Getting married and remaining a virgin

[Bluegoat]

I think he means “I don’t understand that the CCC is not an historical document”, but I could be mistaken.

I’m not sure how you could have got that.

The CCC is meant to summarize the Tradition of the Catholic Church - something which is by definition historical. In itself a nearly impossible task, and the attempt occasionally leads to giving a rather flat understanding of the issues involved. (I think for example of a time I gave an Augustinian explanation of an issue and someone told me it was wrong because the CCC used Aquinas’ Aristotelian explanation. Both were in fact correct, but the CCC doesn’t have the space to give a long historical overview of how each question has been treated by the CC - yet those things are undoubtedly part of Tradition.)

THe section quoted on marriage - if it is to be understood the way it is suggested here - really ignores that there has always been the recognized possibility in the Catholic Church that there are occasions that long term abstinence in marriage - even from the beginning and with no intention of actual consummation - has been accepted, and has even been considered saintly. I can’t help but think that in this area the CC has been influenced by either secularism of fundamentalism.

More than that, with regard to the issue of NFP, if you read the CC’s documents on it, and how it was introduced, NFP is allowed as a way of making something very difficult for some possible to bear - it is allowed in light of human weakness. The same conditions that would make it reasonable to consider NFP to avoid pregnancy would also allow abstinence as an option, and tht abstinence would be the preference as long as the individuals could bear it is quite clear.

It also might be worthwhile to consider that if we take what the CCC says here to mean that sex is necessary for total unity, any couple who cannot have sex must have a less than fulfilled marriage, less than true spousal unity. I don’t in fact think that is what it is saying - not only would that mean that Mary and Joseph necessarily had only a “partial” marriage, it seems to pander to a lot of modern myths about sexuality that the CC fights against.

 

[Vico]

… And not only that, it’s difficult to restrain from having sex with one’s spouse (which is where discernment comes in). So I can see how, if a couple truly can’t risk conceiving, that they’d opt to just not have sex for a specified period of time, rather than risk using NFP…or disobey Catholic Church rules and just go on ABCs.

…

I agree. In a situation where pregnancy is abnormally risky, the woman may justly abstain, which means that there is no longer a remedy for concupiscence for either spouse, since to use sinful methods to avoid pregnancy is not justified. The Holy Spirit gives us grace to endure the situation.

 

[Rence]

Good points. Being a single guy, I just don’t think about NFP and ABC (groovy alphabetized names). I don’t have a dog in the fight, I guess.

You will Later, when you’re ready to settle down. I’m single too, but as I get older I worry about these things. I’m already considered high risk, so in a way, even though I wish I had children, I’m kind of glad that I probably won’t get married until after menopause

 

[1ke]

Yes, it is possible to do this, but should not be undertaken lightly or without spiritual direction.

They must be instructed that the marriage debt (marital intercourse) cannot be withheld from the other. So, this idea of remaining abstinent can last only as long as they mutually agree.

If one or the other wants to begin conjugal relations, then the other must be ready, willing, and able to comply.

 

[wanner47]

It also might be worthwhile to consider that if we take what the CCC says here to mean that sex is necessary for total unity, any couple who cannot have sex must have a less than fulfilled marriage, less than true spousal unity. I don’t in fact think that is what it is saying - not only would that mean that Mary and Joseph necessarily had only a “partial” marriage, it seems to pander to a lot of modern myths about sexuality that the CC fights against.

Mutual abstinence within marriage is an *extraordinary *circumstance, not an *ordinary *one.

Those who have practiced total abstinence within marriage for an extended period of time were usually called to that state by God (e.g. Mary and Joseph; the saints mentioned previously), and the couples in questioned discerned they were being called to do so for a sacred or holy reason. It wasn’t just that they couldn’t afford children, as is the circumstance with this couple.

 

[Vico]

Yes, it is possible to do this, but should not be undertaken lightly or without spiritual direction.

They must be instructed that the marriage debt (marital intercourse) cannot be withheld from the other. So, this idea of remaining abstinent can last only as long as they mutually agree.

If one or the other wants to begin conjugal relations, then the other must be ready, willing, and able to comply.

Actually there are conditions where mutual agreement is not necessary:

1. if the spouse has been unfaithful to the extent of adultery (until forgiveness of the injured party)
2. when spousal separation is justified
3. if the request is unreasonable
4. if the act be under conditions that are genuinely harmful and distressing
5. if the act is going to be abused by the sin of onanism
6. if a pregnancy would be fatal or highly dangerous, or if there is a danger of the infection of disease.
7. if an exempting condition exists that justifies natural family planning, but risk is too great: medical, eugenic, economic, and social, so-called “indications,” may exempt from the obligatory, positive debt (of fecundity - bonum prolis) even for the entire period of marital life.

 

[po18guy]

I’m not sure how you could have got that.

The CCC is meant to summarize the Tradition of the Catholic Church - something which is by definition historical. In itself a nearly impossible task, and the attempt occasionally leads to giving a rather flat understanding of the issues involved. (I think for example of a time I gave an Augustinian explanation of an issue and someone told me it was wrong because the CCC used Aquinas’ Aristotelian explanation. Both were in fact correct, but the CCC doesn’t have the space to give a long historical overview of how each question has been treated by the CC - yet those things are undoubtedly part of Tradition.)

THe section quoted on marriage - if it is to be understood the way it is suggested here - really ignores that there has always been the recognized possibility in the Catholic Church that there are occasions that long term abstinence in marriage - even from the beginning and with no intention of actual consummation - has been accepted, and has even been considered saintly. I can’t help but think that in this area the CC has been influenced by either secularism of fundamentalism.

More than that, with regard to the issue of NFP, if you read the CC’s documents on it, and how it was introduced, NFP is allowed as a way of making something very difficult for some possible to bear - it is allowed in light of human weakness. The same conditions that would make it reasonable to consider NFP to avoid pregnancy would also allow abstinence as an option, and tht abstinence would be the preference as long as the individuals could bear it is quite clear.

It also might be worthwhile to consider that if we take what the CCC says here to mean that sex is necessary for total unity, any couple who cannot have sex must have a less than fulfilled marriage, less than true spousal unity. I don’t in fact think that is what it is saying - not only would that mean that Mary and Joseph necessarily had only a “partial” marriage, it seems to pander to a lot of modern myths about sexuality that the CC fights against.

Rather, isn’t the catechism the sum of teaching of the Church, using Scripture and Tradition via the magisterium as the foundation for her teachng?

As to marriage, there are exceptions to every rule, and abstinence or even virginity are not impediments to marriage - but not as a general rule.

 

[jmj603]

Rather, isn’t the catechism the sum of teaching of the Church

No. The Church’s whole teaching cannot be condensed into a single book.

 

[Bluegoat]

No. The Church’s whole teaching cannot be condensed into a single book.

Yes, this. It is simply a tool for teaching. It is not, and was never intended to be, a sum of the teaching of the CC.

 

[jmj603]

Yes, this. It is simply a tool for teaching. It is not, and was never intended to be, a sum of the teaching of the CC.

A summary instead of the sum. A very important distinction!

 

[po18guy]

A condensation? A fraction? A tiny portion? Oh, I give up!

 

[po18guy]

A condensation? A fraction? A tiny portion? Oh, I give up!

If the entire world could not contain the books written about three years of Jesus’ life, then the catechism, which is intended to cover all time, would also be voluminous in nature. Therefore, like the bible, it cannot be all-encompassing and must of necessity appear in a condensed form.

 

[RosaryFan]

a friend of mine wants to get married to her boyfriend very badly, except they will not be able to support a family until a few years after their marriage, because they are not financially stable. Their plan is to get married and abstain from sex until they are ready.

I am quite confused about whether or not this is right, and or a sin?
Seeing as the point of marriage is to become one with another person, and that can’t really be done without both god’s bless, promising to eachother, and the act of sexual intercourse, would this marriage be right?

Let me know! pleassee.

I find this very strange. Why don’t they practice the Creighton Model Fertility Care? That way, they do not have to abstain. This method is used both to attain and delay pregnancy. It is a natural method of charting your body and knowing when you are and are not fertile. There is no contraception involved and it is acceptable to the Church.

Just a side note, if we all waited until we were financially stable to have children, we’d be a world of virigins with no children to speak of! In most cases, having children forces you to become financially responsible and, therefore, stable.

 

[LucyLight]

Well, I can see how you may consider it illogical, and I would probably agree with you. But a non-Catholic acquaintance of mine recently confided in me that she is terrified of becoming pregnant again, and is adamant that she cannot get pregnant. I know a lot of people are concerned about getting pregnant, but I was a bit surprised that her fear was so apparent. She is on ABCs and when I tried to talk to her about NFP, she dismissed it and said she couldn’t trust it, that it was too unreliable. Considering how worried she was about getting pregnant, I guess I can see how a Catholic couple would choose to remain virgins until they can risk conceiving, rather than going on ABCs.

Truly, NFP is not fool-proof. You have to be open to life because life can be made despite NFP Not only does it not work for everyone, but not everyone can read the signs as well as some do. There’s a learning period to contend with. And not only that, it’s difficult to restrain from having sex with one’s spouse (which is where discernment comes in). So I can see how, if a couple truly can’t risk conceiving, that they’d opt to just not have sex for a specified period of time, rather than risk using NFP…or disobey Catholic Church rules and just go on ABCs.

Still, there is nothing in the CCC or encycyclicals that says you cannot remain virgins for a amount time, if both consent fully to the arrangement. I would think that this would be something this couple should discuss with their pre-canna instructor, or their family priest. It would be interesting to learn what he would tell them.

Just my 2 cents…

There are different forms of NFP some stricter than others. My husband and I only have sex during phase 3 of my cycle. Quick run down…a woman’s cycle is broken down into 3 cycles, phase 1 before ovulation, phase 2 during ovulation, phase 3 after ovulation. Most couples who practice NFP have intercourse during some or all of phase 1 and during phase 3.

My doctor who is a well respected, Catholic doctor with years of experience in NFP has told me that almost always when a baby is conceived while a couple was practicing NFP it happened in what they thought was phase 1. So he says if you stick to phase 3 you will never get pregnant again (of course anything is possible). He said that ABC and condoms are riskier than abstaining until phase 3.

Having intercourse in phase 3 only is actualy much simpler to figure out than other forms of NFP and very effective. This might be good for people new to NFP because it is easier to figure out (some people can even just count days).

If I get pregnant again it could cost me my life so I take this very serious.

 

[spunjalebi]

Has anyone thought of how a couple can truly be married, as in cleaved if they never have sex in the first place? I have a difficult time understanding how a couple can truly be married spiritually if they never have sexual intercourse.

 

[Vico]

Has anyone thought of how a couple can truly be married, as in cleaved if they never have sex in the first place? I have a difficult time understanding how a couple can truly be married spiritually if they never have sexual intercourse.

You mean consummated matrimony? As a sacrament, the baptised receive the Holy Spirit through their proper consent: a lifelong exclusive relationship, open to children, through the Church.

Traditionally intercourse does not pertain to the essence of marraige but to its signification: Christ and the Church. Marriage can and does exist perfect and complete without the copula.

See: Canon law on marriage: introductory notes and comments by Adolfo N. Dacanáy, p. 13.

They cleave prior to consummation. Strongs for the word cleave in Genesis 2:24:

01692 // qbd // dabaq // daw-bak’ //

a primitive root; TWOT - 398; v

AV - cleave 32, follow hard 5, overtake 3, stick 3, keep fast 2,
…together 2, abide 1, close 1, joined 1, pursued 1, take 1; 54

1. to cling, stick, stay close, cleave, keep close, stick to, stick with, follow closely, join to, overtake, catch
   1a) (Qal)
   …1a1) to cling, cleave to
   …1a2) to stay with
   1b) (Pual) to be joined together
   1c) (Hiphil)
   …1c1) to cause to cleave to
   …1c2) to pursue closely
   …1c3) to overtake
   1d) (Hophal) to be made to cleave

 

[spunjalebi]

Then why does the Bible always talk about consummation as completing a marriage? I used to be a member at other Christian threads where a spouse wanted an annulment because the other person wouldn’t have sex and was still a virgin after months of marriage.

And personally I’ve come to the point where if you can’t handle the responsibilities of marriage, such as being open to life, then maybe marriage needs to be postponed. My husband and I had decided before we were married that we couldn’t afford a child right away, but now we’re at the point where if I got pregnant, we would be responsible and make accommodations for the baby because it was part of our responsibilities as a married couple. I mean, the priest even asks you if you’re going to be open to life when you’re getting married.

Marriage is also the ONLY place where you can have sex, period. Why you’d want to remain a virgin after is beyond me.

 

[excubitor]

a friend of mine wants to get married to her boyfriend very badly, except they will not be able to support a family until a few years after their marriage, because they are not financially stable. Their plan is to get married and abstain from sex until they are ready.

I am quite confused about whether or not this is right, and or a sin?
Seeing as the point of marriage is to become one with another person, and that can’t really be done without both god’s bless, promising to eachother, and the act of sexual intercourse, would this marriage be right?

Let me know! pleassee.

This sounds a lot like the old fashioned concept of betrothal.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrothal

When the relationship was consummated then the couple were married.

The apostle Paul talks in similar ways.
1 Cor 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

Either way the virginal state is better than the married state. This principle has been somewhat lost since Vatican 2 when marriage as a vocation was exalted. Not that it was wrong to impress the importance of marriage as a vocation but its not possible to lift the importance of the married state without doing so at the expense of the virginal state.

If the young couple want to remain virgins for spiritual reasons to devote themselves to God then they should be encouraged to. But clearly this is not the case here. I don’t think that what she is proposing is exactly betrothal. She seems to want to live with the young man as husband and wife. In a betrothal they would still live separately with their parents. But the legal binding of a betrothal was no different to marriage. We have engagements today which sadly are readily broken and have no legal standing or even a moral standing of a promise. Our society desperately needs to provide a binding legal form of betrothal or engagement which protects the interests of the parties who are planning to marry.

I think this is what the young woman fears. She fears that the young man will not keep his promise to marry and is worried about losing these precious years of her youth. In the end though the sticking point is finances. Its a constant amazement to me that uneducated people in the third world which earn $2 a day are delighted to have large families but here in the first world we cannot afford even one child unless we are “financially stable”. What is financial stability anyway? Is “financial stability” the way that we say “I trust in the monetary system of this world to provide for my needs” when what we should be saying is “I trust in God to provide for my needs”.

So my advice to all catholics is marry young and risk living without all the bells and whistles of modern life and have lots of children. Those who desire to be rich pierce themselves with many sorrows and the greatest of these sorrows is the loss of children that might have been.
*Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them:
*

When did God ever say “Happy is the man who is “financially stable”?”

 

[stephe1987]

Define “financially stable.”

If…
a) you are on public assistance
b) you are unemployed or keep changing jobs
c) your wages are too small to support your family in an apartment without your wife’s income

Then you are not ready for marriage. Public assistance helps people get on their feet, and is usually only offered to people with children, making minimum wage or less, so that doesn’t apply in this case. Unemployed is not financially stable, since you can’t buy anything without money, not even food. And the part where the man needs to earn enough to support his family is important because a woman will need to take at least a few months from work to care for the newborn child, and possibly even during the end of her pregnancy, especially if there are complications. You can always downsize your home (many people start off in apartments and work their way up to owning a house, or are selling their homes and moving into apartments because they lost their job or their credit is terrible), but you need to be able to afford to live somewhere without a second income.

Why not postpone the wedding until you are both ready for marriage? Chances are, if you’re not really stable, you might be too young. Maybe you need to finish school. Also, the human brain isn’t done developing until around age 25-30. If you’re under 25, maybe you should consider waiting and being in the work force a little longer before you get married.

If none of these apply, then perhaps you need to reconsider your situation. The economy is terrible, and it might not get better for a long time. By then the woman will be too old to have children, or having children will be very risky (Down syndrome, etc.). Maybe you aren’t making as much as you want to. Maybe you never will. But you don’t need to be rich to love your children. Growing up, my family never had much money, but we were just fine. To us, getting pizza or fast food or going to the park or river or camping was a treat. We had game systems, but we always got them a few years after they were released, never brand new. We didn’t need the latest and greatest stuff or to go to Disneyland or cruises all the time like the rich kids.

 

[spunjalebi]

The OP is asking about this in relation to friends. Though to be honest, I would be interested to know what the friends’ responses are after communicating some of our questions to them.