that does not make the person a virgin again. See this page for a little more on that:

I personally do not understand the objection, though, to phrases such as “pre-marital sex.”

I have seen this Morgan guy and more famous Christians argue against the use of the phrase “pre marital sex.”

The term “Pre-marital sex” is just another way of saying “fornication.”

It means a person having sex prior to marriage – which the Bible deems sin.

Ergo, the term “pre marital sex” does not sugar coat sexual sin or water down its import.

If someone has sex prior to marriage, and then later marries that same person or someone else, that does not magically turn their pre-marital sex into a non-sin.

In other words, being married does not erase previous sexual acts prior to marriage, as though they never happened, or that being married washes all the past away; that seems to be what some who argue against the phrase argue.

The phrase “pre marital” does not mean once the person marries, that their sexual history is erased. They are still guilty of fornication.

As to this quote by Morgan,

  • … What was adultery is now no fault divorce.

No, no- fault divorce is no- fault divorce.

By the way, even the most staunch defenders of the “permanence view of marriage” concede that divorce is permissible by God if adultery is involved, so I’ve no idea why he seems to be implying that adultery is not a valid reason.

Did you know, however, that most Christians misunderstand the teachings of Jesus about divorce? They do.

Jesus was not opposed to Christians divorcing in cases of adultery, physical or emotional abuse, or only in very narrow circumstance. Read this for more.

Married women who are being physically, emotionally, or verbally abused by their husbands should not be taught to worship marriage, in that, it is NOT biblical to tell such women they need to stay with their spouse and submit to him more, nor is it biblical to teach they may move out of the house and separate but never, ever divorce nor remarry.

Women, their lives, safety, and well-fare, are more important than the institution of marriage!

Jesus does not place marriage above a person’s health, safety, or mental stability.

Those of you who argue otherwise (apparently this includes John Hugh Morgan, ironically) are making marriage into an idol.

The only other people who argue that keeping a marriage intact at all costs out-weighs a woman’s health and safety are abusive, controlling husbands who do not want their wives to leave, get a clue.

If you are being abused in your marriage, you have the right to divorce your spouse, and God does NOT consider it sin. Visit this blog for more information on those points (these are not topics I care to opine about often or in-depth at my blog here. There are other blogs that cover these subjects).

As to this quote by Morgan,

  • What was a virgin is now a single.

I don’t think so.

In today’s culture, both secular and Christian, most people assume that “single” is code word for  “swinging single,” as in, “fornicator.”

There is a common assumption that no adult single past the age of 25 can or will be a virgin these days. The sexual urge is considered so strong that ALL humans will cave in and “do it.”

The word ‘Virgin’ today is usually understood by people as meaning “rare,” “weird,” “repressed,”  “immature,” and “only for children under the age of 16.”

Quote by Morgan:

  • …That’s why it always baffles me when I read that it’s women who are being objectified. I’m afraid it’s men too.

Yes, but only recently. Examples:

For decades, or one could argue, centuries, women have been objectified far more than men have or ever will be.

These messages have seeped into Christian teaching, too, where women are taught -by Christians- that their primary value resides in their physical appearance and sexuality.

Examples:

off site links (I believe all of these are by Christians):

Excerpt from the last link, from The Hope Blog:

  • The worldly view on sexuality long ago invaded the church. Pastors like Mark Driscoll even go so far as to suggest that if a woman “lets herself go”, a vague term that could mean anything from weight gain to eschewing hair extensions and professional spray tans, she may be pushing her husband into straying into an affair with a more attractive model. It is implied, not always said outright. In the world of the sex-obsessed, hipster “pastors”, you’d better be and stay “hot”, lady, or you can thank yourself when your marriage goes south. And I mean “smokin’ hot”, not just “hot.”

From a secular source:

In a way, I think it’s good men are now being objectified, as it will make them more empathetic to what women have endured for years now.

It’s tiresome to be reduced by men to the size of your breasts, your age, how small your waist is, etc. Men, even Christian men, have been doing this to women forever.

It’s great they are getting a taste of their own medicine and learning that women are NOT turned on by beer guts, balding heads, stick thin arms, or missing teeth.

Quote by Morgan:

  • Even the phrase “celibate gay Christian” is an oxymoron. Such a thing does not exist. Celibate Roman Catholic lesbian? That headline actually made me laugh.

No, it’s not an oxymoron. I’ve read the debates, some Christians do not believe that Christians with a homosexual leaning ought to identify as a “homosexual Christian.”

I don’t want to get into that specific debate, at least not now, but what I am driving at is that Morgan is implying that people who have homosexual urges should NOT be celibate. What an odd and unbiblical view. Celibacy is for all people, not just never-married, hetero, virgins.

Quote by Morgan:

  • Wordsmiths, I encourage you to work on a new Christian vocabulary, because even putting the word “celibacy” in the same train of thought with homosexuality and the scandals of the Catholic church is offensive to those who have been called to a life without sex, to care for those things which are heavenly and outside the comprehension of this world.

Using the word “celibacy” in conjunction of conversations about homosexuality is not degrading the concept or word of “celibacy.” Homosexuals are expected to remain celibate by God, per the Bible’s teachings, as are HETERO singles too.

Morgan seems to be suggesting that homosexuals should engage in and satisfy their lusts. If celibacy is only for hetero adults, per his suggestion, why should homosexuals abstain? His view makes no sense.

If so, if my understanding here is correct, Morgan is encouraging homosexuals to practice homosexual sexual sin, which is a mighty strange view for a guy who claims to believe in sexual purity.

Or, maybe Morgan believes sexual purity is for hetero people only? That is false, and I’ve discussed this double standard at my blog before, e.g., (I have several more pages like these on my blog but will only be linking to two or three of them),

Quote by Morgan:

  • … who have been called to a life without sex, to care for those things which are heavenly and outside the comprehension of this world.

Nobody is “called” to “live a life without sex.” It’s a personal choice a person makes, which is supported by the Bible (as the Bible insists that singles are to refrain from having sex).

But the Bible does not teach that God selects some to be single and chaste and others to marry and have sex – that is mistaken teaching. See these posts for more on that:

As to this by Morgan,

  • …outside the comprehension of this world.

I think in some instance, this is a case of his pride at work.

I have heard of some Christians accusing adult virgins of being “prideful.” In most cases, I disagree with this accusation, but in this particular mindset on Morgan’s blog, I have to agree a bit.

Morgan seems to think his virgin status, post age 50, makes him more holy or special than all the hetero married couples who are having sex, but it does not.

Nor does being a virgin past age 30, or whatever age, magically or instantly makee one more special, or give one deeper insight, into the things of God – if this is what Morgan believes, he is dabbling in Gnosticism, not Christianity.

Quote by Morgan:

  • …So keep this in mind – If you are not living a life of celibacy, you are not qualified to write about it. And if you do write about it, don’t automatically link it to ungodly lifestyles, unless you want to make God gay. Those who do live celibate lives could just as easily start referring to married couples as pedophiles. It follows the same kind of non-logic.

I don’t know if I’d go so far as to say those not living a life of celibacy cannot or should not ever discuss it, but as many of them are dreadfully ignorant on the topic, they really should research the issue more by interviewing actual adult celibates before they publish their articles.

I tire of married Christian people who opine about singleness repeatedly but who never allow actual, unmarried adults – you know, people who are actually LIVING the life  – to speak about it in churches or to act as Sunday School teachers for adult classes.

Most churches bar adult singles from working in teaching or authoritative positions but permit married persons to lecture singles about “how to be single.” It’s condescending, this double standard.

Anyway, if one wishes to encourage those with homosexual proclivities from refraining from indulging in them, how else should one go about it if not bringing up the choice of celibacy?

What does it matter if it’s a married guy asking homosexuals to consider practicing celibacy? I think it would be better if a hetero celibate or another homosexual celibate could deliver the advice, but I’m not going to be dogmatic about it.

Quote by Morgan:

  • …don’t automatically link it [celibacy] to ungodly lifestyles, unless you want to make God gay.

How does proposing celibacy as a possible solution for homosexual Christians who don’t wish to act on homosexual impulses “make God gay”?

I fail to see the connection. LOGIC FAIL on Morgan’s part, there.

I agree that celibacy should not be confined only to the domains of homosexuals and nuns and priests, that churches need to recognize that the Bible expects celibacy for all singles, regardless or age or sexual orientation, and that married couples who are physically apart are to practice celibacy too.

Celibacy is not owned, however, only by Protestant, Baptist, heterosexual, never married virgins, nor is it presented as being a practice for ONLY certain groups, such as heterosexual singles. So very peculiar that Morgan behaves as though it is.

——————————–

Related posts:

Critiques of other posts by John Hugh Morgan:

(Link): Ageism Vs. Age Preferences and Creepy Older Men

(Link): True Love Waits . . . and Waits . . . and Waits – editorial about delayed marriage and related issues – and a rebuttal to John Morgan’s comment on the page

(Link): Male Entitlement and Adult Virginity: Who has it worse, Male Vs. Female?

Other related posts:

(Link):  “Even more bizarrely, Christianity held up lifelong celibacy as an even more exalted state of life”

(Link): Why Christians Need to Uphold Lifelong Celibacy as an Option for All Instead of Merely Pressuring All to Marry – vis a vis Sexless Marriages, Counselors Who Tell Marrieds that Having Affairs Can Help their Marriages

(Link):  Churches Would Rather Hear From Ex Porn Stars Than Adult Celibates or Virgins – Church Invites Ex Porn Star to be Guest Speaker

(Link): Sex, Love & Celibacy by Dan Navin [written by a homosexual celibate]

(Link):  Typical Erroneous Teaching About Adult Celibacy Rears Its Head Again: To Paraphrase Speaker at Ethics and Public Policy Center: Lifelong Celibacy is “heroic ethical standard that is not expected of heteros, so it should not be expected of homosexuals” (ie, it’s supposedly an impossible feat for any human being to achieve)

(Link):  Virgin – and Celibate – Shaming : Christian Double Standards – Homosexuals Vs Hetero Singles – Concerning Thabiti Anyabwile and Gag Reflexes