Wednesday 2 January 2008

The Ideal I Can Never Live Up To



I suppose it's a well to start the New Year with an insight into the part of my character which can never be fulfilled. The part of me which sits inside, deeply unsatisfied, the part which will always feel it has failed.

I partied throughout my twenties and through my own ruin and back again, and that sense of self-betrayal remains as potent as ever.

I am not and never will be that which I hold respect for.

But the huge awe which I hold for that concept, governs the way I view the world, in ways I sometimes overlook.

I included in my list of New Year's wishes recently a desire for Ms Right to appear. I guess that's normal, you'd think. It seems to be what those around me want.
Yet here's the point- I can't REALLY see, being honest, how even Ms Right can be right. I only twigged this over the last few months, that one of the key problems is how I view the whole concept of relationships.

You might get the idea from some of the things I write that I lead a hugely kinky debauched sex life. I actually don't see myself as being particularly promiscuous, I tend to go in phases- a few months with a swift turnover, than a few months abstinence. I'm actually quite a prude in some ways, there are certain things there is no point in asking me to do. It's not actually up there in my top favorite pastimes, believe it or not. It's a bodily function and I seem to get the urge a fair bit, but that's pretty much how I see it.

What's more important, to me, is holding a nice soft body with supple skin, feeling the warm breath on the back of your nack, feeling her arms snuggle tight around your waist. I sleep better that way.

The question is, what more do I want out of it?

And here we come to the real issue. We all need something to live for, and for many, the ideal is that of 'Romantic Love.'

And sometimes, I get hooked by that ideal.

But of late I saw the pattern.

It only happens at times when I feel, in some sense, without a purpose.
When I have no hope.
At these points, I guess I'm vulnerable and, like some character in a 'Midsummer Night's Dream', it really could be a donkey. It really will be the first person to come along in that moment of crisis offering affection.

Things go wrong, when life rights itself.

Because as soon as I regain faith in myself, I start to feel guilty and ashamed.
What of, you justifiably ask?
We'll come to that.

I'm OK with these things as long as they are little more than casual friendships with the added bonus of a bit mutual comfort and affection, it's when they start to interfere with the image of myself I hold up in my head, the me I truly want to see myself as.

You see, it really is true, I want to love EVERYBODY. Not in the way you're thinking. There is a sense in which the IDEAL relationship I ACTUALLY want with people, is that of brother and sister. I devote a lot of effort to friendships, and will give them precedence over 'romantic' relationships. It took me a while to twig why. It's because I want ALL my relationships with EVERYBODY to be platonic friendships. I value them. 'Romantic' relationships, as we have already mentioned offend my inner conscience in a way that I guess it has taken me up till twenty nine to realise.

Even looking at the way I dress out of preference, is significant. Black shirt or t-shirt, black trousers, black jacket, crucifix showing.
I feel more comfortable dressed that way, instinctively. I just feel more- me.



Because I could not live like a priest, I could not be a priest. The life of a Catholic priest today, is not a happy one.
But they are the highest ideals I can think of, they are the only people I have total respect for, would trust implicitly.
The Catholic Church is the only institution I hold dear.

But the ideal, that of living for a cause, that of living for all humanity, rather than being tied to one, that is the ideal that remains tied up in my head.

When Gregory VII extended the oath of celibacy to regular clergy, he specifically stated he wasn't prohibiting clergy from keeping mistresses- what he was stopping, was the making of two incompatible vows.

A priest cannot honestly say he serves all, if he has made the vows a man makes to a woman in marriage.
It is God and the Church he is wedded to. This is his life's cause.

And I guess that there lies my whole mindset.

To devote your life to just one person, is the second rate option.

It is to accept a life of failure, a life destined to achieve nothing.

And at times when I feel my life is going nowhere, I guess love of the romantic kind seems appealing. It can't make me happy in the same way having a purpose of some kind can, but it can provide comfort.

But can it really compare to the love of a man for an ideal?

The ideal that you are there for all equally, that no one has a special claim to you.
And in my mind, and in my mind, that is how I like to see myself, pure, uncorrupted by the taint of someone else marking you as theirs, belonging to all equally, with none you turn your back on.



Oh, I'll never be a martyr. The revolution won't come for a good many years, I guess, by which time I'll be too old to be much use.

And I guess for all my closet clerical yearnings, there is never going to be much saintly or priestly about me.

But the ideals are still good.

Love as many people as you can.
And don't let 'Romantic Love' get in the way.

One can only dream that it didn't. It just always seems to.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I have all kinds of trouble living up to my own romantic notions, it seems. I hold out some hope that maybe it's because I haven't met the right woman.

Even the ideas of the Priesthood are romantic, to have a higher devotion and to stick with that, or try to. Or a good friendship--they can often be romantic in a Three Musketeers sense, brothers of spirit willing to give all for one another.

We have our own lots in life to tend. Mine is a quiet romantic one--a bit lonely, sometimes,a bit crowded at others. Romance dies hard. I'm doomed to having the full moon blinding my eyes forever.

Anonymous said...

This stirs me *tries to unjumble all the thoughts clamoring for speech*

> And I guess that there lies my whole mindset.
To devote your life to just one person, is the second rate option.
It is to accept a life of failure, a life destined to achieve nothing.

I used to think so. For me, it was the choice between choosing my great destiny, or accepting my ex-bf and ending up old and married with 3 kids. It was really hard to choose, and I talked to God about it every day, and eventually, the problem settled itself *my CF teacher caught us holding hands crossing the road, and told me to tell my parents, so since we were seen as being together, we had to tell my parents we were*. And that was it, til now, when he’s finally gone, and I’ve my destiny all my own again :-) There’s one point I missed at that time; the reason why one had to ‘choose’ was because I knew that ex-bf didn’t have a great destiny. Consider, though, if the person one is with is ALSO going to achieve great things; in such a case, two might achieve much more than each person would, separately.

> And at times when I feel my life is going nowhere, I guess love of the romantic kind seems appealing. It can't make me happy in the same way having a purpose of some kind can, but it can provide comfort. But can it really compare to the love of a man for an ideal?

Hmmmm…. Have both, if you can? :-)

> The ideal that you are there for all equally, that no one has a special claim to you.
And in my mind, and in my mind, that is how I like to see myself, pure, uncorrupted by the taint of someone else marking you as theirs, belonging to all equally, with none you turn your back on.

Actually… yes, this IS very true. On one hand, I feel that way, that we should treat everyone equally. I feel ashamed sometimes to admit that for one person, I might kill off the rest of the world; count them as nothing. For surely one should think of the greater good…? But then again, I delight also in the fact that by choosing one person, you elevate them above the rest *which is why everyone needs someone to love them, so that they each have their own pedestal. For those who choose to stay single, that ‘someone’ could be God, since he loves everyone* You make them into a king, almost a god…. You give them something no one else can; the example I was told as a child would be virginity *which is why virginity is special* but as an adult, I guess you’ll agree that even greater, we give ourselves (/our freedom) in marriage; a whole life, shared. That nothing is yours alone, and any trouble your partner gets into will also be your trouble. Shared risk *so hopefully, shared advantage ;-)* So as always, it’s a choice, and hopefully, a balance can be achieved; that one can do good to all, while putting that one person first *so get a reasonable one, who understands, and doesn’t abuse his position in one’s life*

> A priest cannot honestly say he serves all, if he has made the vows a man makes to a woman in marriage.
*Nods*
I realize here that it's very important to have a shared mission. Like, say my mission was helping drug addicts with AIDS in some swelteringly hot country; once you're married, you have to consider the other person, who might be wanting attention at the same time, and grudging the time you give to the needy ones *so best to warn them first, except that so often, we don't know what we;re going to be doing til we DO do it. Not that I want so much to do such stuff; it's hard work, interacting with people every day ;-) But I DO see the need... lots of things not done in the world, and most people not bothered to help...

Some verses from 1 Corinthians 7 come to mind, regarding this topic of being single vs getting married.

3-4 The husband should fulfill his wife's sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband's needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife.

32- 38 I want you to be free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. But a married man has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. His interests are divided. In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be devoted to the Lord and holy in body and in spirit. But a married woman has to think about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband. I am saying this for your benefit, not to place restrictions on you. I want you to do whatever will help you serve the Lord best, with as few distractions as possible.
But if a man thinks that he's treating his fiancée improperly and will inevitably give in to his passion, let him marry her as he wishes. It is not a sin. But if he has decided firmly not to marry and there is no urgency and he can control his passion, he does well not to marry. So the person who marries his fiancée does well, and the person who doesn't marry does even better.

So yes; if you plan to live and die for a cause, it would be best not to marry *unless your partner is willing to live and die for the same cause; but still, you’d have to think of the kids then, ‘cos no one asked THEM if they were willing :-) * But nothing wrong with marriage; just that it’s for some, and not for others. It all depends on what you want, I guess; ‘cos when we put God first, he DOES give us the desires of our heart. And as you said, it’s nice not to sleep alone *wonder if a dog would suffice, then? Might be a more permanent bed companion than someone who’s not a spouse*

> It's because I want ALL my relationships with EVERYBODY to be platonic friendships. I value them. 'Romantic' relationships, as we have already mentioned offend my inner conscience in a way that I guess it has taken me up till twenty nine to realise.

I realize that my platonic friendships with the opposite sex are more of indifferent kindness, the same way I used to treat my dog, and also, ex-bf *which may be why it didn’t work…lol*

Oooh… this is really long… haha…. Ermmm…. I’d say, in conclusion, “Choose, then, CBI. Devote yourself completely to God if you wish *it’s a good idea*, but I think you’ll find that he doesn’t demand celibacy :-) He just wants to test us; see if He’s number one to us. As long as he is, he’ll give us the world… But yes, I know… you’re not planning on choosing…hehehe… this is just hypothetical ;-) Hmmm… all the best to you this year… I hope you find God’s purpose for you :-) Don’t break too many hearts ;-)

Anonymous said...

Crushed,
Invigorating start for the new year.

We do need a reason to live and I think that reason is love. Love rules our life and drives us to the center of our being. If we can't let love rule us, then there is no point to anything.

Btw, you have been tagged. See my blog details. Have fun.

Anonymous said...

So much I could comment on here, but I'll focus on one thing.

The sooner the Catholic church gets married clergy the better it will be as an institution in my opinion. The idea that you can't be of service when you are married is not true. In fact there are married Catholic priests. If an Anglican or Episcopalian or any Protestant minister converts to Catholicism he can become a priest while still married even with a family. I have met several over the years and attended their saying of the mass with their family present.

Do you think married clergy of other faiths or of the Ukrainian or Eastern Orthodox religion are not good priests or shortchange their congregations? My brother-in-law was an Anglican priest and much loved by all his congregations and frankly his wife was a great asset to the church community.

Just like you, young men don't want to be priests these days. They want to have normal relationships and families.

Sorry, not an intellectual argument at all but one I feel quite strongly about.

As usual, an interesting look at your ideas at this time.

Anonymous said...

Not that I was complaining above, you see... It took me an inordinate amount of time to become comfortable with myself and my feelings. Writing was a major key, and this avenue only expanded that.

Like always, a good post.

Anonymous said...

CBI: an invigorating post as always.

It's not actually up there in my top favorite pastimes, believe it or not. It's a bodily function and I seem to get the urge a fair bit, but that's pretty much how I see it.

yes...this is why I have a satirical interest in toilet humour, which no-one else seems to understand. The human body is an odd thing, which we fetishise too much. The more we see the ridiculousness of our bodies, the more we might take a sensible view of our lives. Humour and pornography make uncomfortable bedfellows, for exactly this reason. We should satirise ourselves more, and take our instincts and bodily functions less seriously.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I didn't know that about the origins of celibacy, the incompatible vows. I am not a Catholic, of course, have no sense of a God outside and seperate from her creation, but when I rest my hand on the tummy of the one I love I often feel a sense of the miraculous, of wonder and awe at creation. So I guess my vows to her were religeous in a way which would make Gregory VII right. (As you get older you may find monogamy a practical solution to many problems of time and chasing needs down. I did.)

Anonymous said...

Eric- I wonder, I can't make my mind up. Most women so far seem to have been very wrong.

I agree about the musketeers, though it's sad how they drift apart.

I guess had I lived then, I would have been a bit of an Aramis figure.

Eve- Oh, I'm not going to be devoting myself to God in that way. But I do think it's imprtant to have a cause. It's just that I like to have time for everybody. Having one person take up all your time to the detriment of others, just isn't me.

I value every connection I have, and don't believe ANY should be sacrificed.

And I like wearing black :)

Alexys- Yes, but it's how you interpret love.
A love that cuts you off from loving others, seems a slight perversion to me.

jmb- The main reason is that it's impossible for clergy to get away with being a bit naughty these days, due to media spotlight.

My grandmother used to want me to be a priest and used to point out that most priests in Ireland used to have arrangements. Thing is, in those days it was kept quiet. Everybody knew, but no one said anything.

It's the single mindedness of the devotion. Obedience to the Church is supposed to be the prime duty of Catholic clergy. If ordered to, he must pack his bags and head off to Rwanda.

Eric- Such is life I think. I think we all have competing desires which drive in different directions.

TD- I've noticed that my sentence as written, has a word missing. The sentence was MEANT to read 'in my top THREE pastimes'
It does, probably make the fourth spot...

But it is beaten by clubbing, a live Blues game and blogging.

But your points are still valid!

Paul- I guess so. Gregory VII was one of the great Popes, and an eminently practical, as well exceedingly scrupulous person, if prone to be a little high handed.

It's a state of mind, I think, not one of body.

It wasn't at all uncommon for medieval Cardinals, the pinnacles of the system, to have several children.

Anonymous said...

This is horrible to say.

I married more because I saw no justification in breaking with my partner than the fact that I loved her.

I hated the heartbreak involved in serial relationships. I would have preferred abstension which is effectively what I undertook by marrying.

Is it happiness ?

No - but neither is it unhappiness. I still feel love but I don't feel passion and I miss that terribly.

With passion there is always a cost rather than a price. Each passion leaves its scars and its guilt - rightly so if you sate it forsaking another's trust and another's heart.

Anonymous said...

> It's just that I like to have time for everybody. Having one person take up all your time to the detriment of others, just isn't me.
*Nods* Yes, I see that point of view *it's easy for me then, since I don't need to have time for everybody; only those that ask it of me. hehehe...*

> And I like wearing black :)
Your outfit sounds cool :-) I'd wear it for the irony of it, even *especially if you're the Casanova you seem....hehehe*

Anonymous said...

Kev, you're a wise man. Cheers to you.

Anonymous said...

I seem to have a bit of a different perspective on love than you (partially, perhaps, because of differing views on monogamy-- I've been brainwashed by society, I'm afraid). However, I don't see it as an "only existing for one person" type of ideal, or as possessive. If anything, I want my love to get the best out of all his relationships with others, because while love is fulfilling, it can't cover everything-- nor, in my mind, is it supposed to. When you realize this, I don't think it becomes so suffocating.

Anonymous said...

'Tis true. Good friends do drift apart. But a natural drifting apart is better than when life long friends part in anger over something--like a love interest. That happens and it's terrible. I just recently started talking again to a friend who was like a brother--and there were three of us, friends since the beginning of high school. But the one and I had a severe parting of ways over my dating an ex-girlfriend of his. It made no sense to me, but seemed to make perfect sense to him. We even got into a drunken fight over it. He did, anyway, I was just defending myself.

And the girl? I dated her on and off, it wasn't very serious at all.

The friend and I are better now, but the damage is done, and it probably won't be the same, though not through my doing. And the girl is long gone now. What an all around waste.

I guess all of us have problems living up to certain ideas, in our own eyes and in the eyes of others.