God is the sole satisfier of every human heart, whether it knows it or not. Death to the world! May the peace and mercy of Christ be with you until the end, brother.
Even for someone like me with virtually no libido, I still have extraordinary respect for you and all those who can exercise so much self-discipline. God bless you brother.
We are, perhaps, at opposite ends of this spectrum. I am a nontheist and coming up on my 10 year anniversary with my (male) partner.
However, I appreciate your article, for several reasons.
I could have written this piece word for word when I was in my early 20s. Like you, I was committed to celibacy.
I am no longer celibate, and immensely happy that I am not. Despite that, I still believe that celibacy can be a meaningful and noble spiritual path. I wish you all the best on that path.
Also, you write:
“In our modern Western society, homosexuals are seemingly everywhere—no thanks to leftists—yet have little information on how to live a healthy life. Most often, we are granted one of two options: be repressed and burdened by shame or be hedonistic and libertine.”
I agree with this. You go on to say that the superior alternative is ego death, which I also agree with. I would go even further: ego death is the appropriate path for *everyone*, regardless of whether they are celibate or not, gay or not.
My partnership has been a refining fire, and no one makes me want to be a better man more than him. The self-sacrifice and service in our relationship has utterly transformed me. Contemplative practice, too, continues to refine me, and the path of contemplative practice is appropriate for everyone regardless of their sexual activity or orientation.
I know that you are operating from within a Christian (Eastern Orthodox?) framework, and probably disagree with what I’ve written here. Which is ok! I just saw this as an opportunity to offer a dissonant jazz riff on what you had written.
I enjoy hearing alternate perspectives, especially with something like this, which is an area that's been largely a solo journey. It helps all of us in finding better ways to live.
I agree with everything you're saying, though! Thank you for reading, and all the best to you, too.
Only problem with such a phrase in this context is then we have to ask ourselves: where does it end? Otherwise, wouldn't anorexia, narcissism, or pedophilia, have the potential to be divine? God allows the anarchy of man, but only so that we may overcome it.
Yes, quite. But your point likewise to the inverse is true: where does it end for things in need of overcoming? I guess we will only end up with opinions to decide on this matter.
I appreciate your forthrightness and willingness to engage with different perspectives. But it strikes me as more than "gentle" pride to claim to know the intentions of the "Most High" for "we homosexuals". Even St. Paul admitted that we see through a glass darkly. That's why (perhaps self-servingly), I prefer my mysticism to be of the non-dogmatic kind.
Eclectic mysticism is perfectly fine. I myself have grown fond of Christian mysticism because of its familiarity and how it seems to combine a lot of themes from other traditions in an easy to understand way.
Of course, though, I don't actually know what God thinks or truly wants. As you mentioned, no one does. This is just the best conclusion I--someone who is still a spiritual sapling--have been able to discern. I don't judge people who do act on their urges, but am rather proposing a possible solution to an otherwise spiritually, socially, and historically difficult problem. And my opinions, of course, are subject to change (for example, my opinions since my other essay, Man the God-Animal, have shifted a bit in the months following its publishing and I plan on addressing those shifts in an essay on a later date).
As always, though, I am very open to hearing if you or anyone else have ideas to tackle this issue.
Have you read Hermann Hesse? His book Narcissus and Goldmund is an interesting investigation of the monastic vs worldly life, including the problem of sexuality (if you think homosexuality is sinful, look at the typical expression of heterosexuality rather than the idealised one).
I never have, but I have heard of him through Academy of Ideas. Narcissus and Goldmund seems like a very interesting exploration of the Dionysian and Apollonian, and in this case, brings up the very good point of promiscuity which is a problem that seems intrinsic to humanity, unfortunately.
In her essay The Moral Decision about Homosexuality, Iris Murdoch makes the point that accusations like promiscuity which are normally levelled against homosexuals apply just as well to heterosexuals. You can find the essay in here (the first article might also be of interest). Celibacy might be a vocation for some, but I doubt it is a neat homo/hetero split: https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/sfbagals/The_Ladder/1964_Ladder_Vol09_No03_Dec.pdf
While it is true that most homosexuals are just as promiscuous as heterosexuals--or in some cases, even less--unfortunately there is a sect of homosexual men, specifically, who are shockingly promiscuous and have upwards of 11 or more sexual partners over a lifetime (https://medium.com/@neuropsychology/gay-promiscuity-statistics-partners-45fc370c0ca5). Note, these stats are a bit outdated but recent trends indicate it's not getting any better.
As for celibacy, I think the reasons why someone chooses it varies. I think more homosexuals are involuntarily celibate by default, due to a general lack of mating options in most environments. It's much rarer for a heterosexual to face this. Religious/spiritually-driven celibacy has always existed for both groups, of course. As for the numbers, this is obviously harder to find.
Whether it's a vocation or a requirement, however, is all up to how someone views sexual expression.
As someone who is "shockingly promiscuous" by that metric, I don't have a problem with promiscuity per se, but I would also not argue against the claim that there are aspects of mainstream gay culture that are deeply problematic. My point is just that whatever the averages are, it doesn't mean that you have to view your own personal choices as a binary. There are people like Spencer Klavan who seems to have been able to reconcile their homosexuality with quite a conservative form of Christianity.
Well, I wasn't accusing you of misinterpreting, I was more asking a question as to how you fit it in.
So let me be more specific. When St. Paul condemns male on male sexual attraction and activity, it seems to me that he works through a chain of condemnation. Beginning in verse 18 'who hold the truth in unrighteousness', then into denying what they know to be true about God (19-22), then into replacing God with His creation (23), until finally getting to perverse desires.
After reading over it multiple times, I'm reminded of the Wiemar Republic and our own modern times where people have clearly turned their backs on God and as a result, morality wears away. The sexual immorality in Romans 1, though, seems more performative rather than natural inclination, with men and women purposely going against tradition and God's Will just for thrills. This is how post-WWII France ended up accepting pedophilia for a time, simply because it was once taboo and overzealous "progressives" wanted to invert and and all "outdated" moral standards.
St. Paul was in a similar situation with Western Rome becoming increasingly deviant and a perverted husk of what it once was.
Well, St. Paul uses the word ‘natural’ a couple of times in his condemnations in that chapter:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
"Natural" seems more like a reference to heterosexuality, which IS the default inclination of most people (which is a good thing, obviously). This is why homosexuality is deemed unnatural, as it is not normal by definition. But the problem with language is that this can easily be misconstrued as all gay people can just change their preference at the drop of a hat. It also implies that homosexuality is the direct result of turning against God, rather than a consequence of humanity being made up of imperfect creatures, like the man who was born blind in John 9.
Sorry, but as a gay man I strongly disagree. You yourself first condemned this binary approach to homosexuality - either burden of shame or libertine frivolity, and yer yourself fell prey to it, denying your gay nature in favor of homophobic ideology. God made you gay not for you to deny your nature. That's a crime and a sin.
And don't tell me of Bible condemnation of homosexuals it's all ambiguous and dubious. Leviticus which condemned gays to death also praises slavery and wars and hence couldn't be used as a moral guide. Sodom and Gomorrah story was homophobic misinterpretation - there was not a single mention of homosexuals, and attempt to rape an angel who is sexless isn't gay but rape and desecration of something as pure and innocent as an angel. Jesus himself NEVER said anything against gays, and his word is paramount.
So sorry, but your spirituality is wrong, sinful anx harmful. It rooted in denial of your God given nature and pretty harmful physically as well. The true spirituality for gay men is to find a true loving partner and to make their sex more than sex instead of whoring around, not deny their nature and love for the sake of homophobic ideology.
I don't necessarily see it as a denial. Technically, yes, it is, but I look at it more of a transcendence of one's natural desires. While the Bible is hazy on homosexuality, the early church fathers and saints have more concrete views that range from blatantly hateful to therapeutic and life-changing for those who followed their commands.
The point of life is to transcend our animalistic natures, which even Christ agreed with. This is either done by sublimating our desires into more useful outlets or abandoning them altogether. As described in this essay, I see homosexuality useful as a divine offering. I just don't see how acting on it can have any sort of spiritual function or usage. Though, perhaps I have overlooked something. Only time will tell.
You have two mistakes here. First, gay love isn't just 'animalistic', it's also romantic and spiritual. Love between men could make miracles. Ancient Greeks understood it and romanticized it. Greek philosophers had done a lot if good driven by male love as well.
So, you are essentially denying not just your sexual desires but romantic and spiritual love based upon them, and this deprive the world from possible good they could do.
Early 'fathes of Church' weren't as perfect as Jesus. They were children of their time, trapped by the prejudices of that time, and eager for power Jesus teaching gave them. I wouldn't treat their words as an absolute truth, honestly.
It's your choice ofc, I'm not imposing mine upon you. If you want to deny your God given nature as sinful, it's up to you. But I believe you're making mistake, and I myself will never cease looking for a true love, not just sex, even if I'd never find it or be betrayed by it.
God is the sole satisfier of every human heart, whether it knows it or not. Death to the world! May the peace and mercy of Christ be with you until the end, brother.
Even for someone like me with virtually no libido, I still have extraordinary respect for you and all those who can exercise so much self-discipline. God bless you brother.
God bless you, too.
Thanks for writing this piece.
We are, perhaps, at opposite ends of this spectrum. I am a nontheist and coming up on my 10 year anniversary with my (male) partner.
However, I appreciate your article, for several reasons.
I could have written this piece word for word when I was in my early 20s. Like you, I was committed to celibacy.
I am no longer celibate, and immensely happy that I am not. Despite that, I still believe that celibacy can be a meaningful and noble spiritual path. I wish you all the best on that path.
Also, you write:
“In our modern Western society, homosexuals are seemingly everywhere—no thanks to leftists—yet have little information on how to live a healthy life. Most often, we are granted one of two options: be repressed and burdened by shame or be hedonistic and libertine.”
I agree with this. You go on to say that the superior alternative is ego death, which I also agree with. I would go even further: ego death is the appropriate path for *everyone*, regardless of whether they are celibate or not, gay or not.
My partnership has been a refining fire, and no one makes me want to be a better man more than him. The self-sacrifice and service in our relationship has utterly transformed me. Contemplative practice, too, continues to refine me, and the path of contemplative practice is appropriate for everyone regardless of their sexual activity or orientation.
I know that you are operating from within a Christian (Eastern Orthodox?) framework, and probably disagree with what I’ve written here. Which is ok! I just saw this as an opportunity to offer a dissonant jazz riff on what you had written.
All the best to you and your journey.
I enjoy hearing alternate perspectives, especially with something like this, which is an area that's been largely a solo journey. It helps all of us in finding better ways to live.
I agree with everything you're saying, though! Thank you for reading, and all the best to you, too.
Absolutely. You don’t need to take the journey alone, brother.
“But if God willed it so, would you say he could not have done it?”
Only problem with such a phrase in this context is then we have to ask ourselves: where does it end? Otherwise, wouldn't anorexia, narcissism, or pedophilia, have the potential to be divine? God allows the anarchy of man, but only so that we may overcome it.
Yes, quite. But your point likewise to the inverse is true: where does it end for things in need of overcoming? I guess we will only end up with opinions to decide on this matter.
I appreciate your forthrightness and willingness to engage with different perspectives. But it strikes me as more than "gentle" pride to claim to know the intentions of the "Most High" for "we homosexuals". Even St. Paul admitted that we see through a glass darkly. That's why (perhaps self-servingly), I prefer my mysticism to be of the non-dogmatic kind.
Eclectic mysticism is perfectly fine. I myself have grown fond of Christian mysticism because of its familiarity and how it seems to combine a lot of themes from other traditions in an easy to understand way.
Of course, though, I don't actually know what God thinks or truly wants. As you mentioned, no one does. This is just the best conclusion I--someone who is still a spiritual sapling--have been able to discern. I don't judge people who do act on their urges, but am rather proposing a possible solution to an otherwise spiritually, socially, and historically difficult problem. And my opinions, of course, are subject to change (for example, my opinions since my other essay, Man the God-Animal, have shifted a bit in the months following its publishing and I plan on addressing those shifts in an essay on a later date).
As always, though, I am very open to hearing if you or anyone else have ideas to tackle this issue.
Have you read Hermann Hesse? His book Narcissus and Goldmund is an interesting investigation of the monastic vs worldly life, including the problem of sexuality (if you think homosexuality is sinful, look at the typical expression of heterosexuality rather than the idealised one).
I never have, but I have heard of him through Academy of Ideas. Narcissus and Goldmund seems like a very interesting exploration of the Dionysian and Apollonian, and in this case, brings up the very good point of promiscuity which is a problem that seems intrinsic to humanity, unfortunately.
In her essay The Moral Decision about Homosexuality, Iris Murdoch makes the point that accusations like promiscuity which are normally levelled against homosexuals apply just as well to heterosexuals. You can find the essay in here (the first article might also be of interest). Celibacy might be a vocation for some, but I doubt it is a neat homo/hetero split: https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/sfbagals/The_Ladder/1964_Ladder_Vol09_No03_Dec.pdf
While it is true that most homosexuals are just as promiscuous as heterosexuals--or in some cases, even less--unfortunately there is a sect of homosexual men, specifically, who are shockingly promiscuous and have upwards of 11 or more sexual partners over a lifetime (https://medium.com/@neuropsychology/gay-promiscuity-statistics-partners-45fc370c0ca5). Note, these stats are a bit outdated but recent trends indicate it's not getting any better.
As for celibacy, I think the reasons why someone chooses it varies. I think more homosexuals are involuntarily celibate by default, due to a general lack of mating options in most environments. It's much rarer for a heterosexual to face this. Religious/spiritually-driven celibacy has always existed for both groups, of course. As for the numbers, this is obviously harder to find.
Whether it's a vocation or a requirement, however, is all up to how someone views sexual expression.
As someone who is "shockingly promiscuous" by that metric, I don't have a problem with promiscuity per se, but I would also not argue against the claim that there are aspects of mainstream gay culture that are deeply problematic. My point is just that whatever the averages are, it doesn't mean that you have to view your own personal choices as a binary. There are people like Spencer Klavan who seems to have been able to reconcile their homosexuality with quite a conservative form of Christianity.
So, how do St. Paul's words in Romans 1 fit into your theory here?
I'm not sure. I could be misinterpreting his words. How do you think it fits in?
Well, I wasn't accusing you of misinterpreting, I was more asking a question as to how you fit it in.
So let me be more specific. When St. Paul condemns male on male sexual attraction and activity, it seems to me that he works through a chain of condemnation. Beginning in verse 18 'who hold the truth in unrighteousness', then into denying what they know to be true about God (19-22), then into replacing God with His creation (23), until finally getting to perverse desires.
Is that the way you read that passage?
It is, certainly.
After reading over it multiple times, I'm reminded of the Wiemar Republic and our own modern times where people have clearly turned their backs on God and as a result, morality wears away. The sexual immorality in Romans 1, though, seems more performative rather than natural inclination, with men and women purposely going against tradition and God's Will just for thrills. This is how post-WWII France ended up accepting pedophilia for a time, simply because it was once taboo and overzealous "progressives" wanted to invert and and all "outdated" moral standards.
St. Paul was in a similar situation with Western Rome becoming increasingly deviant and a perverted husk of what it once was.
I hadn’t read of that French pedophelia
Well, St. Paul uses the word ‘natural’ a couple of times in his condemnations in that chapter:
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
"Natural" seems more like a reference to heterosexuality, which IS the default inclination of most people (which is a good thing, obviously). This is why homosexuality is deemed unnatural, as it is not normal by definition. But the problem with language is that this can easily be misconstrued as all gay people can just change their preference at the drop of a hat. It also implies that homosexuality is the direct result of turning against God, rather than a consequence of humanity being made up of imperfect creatures, like the man who was born blind in John 9.
Yes, that is the standard interpretation of that verse: that God, when a people turns against Him, turns them toward unnatural affections.
The implication is not that He forces them in that direction, but that He removes his restraining arm.
Sorry, but as a gay man I strongly disagree. You yourself first condemned this binary approach to homosexuality - either burden of shame or libertine frivolity, and yer yourself fell prey to it, denying your gay nature in favor of homophobic ideology. God made you gay not for you to deny your nature. That's a crime and a sin.
And don't tell me of Bible condemnation of homosexuals it's all ambiguous and dubious. Leviticus which condemned gays to death also praises slavery and wars and hence couldn't be used as a moral guide. Sodom and Gomorrah story was homophobic misinterpretation - there was not a single mention of homosexuals, and attempt to rape an angel who is sexless isn't gay but rape and desecration of something as pure and innocent as an angel. Jesus himself NEVER said anything against gays, and his word is paramount.
So sorry, but your spirituality is wrong, sinful anx harmful. It rooted in denial of your God given nature and pretty harmful physically as well. The true spirituality for gay men is to find a true loving partner and to make their sex more than sex instead of whoring around, not deny their nature and love for the sake of homophobic ideology.
I don't necessarily see it as a denial. Technically, yes, it is, but I look at it more of a transcendence of one's natural desires. While the Bible is hazy on homosexuality, the early church fathers and saints have more concrete views that range from blatantly hateful to therapeutic and life-changing for those who followed their commands.
The point of life is to transcend our animalistic natures, which even Christ agreed with. This is either done by sublimating our desires into more useful outlets or abandoning them altogether. As described in this essay, I see homosexuality useful as a divine offering. I just don't see how acting on it can have any sort of spiritual function or usage. Though, perhaps I have overlooked something. Only time will tell.
You have two mistakes here. First, gay love isn't just 'animalistic', it's also romantic and spiritual. Love between men could make miracles. Ancient Greeks understood it and romanticized it. Greek philosophers had done a lot if good driven by male love as well.
So, you are essentially denying not just your sexual desires but romantic and spiritual love based upon them, and this deprive the world from possible good they could do.
Early 'fathes of Church' weren't as perfect as Jesus. They were children of their time, trapped by the prejudices of that time, and eager for power Jesus teaching gave them. I wouldn't treat their words as an absolute truth, honestly.
It's your choice ofc, I'm not imposing mine upon you. If you want to deny your God given nature as sinful, it's up to you. But I believe you're making mistake, and I myself will never cease looking for a true love, not just sex, even if I'd never find it or be betrayed by it.