Logical conclusion? Reflections on virginity and the "language of creation"

One of the more intelligent responses to the controversy surrounding Pope Benedict XVI's address to the Curia just before Christmas appears on the "Letters" page of today's Times. Under the heading "Logical conclusion?", it says:

Sir, Surely, in order to be a valid argument, the comments of the Pope regarding homosexuality (report, Dec 23) must also be directed against celibacy.

CANON SIMON PETTITT
Horringer, Suffolk

I am not sure that "surely" is, grammatically speaking, a logical connective - it seems more a presumptive or emotional connective - and of course the Pope's words were not directly made regarding homosexuality.

But, this having been said, Canon Pettitt's letter does ask a very good question. Is chosen virginity/celibacy a denial of the "language of creation" with regard to gender and the differences in sexuality associated with differences in gender?

Traditionally, the Church has expressed its commitment to virginity/celibacy in priestly and religious life in nuptial terms. The language is that of a preferential love for God, of marriage at a spiritual level. One of the most striking photographs of St Edith Stein is one taken on the day of her clothing as a Carmelite nun - when, as was the custom at the time, she wore a wedding dress. So, in chosen virginity/celibacy the "language of the body" with regard to gender is assumed or integrated into a "language of the spirit", rather than its being denied. What Pope Benedict referred to as a "language of creation" is expressed at these two levels - the bodily and the spiritual - and, even in physical marriage, there is an integration of the two, a mutual service between the two.

Canon Pettitt's letter has prompted another question in my mind, that goes beyond this consideration. Is the promise of virginity/celibacy made by a woman different in some way than such a promise made by a man? Within the promises of marriage, whilst there is a substantial identity between the promise made by the woman and that made by the man, is there something particularly "feminine" about the woman's promise and something particularly "masculine" about the man's promise? To talk about a language of male and female in creation would appear to suggest that this is so. And if it is so, why should not the same "feminine" and "masculine" specificity also apply in promises of virginity/celibacy?

As a suggestion as to how this might be understood theologically, one might identify feminine virginity with the virginity of Mary (female, and figure of the Church). Masculine virginity might be identified directly with Christ (male, and Head of the Church). Comments on this thought will be very welcome. At the very least, I would expect there are some psychological studies about the differences between the experience of virginity/celibacy in female communities and male communities.

For those who are single and who have not married or made promises of virginity/celibacy, there appears to be, assuming the living of a chaste life, a de facto denial of the "language of creation" about male and female. I recall Hans Urs von Balthasar writing about this un-chosen single state as being a kind of anomaly in the life of the Church, and the secular institutes providing a way in which it could be drawn into a nuptial/vowed relationship with Christ-the Church that is like that found in marriage or religious life. I do agree with von Balthasar (and therefore disagree with some contemporary pastoral activity with regard to the promotion of vocations in the Church) in that I do not think the un-chosen single state should as such be percieved as a vocation in the Church of the same type as marriage, religious life and the priesthood.

What the un-chosen single life does contain is an openess, a possibility of a choice towards marriage or celibacy/virginity, and it does therefore still take part in the "language of creation" with regard to male and female. A single person is allowed a certain freedom in their relations with the opposite sex that the married person, priest or religious should not have. The "language of creation" indicates that these opposite sex relationships do express a different possibility than same sex friendships that one may have, and this must be respected even in the single state.