Celibate together, but never apart…
A story in today’s New York Times about a Buddhist couple–he’s a monk–who have vowed never to have sex, but also never to be more than 15 feet from each other:
“It forces you to deal with your own emotions so you can’t say, ‘I’ll take a break,’ ” said Mr. Roach, 55, who trained in the same Tibetan Buddhist tradition as the Dalai Lama. After becoming a monk in 1983, he trained on-and-off in a Buddhist monastery for 20 years, and is one of a handful of Westerners who has earned the title of geshe, the rough equivalent of a religious doctorate. “You are in each other’s faces 24 hours a day,” he said. “You must deal with your anger or your jealousy.” Ms. McNally said, “From a Buddhist perspective, it purifies your own mind.” Ms. McNally is 35 and uses the title of Lama, or teacher, an honor not traditionally bestowed on women by the Tibetan orders.
Okay, everyone jumps on Catholic notions and tales of purity and sex. But even Abelard and Heloise had the good sense to live in different convents. I have no problem with celibacy. A little solitude now and again is indispensible, however.
Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Sure, I’m a big fan of celibacy. For other people.
If I could think of one rational reason to celebrate this couple, I would. But, I can’t think of one! I can’t tell if they are married or just in a partnership. If the latter, conservative Catholics will to tut-tut about the “near occasion of sin” aspect. If the former, it makes a mockery of the intimate aspect of a marriage. But Catholicism seems to support this idea IF one of the parties either takes orders or becomes a vowed religious. But that is a long way from this situation. There is not even an “AMDG” factor apparent in this story.
Not being eligible for marriage myself (except in California where the State Supreme Court just ruled otherwise today) I will defer to those of you who are to opine from a position of experience.
The California ruling is big. Now you, too, can enjoy the benefits of marriage!
Joseph: Isn’t it actually “O-o-o-o-o-h-h-h-h-h-m-m-m-m.”
But only the State benefits. And only in the state. Federal benefits are critically important and far from possible in my lifetime.
There is already yet another ballot referendum being floated by God’s Good Christian Folk to ensure that their dismal marriage success rate (supposedly no better than 50% in CA) is not damaged by allowing people who actually want to be married and, in the main (my relationship is 36 years as of today) have proven that they can and will be successful.
We all know that, if gay marriage is approved, a significant portion of heterosexuals will have an immediate and irrevokable conversion to same-sex attraction and will abandon their spouses, children, families and senses.
I believe Jacques and Raissa Maritain followed a similar way of life.
-I thought it interesting that Gov. Scwarznegger says he wil not support a constitutional attempt to overturn the California SC ruling.
If a Governor who was Catholictook a similar position, could would a Bishop deny him communion?
OOPs, that’s another thread.
For Catholics, the issue is madatory celibacy, and, just like laity and clergy, is celibacy superior or just different?
Comparatively, in the lives of the saints, how many married couples are there who laterr idid not abstain from (ugh) sex?
Maybe Fr. Martin can enlighten us on that.
The interesting aspect of this story is their challenge to traditional concepts of monasticism. Though in a different way it reminded me of a wonderful book about Tenzin Palmo, “Cave in the Snow”; a British woman who spent 12 years meditating in a cave, and is now establishing a nunnery in Tibet (http://www.tenzinpalmo.com/) – at the time it was considered unthinkable that a woman would gain enlightenment.
Clearly the way this couple lives is is not normative for either Buddhist monks or married couples but are they deluded or pioneers?
Yes, the Maritains were celibate for most of their married life but somehow I don’t think they would have opened this for a discussion in the pages of the New York Times.
(http://maritain.nd.edu/jmc/etext/lives.htm)
What if one wants to get a job (and it sounds like these people could use some constructive employment). Would a spouse who refuses to move 15 feet away from you be considered an accommodatable handicap under the Persons with Disabilities Act?
What if you’re watching a movie and one has to go to the loo? That means the other one can’t explain what happens to the one who ducks out. Or, worse, what if there isn’t a stall within 15 feet of wherever the other one is waiting outside the door?
What if one has a heart attack and the ambulance drivers won’t let the other one in the ambulance (they usually don’t). Will he or she have to drive 15 feet from the tailgate of the ambulance?
Honestly, this just gives me the creeps.
If some man told me he was going to remain no more than 15 feet away from me for the rest of his life I’d call the cops.
Jimmy Mac: Happy Anniversary!
Rachelle Linner: Yes, Cave in the Snow is a fascinating read. Tenzin Palmo also has a collection of her own writings (Cave in the Snow being about her) called Reflections on a Mountain Lake. I recommend the book. Just to be clear, Tenzin Palmo has not achieved enlightenment, not that you said as much. What is interesting about her sacred vow is that it is to achieve enlightenment in the body of a female. For interested dotCommers, the problem she is confronting is Buddhist belief that female Buddhists are all well and good, but the should not fool themselves into thinking that they will achieve enlightenment in their current female life. Rather, they will need to do what they can to walk down the path toward enlightenment while they are female, and then wait to be reborn as a male, at which point they will have a REAL shot at enlightenment. Tenzin Palmo is challenging all of this by trying to guide her consciousness, by means of a sacred vow, to return again and again in a female body until she reaches enlightenment. All fascinating stuff.
The story referenced by David in this thread goes to the heart of highly sympathetic, but ultimately critical, take on Buddhism. There is is Buddhism a bias toward release from attachment; not for the sake of isolation, but rather, as the monk in this piece indicates, to “purify” the mind. This purifying is not a selfish endeavor, but is pursued from the Buddhist perspective in order both to see reality properly, and so not contribute to suffering through ignorance, and to assist in reducing the suffering of others. I am very sympathetic to much that Buddhism teaches, and I find their ethics to be far more nuanced and practical than anything that Christianity has to offer.
That said, for now I think that the ultimate human good is not to understand reality, or simply to reduce the suffering of others, but rather to create as God creates — by gathering in ever more reality while preserving and actually enhancing the individuality of what is gathered in. In order to do this, I think that attachment, and even suffering, are essential elements of the good life. I am with Buddhism on the recognition of our interdependence, but I see this not simply as something to be understood, but also as what makes genuinely new creations possible. I also appreciate the emphasis of Buddhism on the importance of the individual and her or his perspectives on reality; but the individual is ulitimately part and parcel of an unfinished (never finished) creation.
The upshot of this beer induced meditation is that I think there is something virtuous in sexuality that goes beyond yummy feelings and babies. It involves deepening the bonds of creation, the very attachments that Buddhism would have me forego. Thus, I think that the Buddhist understanding of the good life is ultimately mistaken and this mistake is revealed in some of its convictions regarding sexuality.
I say Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm too! Sound a bit like twin toddlers who haven’t been quite able to separate…
Ooops. Sorry about the beer/fatigue induced typos in my above post. Just to be clear, that is MY highly sympathetic, but ulimately critical, take on Buddhism.
One thought regarding the California ruling. Jimmy, not sure how old you are, but I am not sure I would be so pessimistic. I think the problems created by the state by state status of same sex marriage laws will yield a constitutional problem that goes something like this: If I enjoy the benefits of same-sex marriage in one state and am offered a promotion in my job that requires me to move to another state, one that does not even recognize my marriage, let alone provide similar benefits, why should I have to make the choice between keeping my marriage “legal” or even “real,” as well as maintaining the benefits, versus taking the promotion and losing all of these things, especially when my heterosexual friends do not have to worry about making this choice? I think this may be where the constitutional show down is heading.
It sounds like they made themselves a little monastery. I wonder if a couple like this would constitute a “community”.
I think that it is interesting. We have all of these rules about sex, but sometimes I think we act as though marriage is bracketed out as some place where we can simply indulge in our licit animal desires. Aside from the idea that we should not use artificial birth control, I don’t know if we are all that good at looking at what sex and sexuality is supposed to be from a real Christian point of view. And in fact, I sometimes get the feeling that there is more work being done on this question in regards to homosexuality, precisely because the Church does not believe that there is an area for licit homosexual activity. So even for us, it might be that a little celibacy might serve to clear the mind a bit or at least get people to think about what the role of sex is in their lives.
Maybe I’m just not in the spirit of the thing, but it strikes me that using someone else to help you clarify your own mind is faintly exploitive.
Of more practical interest to married Catholics might be guidance the Church might offer couples where one spouse can no longer–or no longer wishes to–engage in sexual activity.
Once you reach a certain age, you realize there are a fair number of these couples out there. Do they maintain their marriage on friendship and companionship? Does the lack of sex enhance the spiritual dimension of their relationship? Does the Church condone sexual activity for these couples that might maintain physical intimacy, but is not within the “openness to life” boundaries?
I’m not asking for True Confessions here, just wondering if the Church addresses such things in its desire to keep marriages together. It’s one area our Fundamentalist brethren have a lot to say in couples counseling and in their many marriage manuals. But the focus there is largely on providing outlets and ego-propping for male needs, keeping men interested with frequent and diverse activities so they don’t run off with the neighbor lady, as it were.
I suppose that in any relationship, and not just marriage, unilateral decision making of this sort is a bad idea. And any woman should smell a rat if her husband comes home and says “Honey, I’ve decided to be celebate from now on in order to clear my mind”. (One wonders in this context if the 15 foot rule would be something coming from the wife.)
But your questions are all good. I wish I knew the answers.
My wife worked at a UU seminary once and we would have ministry students over for dinner from time to time. One evening one of them went on and on about how it was a well known fact that celebacy was unnatural and all celebates inevitably became mentally ill (and that this was the basic problem of the Catholic priesthood).
Since I had known him for a couple of years and knew him well enough to know that he had not had any romantic relationships as long as I had known him, I couldn’t resist asking him when this insanity kicked in. Was it in six months? A year? Two years?
The insane look in his eye when I asked him this was rather priceless.
Bernard Haring, that great moral theologian, advised that sex is in so many actions. The way a couple talks to each other, the look, preparing a meal, the concern, the solicitude, the sharing etc.
It is very hard to characterize an ideal marriage because in the best ones there are struggles and innumerable opportunities for growing together. Because there are two imperfect persons at play and only the willingness to realize that life is imperfect lets us into the best moments in a marriage.
Unagidon, I think Protestants in general are very suspicious of celibacy and believe that those who are celibate are warped, fearful, or somehow incomplete. Catholics seem to emphasize spiritual wisdom over physical experience, and I admire that.
I’ll butt out of here by recommending Nick Hornby’s novel, “How to Be Good,” about an unraveling marriage and the couple’s quest to be better people and struggling with their own sense of spirituality. It is a one of the most hilarious, touching and ultimately uplifting books I’ve ever read.
Dear Jean,
I think that there was more Sigmund Freud and less Martin Luther in this guy I was talking to on that day. Maybe we would be better off if there was more of the latter and less of the former. I feel sometimes that many of what should be spiritual discussions about the nature of sexuality take the form of pretend scientific discussions. That happened to really be the case with him.