In her recent article ‘Giving up Sex? What Macrina tells us about choosing celibacy,’ [1] Professor Morwenna of the University of Exeter provides an overview of how celibacy was understood in the Early Church and then comments on what she sees as the implication of this understanding of celibacy for the contemporary debate in the Church of England about same sex relationships.
At the end of her article Ludlow sums up her argument as follows:
‘Early forms of Christian celibacy were varied. They were adapted to suit individual settings and cultural contexts. But they were united by a strong sense of a voluntary, permanent setting aside of one’s Iife for God, a commitment which was symbolised for women and men as a wife’s devotion to her heavenly husband. Just as marriage was based in both Jewish and Roman law on consent, celibacy was grounded on a voluntary commitment.
Those modern Christians who demand celibacy for same-sex couples may think they are defending the Christian doctrine of marriage. In fact, they are ignoring the doctrine of celibacy. Their position is unchristian, it is unbiblical, and it is unkind.’
Everything that Ludlow says in the first paragraph is completely correct. She is also correct when she suggests in the second paragraph that it is wrong for Christians today to demand celibacy from people who are in same-sex relationships. However, this does not mean that it would be wrong for Christians today to say that that those who are in same-sex relationships should be sexually abstinent in that context.
In order to understand why I introduce this caveat to Ludlow’s argument, it is necessary to note, as Ludlow does not, that in the Christian tradition there are two reasons rather than just one for people to be sexually abstinent.
The first reason is, as Ludlow has noted, a call to a celibacy. As she says, celibacy is someone’s decision to respond to God’s call by permanently setting aside their life to him. Such a response is voluntary and it involves the renunciation of marriage and therefore also a renunciation of sexual activity.
The reason that the renunciation of marriage by those who are celibate also means the renunciation of sexual activity is because of the second reason for people to be sexually abstinent, namely the requirement for all Christians to practice the virtue of chastity. Chastity means moral purity, particularly in regard to sexual activity, and in the Christian tradition it has been universally understood to mean, in line with Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7, that those who are unmarried should be sexually abstinent and those who are married should be sexually faithful to their spouse.
In the Christian tradition it has also been universally held until the last few decades that. in accordance with God’s institution of marriage as described in Genesis 2:18-25, marriage is a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. What follows from this fact is that a relationship between two people of the same sex is not a marriage, therefore those in same-sex relationships are unmarried, and therefore the practice of chastity requires that they should be sexually abstinent. In the Christian tradition same-sex friendships have been highly valued,[2] but it has always been held that it would be morally wrong for such friendships to involve sexual intercourse.
There may well be ill-informed Christians who insist that all those in same-sex relationships should be celibate. If this is the case, they are, as Ludlow rightly says, wrong to do so. This is because there are no grounds for saying that all those who are in same-sex relationships are called by God to renounce the possibility of marriage with someone of the opposite sex and sexual activity as part of marriage. Like everyone else who is unmarried, they may be called to such an act of renunciation, or they may not. To put it simply, according to the Christian tradition all those who are in same-sex relationships are called to be chaste (and therefore sexually abstinent), but they are not all called to be celibate.
What also needs to noted is that there are some liberal Christians who claim that people with same-sex attraction cannot marry someone of the opposite sex. Like the claim that all Christians with same-sex attraction are called to be celibate, this liberal claim is simply untrue. There is plenty of evidence that it is perfectly possible for people who experience same-sex attraction to have a successful marriage with someone of the opposite sex.[3]
In summary, what the Christian tradition tells us is that all Christians, regardless of their sexual attraction, are called to be chaste in the sense of being sexually abstinent outside marriage and sexually faithful within it. Some, but not all Christians (including some but not all Christians who experience same-sex attraction) are also called to be celibate in the sense of being called by God to permanently renounce the possibility of marriage.
[1] Morwenna Ludlow, ‘Giving Up Sex? What Macrina Tells Us About Choosing Celibacy,’ Via Media, 19 July 2023 at https://viamedia.news/2023/07/19/giving-up-sex-what-macrina-tells-us-about-celibacy/
[2] See, for example, Aelred of Rievaulx, Spiritual Friendship (Trappist Kentucky: Liturgical Press, 2010).
[3] For this point see Sean Doherty, The only way is Ethics – Part 1: Sex and marriage (Milton Keynes: Authentic Media, 2015), pp.3-13.
Reflections of an Anglican Theologian 