Chastity in Marriage

[Michels]

A lot of the problems people are having in understanding the problems with birth control in marriage and how it is different then NFP is a problem with chastity. Many people are addicted to the sexual gratification before they are married, and just because you are married doesn’t mean you have a free pass to get all the sexual gratification you like. I know this is going to cause some people who consider themselves good Catholics to become upset. But why get upset at something that can make your marriage better?

Lets face it, if you are having sex before marriage you are not having sex because you want to unite yourself as one person with the person you are having sex with, or because you want to participate in creating life. Sex outside of marriage is selfserving, and people do it because they want the feeling. They are driven by their “passions” so to speak.

Love is not a feeling. Lust is a feeling, and the last time I checked Lust is a Capital Sin… yep, it still is CCC 1866 other good readings on this begin at CCC 2534.

The problems that began with a tarnished sex drive outside of marriage carry into the marriage. The reasons for sex in marriage are different than the reasons for sex outside of marriage.
Don’t try to have sex in a marriage for the same reasons as you would outside a marriage, it is the cause of many bad marriages.

Think of this:
God is three in one: The Trinity. How this was explained to me is that the Father so loves the Son, and the Son so loves the Father that their love for one another manifests itself as a third person the Holy Spirit.

Since humans are created in the image and likeness of God: The man so loves his wife, and the woman so loves her husband that the third person, the baby is created.

 

[cynic]

Michels:

Lets face it, if you are having sex before marriage you are not having sex because you want to unite yourself as one person with the person you are having sex with, or because you want to participate in creating life. Sex outside of marriage is selfserving, and people do it because they want the feeling. They are driven by their “passions” so to speak.

.

can you not have passion to unite with your husband or wife? can you not like the feeling of that, desire the feeling of that? Although any christian would agree with what you’ve said, you’re not painting a very attractive picture of sex in marriage, turning it into some impersonal ceremonial thing devoid of pleasure and fun.

 

[Michels]

cynic:

can you not have passion to unite with your husband or wife? can you not like the feeling of that, desire the feeling of that? Although any christian would agree with what you’ve said, you’re not painting a very attractive picture of sex in marriage, turning it into some impersonal ceremonial thing devoid of pleasure and fun.

Sex is passionate, fun and very personal, but it is also very spiritual. God made it this way. I guess I don’t understand what I said that would make sex in marriage sound boring, or maybe it was because I didn’t talk about what sex during marriage is.

Sex during marriage is uniting of two people as one! It is giving of yourself 100% Also every time you have sex in marriage it is a renewal of your wedding vows. It can also be, if God wills it, the creation of a new life! How is that not exciting? The fact that my wife and I view it as renewing our vows has probably played a part in keeping our marriage strong.

Now, this might be a stretch, but think of it like going to Mass (Women may have an easier time relating to this than men). You can go to Mass, go through all the motions say all the prayers but if you are just thinking about all the other things you could be doing, and not really participating and putting your heart and soul into the Mass, you aren’t going to get as much out of it. Mass will just be this dry boring set of rituals. But those who pour themselves into the Mass find mass to be the most exiting thing they do! It just depends on the reason you are there.

The same thing with sex in marriage. If you go into it for the right reasons, it is very beneficial to the marriage. If you go into it for the wrong reasons, it will eventually cause the marriage to become a struggle.
So if you want to help save your marriage before it even starts, don’t have sex until your marriage starts. If you can do this it will be a lot easier to enter into the marital act for the right reasons.

 

[mercygate]

cynic:

can you not have passion to unite with your husband or wife? can you not like the feeling of that, desire the feeling of that? Although any christian would agree with what you’ve said, you’re not painting a very attractive picture of sex in marriage, turning it into some impersonal ceremonial thing devoid of pleasure and fun.

I believe that chastity in marriage requires the enjoyment of one’s conjugal privileges frequently and with relish!

 

[cynic]

Michels:

The same thing with sex in marriage. If you go into it for the right reasons,

the only wrong reasons I can think of is if you enjoy pornographically degrading your wife.

Why you have to dress it up with such guff I don’t know

 

[CarrieMG]

I think I see where you are with this Michels. Until recently I believed that chastity was a virtue for those who were not married. When someone pointed out that love within marriage should also be chaste, it opened new doors for me. I have meditated on this and come to understand chastity as a part of love - married love and non-married love - and simply using our sexuality in the manner in which God created it. Chastity is a virtue for all of us.

 

[cynic]

I’ve never heard an understandable definition of chastity (in marriage). As far as i can tell all it means is replacing any personal affection you have for your spouse - deemed as impure, infatuation, lustfull etc - with a pure form of non-sex. The other person, your desire for them, shouldn’t be the main thing on your mind, instead some meditation on the procreative power, or the spiritual goal of it. As if closeness with the other isn’t enough.

 

[CarrieMG]

I know many others suggest Christopher West’s works. I actually have his book but have not read it yet. I have found Mary Beth Bonnaci who does a lot of writing and speaking for teens to put forth concise easily understandable explanations.

I think coming to understand that the pleasure from sexual union is a special gift that God has chosen to reserve for those He calls to marriage is the first step in understanding the virtue of chastity within marriage.

 

[LittleDeb]

cynic:

I’ve never heard an understandable definition of chastity (in marriage). As far as i can tell all it means is replacing any personal affection you have for your spouse - deemed as impure, infatuation, lustfull etc - with a pure form of non-sex. The other person, your desire for them, shouldn’t be the main thing on your mind, instead some meditation on the procreative power, or the spiritual goal of it. As if closeness with the other isn’t enough.

There are many secular definitions of chastity. A basic definition that works is: having sexual relations only with one’s spouse.

In The Church the definition expands to include the definition of sexual relations. Yes, chastity does mean purity, selflessness, etc… I think where I don’t follow you is where does the idea come from that me having pure thoughts of my husband makes sex boring?

Coming from a past unchaste, unmarried life filled with a lot of bad choices I can speak from experience. Chastity in marriage is incredibly fullfilling. Lust makes for bad sex. Not just bad in the immoral sense but, mundane and selfish. If I were to view my husband as an object of infatuation, lust or otherwise, then that would be just how I would treat him, an object.

There is a term used sometimes that might confuse the definition but I will throw it in anyway. Chaste sex. It comes from the definition of chaste meaning “pure.” The context in which chastity is used here is a combination of a lot of definitions. Purity, abstinence, and fidelity are some of them.

Chastity in marriage involves lots of fun sex. It also involves lots of incredible spirituality. I think the confusion arises in the belief that they are separate acts.

 

[cynic]

If you like your husband or your wife, (as well as love them), if you are attracted to them, then sex will always be motivated in some way by desire. And if it’s motivated by desire, even the sole desire to make them happy - as you think it should be - then sex cannot be totally selfless. If it was totally selfless then people simply wouldn’t do it, I mean it serves no practical purpose outside of procreation, and if your about to say a unitve purpose, then YOU must desire to have this with your husband, the desire for unity is still desire. It’s a real catch 22. It’s ok to give pleasure, but not ok to receive it.

Your church offers an absolute choice for couples : view sex OUR way, in the abstract terms we describe or… you will be pornographically objectifying your spouse and commiting a sin.There is no inbetween, nothing outside of these two extremes.

 

[cynic]

LittleDeb:

If I were to view my husband as an object of infatuation, lust or otherwise, then that would be just how I would treat him, an object.

Sure it would be wrong to view your husband in totallity as the object of your own infatuation, but if there wasn’t an >>element>> of infatuation, there would be no sexual attraction, and hence no sex. Aren’t these things an inseparable part of sexual orientation? I don’t mean to be rude, but I think some people are on a pious ego trip when they say they shouldn’t be. I mean if they aren’t part of it then what is special about your husband in particular? He could be anyone then couldn’t he? Anyone you were married to.For the gift of sex to be truly selfless then it must be given in a purely symbolic way, to a symbolic husband/wife. Liking the individual personality and character of your husband/wife is actually ‘infatuation’. Or is it infatuation just to act on those feelings? Either way it’s pretty depressing.

 

[cainem]

chasity in marriage, i sure hope your spouse feels the same way then, i think it would come as a crushing blow to your spouse if you said not tonight i’m chaste in my love for you

 

[mercygate]

cynic:

Sure it would be wrong to view your husband in totallity as the object of your own infatuation, but if there wasn’t an >>element>> of infatuation, there would be no sexual attraction, and hence no sex. Aren’t these things an inseparable part of sexual orientation? I don’t mean to be rude, but I think some people are on a pious ego trip when they say they shouldn’t be. I mean if they aren’t part of it then what is special about your husband in particular? He could be anyone then couldn’t he? Anyone you were married to.For the gift of sex to be truly selfless then it must be given in a purely symbolic way, to a symbolic husband/wife. Liking the individual personality and character of your husband/wife is actually ‘infatuation’. Or is it infatuation just to act on those feelings? Either way it’s pretty depressing.

Definitely! The attraction is part of the divine gift. In this conjugal mystery the “self-giving” is accompanied by such wonderful “receiving” that it rightly images the love of Christ for the Church his Bride, the love of God for Israel in the Song of Solomon. This is a visceral thing which incorporates the fiber of our physical being into the mystery of God’s love in all creation.

Those who would separate the pleasure from the act as if it didn’t matter (similar to those who wish to deny that they cherish the consolations of prayer), seem to be dismissing a very beautiful part of the gift.