to not love.

Isn't this really a question only you can answer?

I think that the reasons for originally adopting the celibacy requirement no longer apply, and that reasons offered since then are hazy -- but even though I'm not very sacrifice-oriented myself, I can see the benefits of fasting and Lent, and so I can apply that to celibacy as well ... if it's a choice. Not just "a choice made because it's a requirement of X, and you chose X," but a choice in of itself.

I don't think Jesus would care whether or not someone was celibate, per se: I think he did encourage removing yourself from the world somewhat, and celibacy might in fact be a good way of doing that. I hope #s 2-5 aren't true for you.

Ultimately, I think one of the problems with an institutional celibacy requirement -- probably less true if it's just on an individual basis -- is that it does imply that "sex is dirty" attitude. If celibacy keeps you holier, how can that not mean that sex isn't holy? That's the kind of thing we need to move away from: Judaism encourages a healthy attitude towards sex, and it hasn't run them into the ground. The Bible has so many stories of love and childbearing that surely God doesn't view sex as a necessary evil.

They are different because: love is from the heart, and sex is from the body.

I think it's more complicated and intertwined than that. There isn't just one reason or one set of reasons why people fall in love or why you want to fuck someone. Sometimes sex is from the heart, ie not libidinal. Sometimes the distinction between lust and love is blurry.

Here's the thing, though -- Catholics had a long time of celibacy being either a) not a requirement at all, or b) a requirement never enforced (when this changed, there's an archbishop who was stoned to death by his own priests for starting to enforce it; which would have meant them having to put aside their wives; but they weren't allowed to divorce them -- they just had to not be married to them). The argument made not only by priests but by lay Catholics was that being married made them more invested in their parish -- they had kids who played with the other kids, they participated in the parish "culture" more, they could better relate to "the common man," etc.

(Obviously there were arguments made for celibacy, as well, I'm not saying it was clear-cut -- just that there has always been popular support for getting rid of celibacy, or for never adopting it. That support hasn't always been in the majority, of course.)

I guess the upshot of a lot of what I think, Anthony, is that you should have your own reasons for being celibate. I think there's a good chance the Church is going to remove or alter the ban in our lifetimes: a growing number of priests want it gone, all throughout the Church; the laity often do, too, or are neutral; most seminary students want it gone; and the population of priests, especially those actually serving parishes, is dropping like a lead pigeon.

If you see it not as a requirement, but as something to aspire to -- a voluntary sacrifice -- then it's important to know what your reasons are, or the torment, effort, and potentially the guilt of breaking the vow, are going to outweigh any good.

the original teachings on celibacy-for-initiates/spiritual-aspirants were quite practical, imo..

imo western religions have forgotten the techniques which were concurrent w/ the practice of celibacy that the eastern monastics had to observe, with which the sexual drive is sublimated into spiritual fervor - sublimated, not suppressed. the need for sexual release is not just evaporated, it is slowly transcended and replaced by a much larger need - which is just as emotional, psychological and yes, physical, ast he sexual need. (it is no accident that pranayama or breath control is a pivotal part of this process -> control of the breath = control of the mind = control of the sex center, the equation is the same regardless of order)

there are 100% logical reasons for celibacy if you want to live an active spiritual life, which most worldly people do not (as they become householders - and there's absolutely nothing wrong with this). the dynamic flow of spiritual energy up the nadis ( physiological currents, or theoretical veins or "rivers" connecting the chakric plexuses) is impossible with a continual, incessant or simultaneous downward flow of semen; sexual continence is necessary for the shakti of ojasto develop into refinement, or the energy of your aura to ripen into a concentrated state so that you will be strong enough to withstand the upward movement of the mysterious Kundalini.

there was a reason why monastics were allegorically referred to as the brides of Christ or krishna, etc; that which goes down cannot also go up at the same time! if so you mess around with the internal fires of your own body (lighting a candle at both ends, etc) - or if you happen to master this, turn into Aleister Crowley or Rasputin, etc - but what are the extremely minute chances of that ever happening for the average aspirant? that would be a curse anyway; those freaks wind up having a hellish fate. the yogic requirements for celibacy are grounded more in logic than dogma, and these teachings form the essence not only of tantra but also of ayurveda (which studies ojas in detail) ]]]

in the meanwhile, you can't live in denial - when you have desires, you must either forsake them or fulfill them, or else you're going to bound yourself to them in chains and as a consequence tether your soul even more tightly to the inescapabale cycle of birth and death

From the Catholic/Tep perspective, this is the crux of it right here: are there different ... recommendations, so to speak, different Things What Are Good ... for monks -- who are largely removed from the world, and serve the Church through their existence more than through interactions with the laity (in the Middle Ages when these issues were most heatedly discussed, they were basically think tanks of prayer) -- than for priests/secular clergy? Should priests be more worldly than monks, at least the ones whose jobs require them to deal with the world, and to live more entrenched in it than monks -- or should they strive for an equal "unworldliness," making celibacy all the more important precisely because they lack the geographical remove?

I lean towards the former, and the ideal of priests who are not outside the world so much as very good at being in it; but it's an issue the Church will end up thoroughly addressing, if only in its own ranks and councils, when the celibacy matter comes to debate. (Which it certainly will at the next council, whenever that happens to be, unless there's some enormous crisis that somehow keeps it off the table.)

imo it's a shame that the west has lost the hermetic tradition (that the east retains), which once existed at least theorectically in as much force as the monastic tradition. the need for independent spiritual seeking should not be denied or dismissed within any societ.y. i don't mean hippies, and i can just imagine all the mockery the notion would entertain if proposed in a MWS (modern western society)

today we want to boast that we're at our most "advanced" that we can go to the moon- but we still cannot face that that is only in a material, external sense, we cannot definitely answer the question of what defines our own consciousness!!!! and we mock all those who wish to investigate the "subjective" ( but what is NOT, damnit) realms of what is beyond the five senses, just as we mock all those w/ adherence to the old religions, even if they don't fully understand them. does this hypocrisy not both anyone?

if u care to start a thread i'll join u there

True -- more specifically, particular self-defined conservatives (and sometimes moderates) in the US, generally sympathetic to the religious right.

I'll start a new thread, but not tonight, I don't think, because I'm thinking of the best term for the kinds of things we're talking about, rather than sticking to one thing or another, and maybe it'll justify the overlap with Anthony's thread here. (Okay, and because I'm supposed to be working :))