A serious question about engagement

[Lena13]

Thanks for your reply Shin, I am trying to understand this as you see it, so your comments are very welcome! I don’t see a clear reference/teaching from the Church though… So if you had something I would love to read it…

I would also like to point out a verse from Matthew 9:4-8 "He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissa and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so…”

The Author uses the words “at” and “from” rather than “in”, which would mean that God’s intentions for the union of husband and wife (including nakedness without shame) is still real and relevant. This is his plan for the Sacrament of Marriage, regardless of the introduction of Original Sin.

The Scripture references you give are interesting, but I think you are missing the point. After Adam and Eve had made apron’s from fig leaves they heard the sound of the Lord walking in the Garden and hid from him in fear, because they were naked. I think their nakedness refers not only to the state of their bodies, but that they realised that they had sinned, and were separated from God, and thus no longer reflected the beings that God had created them to be: perfect compliments of each other, and the perfect image of God . When God makes them garments of skins and clothes them, it is not Him saying that they weren’t wearing enough (Man already knew this), it was God restoring the dignity they had lost in the Fall.

As far as the mixing of sensual and sacred: please read Song of Solomon Chapter 7. God created beauty, and wants us to admire what He has made. When I look at my husband, i don’t see a body that I can take what I want from when I want, I see a person created in the image of my Lord. Someone who has given their WHOLE SELF to me as a gift, and I willingly and gladly, receive the gift of his self, and in doing so, give over myself. I don’t believe that I could receive the gift my husband, if I was not able to give my entire self to him as God had intended.

Calling Christopher West blasphemous is a matter of opinion. I have never heard the Church denouce any of his work, but should She decide that what he says is against Catholic beliefs, I would side with the Church.

 

[edowitz1]

Roman Catholic Doctrine Vs. The Doctrinal Teaching of the Word of God

Eternal life is a merited reward [1821, 2010]. - Roman Catholicism
Eternal life is the free gift of God (Romans 6:23)

No one can know if he will attain eternal life [1036, 2005] - Roman Catholicism
The believer can know that he has eternal life by the Word of God (1 John 5:13)

The Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation [846]. - Roman Catholicism
There is salvation in no one but the Lord Jesus Christ, “for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12)

Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and clean the soul [1030-1031]. - Roman Catholicism
Purgatory does not exist. Jesus made purification for sins on the cross (Hebrews 1:3)

Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of her conception (the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception) [490-492].
Mary, a descendant of Adam, was born in sin (Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12)

Mary is the Mother of the Church [963, 975]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was the earthly mother of Jesus ( John 2:1)

The Magisterium is the authoritative teacher of the Church. [85-87]. - Roman Catholicism
The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26; John 16:13, I John 2:27)

The pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter [882, 936] - Roman Catholicism
Peter had no successor, nor was he a pope.

The pope is infallible in his authoritative teaching [891]. - Roman Catholicism
God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19)

Scripture and Tradition together are the Word of God [81, 85, 97, 182]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the Word of God (John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Tradition is the words of men (Mark 7:1-13).

The sacrificial work of redemption is continually carried out through the Sacrifice of the Mass. [1364,1405, 1846]. - Roman Catholicism
The sacrificial work of redemption was finished when Christ gave His life for us on the cross (Ephesians 1:7, Hebrews 1:3).

God desires that consecrated bread and wine be worshiped as divine. [1378-1381] - Roman Catholicism
God forbids the worship of any object, even t hose intended to represent Him (Exodus 20:4-5, Isaiah 42:8)

Justification is lost through mortal sin [1033, 1855, 1874] - Roman Catholicism
Justification cannot be lost. Those whom God justifies will be saved from the wrath of God (Romans 5:8-9).

Justification is furthered by sacraments and good works [1212, 1392, 2010] - Roman Catholicism
Justification is the imputation of the perfect righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). In Christ the believer has been made complete (Colossians 2:10).

Salvation is attained by cooperating with grace through faith, good works, and participation in the sacraments [183, 1129, 1815, 2002]. - Roman Catholicism
Salvation is attained by grace through faith apart from works (Ephesians 2:8-9). Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians 2:10).

Mary, “the All-Holy,” lived a perfectly sinless life [411, 493]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary was a sinner; God alone is sinless (Luke 18:19, Romans 3:23, Revelation 15:4).

Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Christ [496-511]. - Roman Catholicism
Mary remained a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25). Later she had other children (Matthew 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).

Each Sacrifice of the Mass appeases God’s wrath against sin [1371, 1414]. - Roman Catholicism
The once-for-all sacrifice of the cross fully appeased God’s wrath against sin. (Hebrews 10:12-18).

The Bishops, with the Pope, as their head, rule the universal church. [883, 894-896]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ, the head of the body is the Head of the Church. (Colossians 1:18).

The faithful receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure through the Sacrifice of the Mass [1366, 1407]. - Roman Catholicism
Believers receive the benefits of the cross in fullest measure in Christ through faith (Ephesians 1:3-14).

God has exalted Mary in heavenly glory as Queen of Heaven and Earth [966]. She is to be praised with special devotion [971, 2675]. - Roman Catholicism
The name of the Lord is to be praised, for He alone is exalted above heaven and earth (Psalm 148:13). God commands, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” (Exodus 20:3).

Mary is the co-mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions 9 968-970, 2677] - Roman Catholicism
Christ Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participate with Christ in the painful act of redemption [618, 964, 968, 970]. - Roman Catholicism
Christ alone is the Redeemer, for He alone suffered and died for sin (1 Peter 1:18-19).

The sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated in the Sacrifice of the Mass [1323, 1382] - Roman Catholicism
The Sacrifice of the cross is finished (John 19:30).

Indulgences dispensed by the Church for acts of piety release sinners from temporal punishment [1471-1473]. - Roman Catholicism
Jesus releases believers from their sins by His blood. (Revelation 1:5).

The Magisterium has the right to define truth found only obscurely or implicitly in revelation. [66, 88, 2035, 2051]. - Roman Catholicism
No one has the right to go beyond what is written in Scripture (1 Corinthians 4:6, Proverbs 30:5-6).

Scripture and Tradition together are the Church’s supreme role of faith [80, 82]. - Roman Catholicism
Scripture is the church’s rule of faith (Mark 7:7-13, 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[PennyinCanada]

I consider myself Catholic but not quite that right wing as this guy is. Especially when he starts the thing off with a prayer.

Starting off with a prayer is a good thing, isn’t it?
The 2 of you will need to discuss what a suitable engagement date will be. If she has legitimate reasons for delay, that’s no big deal. Enjoy the engagement time, it’s so short.

As for not living together immediately after the wedding because you will still have 2 places. Just fill up a couple of laundry baskets of clothes and move in. The other stuff can move over when convenient. Having the overlap of both places gives you more flexibility for moving stuff.

Are you comfortable with holding hands with your intended, and praying together? I would suggest that during your engagement you should start this holy discipline. You are called to be the spiritual head of the home after all. Blessings to you both!

 

[Shin]

Thanks for your reply Shin, I am trying to understand this as you see it, so your comments are very welcome! I don’t see a clear reference/teaching from the Church though… So if you had something I would love to read it…

The Scripture references you give are interesting, but I think you are missing the point. After Adam and Eve had made apron’s from fig leaves they heard the sound of the Lord walking in the Garden and hid from him in fear, because they were naked. I think their nakedness refers not only to the state of their bodies, but that they realised that they had sinned, and were separated from God, and thus no longer reflected the beings that God had created them to be: perfect compliments of each other, and the perfect image of God . When God makes them garments of skins and clothes them, it is not Him saying that they weren’t wearing enough (Man already knew this), it was God restoring the dignity they had lost in the Fall.

As far as the mixing of sensual and sacred: please read Song of Solomon Chapter 7.

Actually, Song of Solomon is normally forbidden to be read by young Christians, and those not spiritually studied and mature enough. This traditional restriction goes back to Judaism too, it’s long held. Because it is truly part of basic morals to do so.

Because people misinterpret it… When I reading people interpreting it sensually, twisting it, I am always troubled.

It is a spiritual work. That is how one is to see it.

Every portion of the human body has a spiritual meaning.

If you wish to know what the Church teaches on modesty try the link below. Many Popes and saints quoted.

I believe the content will expand as time goes on too. Pope St. Gregory the Great has a good deal to say on the subject, for example, that is also worth reading.

Clothing restrains concupiscence, concupiscence cannot be completely restrained without special graces, and so the ordinary and necessary means are a duty to take first.

Married couples can commit sins of lust in regards to one another. May I heartily suggest rereading the story of Tobit, with this thought in mind.

When couples are married it is not for the sake of sensual indulgence in one another. Nor is it for the sake of such indulgence outside of the marital act. That being the case, the sacredness of one another definitely involves some reserve.

Truly appreciating the sacredness of each other requires this reserve – this reserve preserves each person, as something we cannot simply completely indulge in at all times, but someone who is a unique individual who has to be treated with virtue rather than complete indulgence. (it is part of the natural law to feel shame due to the latter)

The story of Tobias will reveal everything if you read it prayerfully, with an eye towards the following: we may not indulge in the sensual for its own sake, the spiritual is the higher, and those who died, died for a reason, and Tobias’s fear has a reason that he has to take care regarding.

When tradition in the Church is working properly and not destroyed by secular culture, it is traditional to abstain from relations on feast days, for example.

I pray for your open mindedness towards whereever the Lord Our Shepherd leads.

‘Heed me well. . . and thou shalt hear why the fiend has power to hurt some and not others. The fiend has power over such as go about their marrying with all thought of God shut out of their hearts and minds, wholly intent on their lust, as if they were horse or mule, brutes without reason. Not such be thee. . . For three days deny thyself her favours, and the time you spend together, spend all in prayer. Then, when the third night is past, take the maid to thyself with the fear of the Lord upon thee, moved rather by the hope of begetting children than by any lust of thine. . . thou shalt have joy of thy fatherhood.’

Tobias 6:16-22

 

[ChiRho]

I would never recommend Christopher West, his mixing of the sensual and the sacred is simply blasphemous. People who use marital matters to sell things… well it’s a problem.

Could you tell me a little more about this? I know Christopher West is widely popular, but you have made some pretty good points in this thread so I’d like to hear why you dislike his work

 

[Shin]

Could you tell me a little more about this? I know Christopher West is widely popular, but you have made some pretty good points in this thread so I’d like to hear why you dislike his work

I’m sorry, but I threw out his book long ago, and did my best to efface his words and concepts from my mind.

God kindly does tend to give me the gift of forgetfulness, and since I could not in good morals repeat what he said to demonstrate the problem or wish to search it out again, I will only refer you to the natural and divine law written in the baptized person’s heart, which when not improperly suppressed, will cause a person to react in proper repulsion to his sort of work.

Shame is very helpful for preserving the sacred. Christopher West, to my recollection has something against shame, teaching against it. He it seems does not understand that when he fights against it, he fights against holiness. He lacked reserve and respect and modesty in what he wrote and said.

Alice von Hildebrand I think said something about his problems once I believe, perhaps that is a help, I do not know, so it’s not a recommendation.

All I can say is develop a high appreciation for modesty and purity and you will naturally be repulsed by writings and speeches of his sort.

 

[Lena13]

EDIT: Oops, I see it now!

Hi Shin,

I think I may be going blind – I can’t see the link??

Thanks,
Lena.

 

[numealinesimpet]

Actually, Song of Solomon is normally forbidden to be read by young Christians, and those not spiritually studied and mature enough. This traditional restriction goes back to Judaism too, it’s long held. Because it is truly part of basic morals to do so.

Because people misinterpret it… When I reading people interpreting it sensually, twisting it, I am always troubled.

It is a spiritual work. That is how one is to see it.

Every portion of the human body has a spiritual meaning.

If you wish to know what the Church teaches on modesty try the link below. Many Popes and saints quoted.

I believe the content will expand as time goes on too. Pope St. Gregory the Great has a good deal to say on the subject, for example, that is also worth reading.

Clothing restrains concupiscence, concupiscence cannot be completely restrained without special graces, and so the ordinary and necessary means are a duty to take first.

Married couples can commit sins of lust in regards to one another. May I heartily suggest rereading the story of Tobit, with this thought in mind.

When couples are married it is not for the sake of sensual indulgence in one another. Nor is it for the sake of such indulgence outside of the marital act. That being the case, the sacredness of one another definitely involves some reserve.

Truly appreciating the sacredness of each other requires this reserve – this reserve preserves each person, as something we cannot simply completely indulge in at all times, but someone who is a unique individual who has to be treated with virtue rather than complete indulgence. (it is part of the natural law to feel shame due to the latter)

The story of Tobias will reveal everything if you read it prayerfully, with an eye towards the following: we may not indulge in the sensual for its own sake, the spiritual is the higher, and those who died, died for a reason, and Tobias’s fear has a reason that he has to take care regarding.

When tradition in the Church is working properly and not destroyed by secular culture, it is traditional to abstain from relations on feast days, for example.

I pray for your open mindedness towards whereever the Lord Our Shepherd leads.

‘Heed me well. . . and thou shalt hear why the fiend has power to hurt some and not others. The fiend has power over such as go about their marrying with all thought of God shut out of their hearts and minds, wholly intent on their lust, as if they were horse or mule, brutes without reason. Not such be thee. . . For three days deny thyself her favours, and the time you spend together, spend all in prayer. Then, when the third night is past, take the maid to thyself with the fear of the Lord upon thee, moved rather by the hope of begetting children than by any lust of thine. . . thou shalt have joy of thy fatherhood.’

Tobias 6:16-22

Ladies, you are doing a great job on a very sensitive topic. Yes, God made them ‘male and female’ and put it into our hearts to love the opposite sex. Yet there are things and situations I can think of that I would enjoy, but would be inappropriate for my dear wife. I can’t have it both ways. From the first day we met, I could see that here was real quality: someone with whom I might embark on the great adventure of Catholic marriage. So as a lady, I can’t treat her like what the Bible calls a Dancing Girl. Or only sometimes! ‘There is a time and place for everything’: nudity is allowable, even blessed, I think, but it would be in the context of procreation. Otherwise there would be the danger of going through the day with inappropriate feelings aroused, but not allayed. The Good Lord blessed us with ten children. But I can’t just treat her like a mere baby-making appliance either: it is entirely within God’s plan to praise and enjoy the beauty of one’s spouse.
And I don’t think we are all the same in this: there is room for very wide variation within God’s Providence. I have noticed that artists seem not to be as affected by nudity as the rest of us folk: often they genuinely can’t see what the fuss is about: they enjoy the beauty without concupiscence. More than one painter has got himself into hot water over these things.

 

[Annabelle_Marie]

From what I understand even when married your still supposed to be modest infront of your significant other so you don’t inspire lustful thoughts.

I could wear a BURKA in front of my husband…and still… and we’ve been married 23 years.

 

[numealinesimpet]

I could wear a BURKA in front of my husband…and still… and we’ve been married 23 years.

And rightly so!

 

[Lena13]

Thanks for the information Shin, you seem incredibly more learned than I am, so it has been awesome to have this dialogue with you!

Because people misinterpret it… When I reading people interpreting it sensually, twisting it, I am always troubled.

Yes, yes they do. I was one of those – but no longer! Thanks for pointing out the allegorical meaning of this book, I look forward to studying it more!

If you wish to know what the Church teaches on modesty try the link below. Many Popes and saints quoted.

I have read through the site you mentioned, and while it does say a lot on modesty, it doesn’t say much about modesty within the context of marriage. It still leaves me somewhat confused.

When couples are married it is not for the sake of sensual indulgence in one another. Nor is it for the sake of such indulgence outside of the marital act. That being the case, the sacredness of one another definitely involves some reserve.

Truly appreciating the sacredness of each other requires this reserve – this reserve preserves each person, as something we cannot simply completely indulge in at all times, but someone who is a unique individual who has to be treated with virtue rather than complete indulgence. (it is part of the natural law to feel shame due to the latter)

I whole-heartedly agree with you here! Very well put.

Married couples can commit sins of lust in regards to one another. May I heartily suggest rereading the story of Tobit, with this thought in mind

I have read the story, as you suggested, in particular the reference you gave to Tobias 6:16-22 (It took some finding, I do not own a Vulgate… )

I noticed that when the story refers to a (God-less) married couple indulging in lust, it gives a example of a horse and mule. The mating of these two animals would produce no offspring, as a mule is sterile. I think what the author is trying to get at, is that relations where the couple deliberately close any and all opportunities to bring forth life, it is not sanctified by God. And I most certainly agree with this. However, when I originally referred to modesty within marriage, i referred to a Godly marriage, where both parties are open to receiving life. And in this Godly union, between a man and woman, Pope John Paul II, in his 27th Address on the Theology of the Body, refers to the commandment, “You shall not commit adultery”. Defining “adultery of the heart” as “when he [the man] looks at a woman lustfully”, Pope John Paul II says, quite clearly, "It must be correctly deduced that this lustful look, if addressed to his own wife, is not adultery “in his heart.” This is precisely because the man’s interior act refers to the woman who is his wife, with regard to whom adultery cannot take place. The conjugal act as an exterior act, in which “they become one flesh,” is lawful in the relationship of the man in question with the woman who is his wife. In like manner, the interior act in the same relationship is in conformity with morality.

The full text can be read at the following link: ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb24.htm

 

[numealinesimpet]

Actually, Song of Solomon is normally forbidden to be read by young Christians, and those not spiritually studied and mature enough. This traditional restriction goes back to Judaism too, it’s long held. Because it is truly part of basic morals to do so.

Because people misinterpret it… When I reading people interpreting it sensually, twisting it, I am always troubled.

It is a spiritual work. That is how one is to see it.

It is an amazing book. Only God would have thought of including it in the Bible. Truly, the latter is by no means “user-friendly”: it has every imaginable type of literature in it, but nowhere ‘marked by the Author’ as to genre or intended readership.

I didn’t come across the Canticles of Solomon until I was (reasonably) mature enough not to run away with a facile sensual interpretation; and there is the strangest feeling you get when you read it, that there is a “Double Meaning” quite the opposite of what is in salcious literature: there, the hidden meaning is the concupiscent, here in the Canticles it is the other way round. The Author is trying to Get At Something. Only in the hindsight of the Christian revelation can it be comprehended; & I’m not at all sure that I fully comprehend it even now. The only other thing like it, that I know, is S. John of the Cross’ “Stanzas of the Soul” in “Dark Night of the Soul”…

• On a dark night, kindled in love with yearning,
  I crept forth all unobserved – O happy chance! –
  My house being now at rest…*

 

[Shin]

Please I am only making a beginning, but thankfully have some good books.

I think if you take what the standards are outside of marriage… the spirit behind them can lead you to an understanding of inside… Well, it all takes time. Modesty and purity are deep wells that we can always learn more about. Virtues after all, we always want to have more of and know more of, and this way we know Our Lord better and the better resemble Him. It’s a great pleasure to think about how they can be more perfectly practiced.

Sorry about Tobias! I was using the name in the Douay. The Douay is what I use, because the language reflects Catholicism, rather than a more generic wording sympathetic to ecumenism with Protestants and Jewish communities. I like something faithful to Catholic thought and tradition.

It’s easier to see the insights they have into matters in the scriptures when they’re translated the same way the saints speak of them.

I think the examples married saints give is the key to everything.

 

[Shin]

I didn’t come across the Canticles of Solomon until I was (reasonably) mature enough not to run away with a facile sensual interpretation; and there is the strangest feeling you get when you read it, that there is a “Double Meaning” quite the opposite of what is in salcious literature: there, the hidden meaning is the concupiscent, here in the Canticles it is the other way round. The Author is trying to Get At Something. Only in the hindsight of the Christian revelation can it be comprehended; & I’m not at all sure that I fully comprehend it even now. The only other thing like it, that I know, is S. John of the Cross’ “Stanzas of the Soul” in “Dark Night of the Soul”…

• On a dark night, kindled in love with yearning,
  I crept forth all unobserved – O happy chance! –
  My house being now at rest…*

Yes, I was just noticing the similarity between the two the other day myself.

Dark Night would be great reading I am thinking I might add, for someone wishing to understand.