I
inthenameofGod
Guest
how can you? as someone who has tried to live out abstinence it seems that the two contradict each other.
- Status
T
Thoma25
Guest
The same way you would control any other inordinate passion: through discipline. Sex is a means of procreation to be used only within the context of lawful marriage. Any other use of this faculty, such as for the purpose of pleasure dissociated from its proper context, is considered by the Catechism to be an intrinsic disorder, and is grave matter. Like any other disorder or sinful inclination (concupiscence), we must exert self-control and not give in to the libertine notion of “expressing ourselves” because it’s what we want.
So, yes, in the beginning you will need to repress those urges and not give into them. Fostering true chastity, which includes purity of mind as well as body, will greatly reduce these carnal urges, and with time and prayer, you will be able to replace them with true spiritual aspiration.
It will present very little trouble over time if you maintain a chaste life; it will be significantly harder if you give in to immodest thoughts, movies, internet content, and so on.
R
revert_jen
Guest
If you provide the definition of “repress” you are using, people will be more able to help you.
There is a difference between repressing something, and suppressing it. There is nothing wrong with suppressing the desire for sex that would be a sin, any more than there is anything wrong with suppressing the desire for that third corn dog.
The first paragraph of the wikipedia article about repression is pretty good (although other parts of the article are a bit iffy):
Psychological repression, or simply repression, according to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, is the involuntary psychological act of excluding desires and impulses (wishes, fantasies or feelings) from one’s consciousness and holding or subduing them in the unconscious. Since Freud’s work in psychoanalysis, repression is now accepted as a defense mechanism by psychoanalytic psychologists; however, there remains some debate as to whether (or how often) repression really happens and mainstream psychology holds that true repression occurs only very rarely.
What you are required to do if your life requires celibacy (i.e. if you’re not married) is to recognize the desires and their strength, and then channel the energy of those desires into something else: prayer, helping the poor, work, whatever. You don’t become unconscious of them, you just do not allow them to control you.
–Jen
There is a difference between repressing something, and suppressing it. There is nothing wrong with suppressing the desire for sex that would be a sin, any more than there is anything wrong with suppressing the desire for that third corn dog.
The first paragraph of the wikipedia article about repression is pretty good (although other parts of the article are a bit iffy):
Psychological repression, or simply repression, according to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theory, is the involuntary psychological act of excluding desires and impulses (wishes, fantasies or feelings) from one’s consciousness and holding or subduing them in the unconscious. Since Freud’s work in psychoanalysis, repression is now accepted as a defense mechanism by psychoanalytic psychologists; however, there remains some debate as to whether (or how often) repression really happens and mainstream psychology holds that true repression occurs only very rarely.
What you are required to do if your life requires celibacy (i.e. if you’re not married) is to recognize the desires and their strength, and then channel the energy of those desires into something else: prayer, helping the poor, work, whatever. You don’t become unconscious of them, you just do not allow them to control you.
–Jen
R
Rascalking
Guest
Everyone above is correct. There is a HUGE difference between “represion” and “supression”.
M
Mary_Virginia
Guest
I have been practicing abstinence since 2008, I am not sure you can totally repress it as we we’re made to give ourselves to each other. I believe we can control our urges even though that takes a lot of work on our part. We are human and the flesh is weak . Prayer definitely helps. I am looking for a mate but untill I am married-(have been twice), I will have to deal with something totally new to me=abstaining till marriage.I am a “new Catholic”. I’m guessing counseling may come into play then-and may be helpful. Right now I just take temptaton one day at a time, and when the time comes to unite with a mate I am sure my hormones will kick in! If you have problems then, consult a Doctor but pray first, I pray about everything!
God Bless You!!-Your question may help alot of people!
Mary Virginia
God Bless You!!-Your question may help alot of people!
Mary Virginia
O
OraLabora
Guest
I thought that the Church taught that sex was both procreative and unitive. You seem to suggest that it is procreative only. That is false.
It is also not an inordinate passion.
It is a natural drive, not a disorder, to desire sexual union.
I think it is unhealthy to view it as an inordinate, or disordered passion. What is healthy is to view it as a normal urge and to seek to direct the drive to its licit expression within marriage. And to turn it away from illicit expressions.
Turning it off altogether is another matter. I think that those in religious vocations sublimate their drive, they don’t eliminate it or turn it off.
T
Thoma25
Guest
I said, “Sex is a means of procreation to be used only within the context of lawful marriage.” Notice the term “lawful marriage,” which would imply its unitive purposes. Nothing false here. However, both elements must be there for it to be a valid expression of the marital bond, which is precisely why contraception isn’t allowed for married use: the potential of procreation must be present for it to be truly unitive.
It is an inordinate passion when the individual finds it difficult if not impossible to resist it outside of its valid context of marriage, and when used improperly, it is grave matter and possibly mortal sin. Of course it’s a natural drive, but any natural drive taken to its extreme and engaged in for its own sake is intrinsically disordered.
Sublimation of these urges does require discipline and suppression, especially in the beginning. I never said it could be “turned off,” but it does become easier to manage after the initial stages.
Regarding its illicit use, this fact remains: Any sexual act outside lawful marriage, such as masturbation, fornication, etc, is always grave matter and, if the conditions are met, constitute mortal sin. Mortal sins are to be opposed with the entire strength of one’s being through discipline, prayer, and even mortifications such as fasting and other penitential acts. There’s no sugar coating or whitewashing it: outside of valid marriage, any sexual act is grave matter, possibly mortal sin, and engaging in it for the purposes of pleasure dissociated from its procreative and marital aspects is intrinsically disordered.
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
perhaps repress wasn’t the best choice of words, but it was the only way i could think to express what i meant.
when i mean repress, i mean ignore it and try to live around it. in other words, you more or less deny the fact your sexual; kind of like a skeleton in the closet kind of thing, only you try to hide it from yourself. i guess sort of like self denial
that’s the way abstinence has been presented to me- pray, just say no, and put it off until marriage; well i can say that doesn’t work. it doesn’t seem like hiding from one’s sexual side is the way to go, rather, one should embrace it- but i don’t see how that’s possible if your totally abstinent or celibate.
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
i understand discipline and control, but does that mean, as has been said, subliminating the desire? you can eat for pleasure without being a glutton; you have to control the appetite, but that doesn’t mean eating only the minimum to stay alive.
and as far as the catechism goes, lets assume i don’t believe in the Church and im not Catholic, how would you explain the use of the sexual facilities outside of marriage to be a sin?
T
Thoma25
Guest
Good question. However, we must recognize the purpose of eating and drinking: maintaining life and an optimal state of health. There is nothing wrong with enjoying what we’re eating and deriving pleasure from it, within the context of moderation and sustenance. When we begin eating out of a desire for pleasure, with little thought to health or moderation, then it becomes a problem. The same way with sex: in the proper context of marriage and open to the potential of procreation, there is nothing wrong with enjoying it. Seeking sex purely for enjoyment with no marital union and preventing procreation, on the other hand, is very wrong.
Whether something is sinful or not has nothing to do with what you believe; it is not a matter of relativity. It is always grave matter, but for it to be a serious sin, there has to be three conditions met: the first is that it must be a grave matter. The second is full knowledge that it is sinful. The third is full consent of the will. If you’re not Catholic and don’t understand the sacramental nature of marriage and the sinfulness of fornication and contraception, it is still grave matter but doesn’t qualify as mortal sin on your part.
But since you already know that it is objectively sinful, as taught by the Magisterium and explained in the Catechism, you do have full knowledge. Willfully doubting the teachings of the Church is sinful in itself, and keeping your heart hardened to the truth is no excuse. Otherwise, everyone could simply say, “Well, I know what is taught, but I refuse to believe it out of convenience,” and avoid both temporal and eternal punishment altogether.
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
i know the requirements for mortal sin, however, i can’t see why use of the facility outside of marriage is wrong apart from the fact the Chuch says it is. lets say im Protestant and were talking about sex, how do convince me that sex has to be procreative, unitive, and in the context of marriage to be in harmony with God’s will?
T
Thoma25
Guest
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal the inherent sinfulness of fornication. I’d suggest that anyone who doubts should read it. Here’s a quick reference:
“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10, Douay-Rheims).
What is fornication? Sex outside the confines of marriage. This is demonstrated by the following passage, as well as the virtue of continence:
“Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2)
“But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-9)
Thus the ideal life is celibacy; but for those who can’t live this ideal, the only alternative is marriage. Sex outside of marriage is fornication, and fornicators can not enter the kingdom of God.
But for the Protestant, they have much more to worry about than Scriptural support of Apostolic doctrine. Their first task should be to address the problems of the Protestant heresy in rejecting the infallible Apostolic Church built upon Peter, whose authority is to bind in heaven and on earth, and loose the sins of those whom it will. That, too, is Scriptural.
There always comes a time in which what is true conflicts with what we want to be true. I know, because it happens to me, too. But if we look beyond our own personal desires and pride, admitting that we are fallible and our judgment is obscured by our concupiscence and passions, then we will have the humility to recognize the truth and the authority of the Infallibility of the Church, both in Tradition and in Scripture. Pray for the grace to observe its precepts, and don’t spend your time doubting it or trying to find loopholes around it. That’s unprofitable and spiritually injurious.
Good luck!
B
Bookcat
Guest
R
revert_jen
Guest
I don’t understand what you mean by a lot of what you say above.
There is a lot of difference between a “skeleton in the closet kind of thing” and self denial. I practice self denial, meaning denying my appetites when my reason says that it is best, every time I forego dessert. If you mean denial of one’s whole self, I don’t think subjecting the desire for sex to the control of my mind is a denial of my whole self.
My faculty of reason, apart from agreeing with the Church that it is wrong to have sex outside marriage, also says that it is unwise to have sex outside marriage. Some of the reasons are: disease, pregnancy, emotional pain, danger of rape if I change my mind, danger of the two people having different ideas of what it means to the relationship.
As a single person, I am not to have sex. That doesn’t make me asexual. It doesn’t make me “deny the fact that I’m sexual” it just means that I can’t engage in sex. I can look for a husband, I can flirt a bit, and in any case, my being a woman is not contingent on me having sex. I’m not enslaved by the sex act, needing to have it regardless of how appropriate it is. I used to be married (well only in the eyes of the law–I had an annulment), and I really liked sex, but I can certainly live without it. I am not an animal, to need sex no matter what my reason has to say about it.
I don’t have the slightest idea what you mean by embracing one’s sexual side. And it certainly does “work” to wait until marriage, or so many people (both now and throughout history) wouldn’t be able to do it. It is hard, and if you stumble, you have to confess it and try again. But you can’t give up the struggle just because it is hard.
–Jen
W
WetCatechumen
Guest
You’ve also got to realize that this wasn’t a problem for most human beings until recently. Because of a culture swing, it now takes much much longer for people to feel comfortable getting married. Hence, we’re getting married as much as 15 years after hitting puberty, rather than the three or so that used to be more typical. That’s a long time for people to be abstinent, and it’s very difficult.
Hence, every person acting morally licitly in our modern culture goes through a long period of abstinence.
Hence, every person acting morally licitly in our modern culture goes through a long period of abstinence.
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
thank you…but what i meant by the Protestant thing was this: without appealing to the Magisterium, the Catechism, or any sort of Church ruling, prove to me that sex has to be procreative, unitive, and in the context of marriage. i’m sorry, but having faith in the Church has gotten me nowhere as far as remaining abstinent goes, i want something that’s logical.
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
and you see, that’s where i get confused. how can you not deny your sexuality without pursuing some king of sexual activity, at some point the drive boils up and you can’t just ignore it.
maybe love for a hypothetical future wife is enough for some people, or belief in the WONDERFUL Church and its incredibly kind people, but its not for me; i can’t just roll over and submit. yea, it’s an immature way of thinking and i accept this, but ill think like this if it means getting answers and not living in simpleton obedience.
i’ve grown up in a extremely Catholic community, and so far all i see are a bunch of unloving, harsh, almost repressed and bitter people. the people are either sinners or ‘holy’ devout people who condemn any sort of individuality or compassion towards somebody who is different. why should i submit and be like them? the way i see Christ’s ‘love’ portrayed is through condemning, legalistic people. now i assume you and everyone else may wonder why this background matters. because, i have met a grand total of 3 or 4 devout Catholics who i would want to be like and i hate the way most everone else acts. this is the way the Church has been portrayed to me; i see only mean nuns and priests who don’t care. the people with love and are kind are lay, and those that are supposed to lead us come across as mean and condemning.
if that’s what living in the Catholic faith leads to, if that’s what submitting to the Church does to someone- makes them bitter and frustrated- then i dont want a part in it.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
“if that’s what living in the Catholic faith leads to, if that’s what submitting to the Church does to someone- makes them bitter and frustrated- then i dont want a part in it.”
Herein lies the problem. How the Church makes you feel is utterly irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the Church is True. If you believe it is the infallibly guided, divinely inspired Church started by Christ then absolutely nothing else matters, at all.
Herein lies the problem. How the Church makes you feel is utterly irrelevant. What matters is whether or not the Church is True. If you believe it is the infallibly guided, divinely inspired Church started by Christ then absolutely nothing else matters, at all.
T
Thoma25
Guest
The problem you’re having is with accepting that sex is permitted only within the confines of marriage, hence martial union. Leaving aside the issue of contraception, which has little bearing on the topic of fornication, the previous verses which I posted illustrated quite readily that sex outside of marriage is forbidden. These are scriptural references, not appealing to Sacred Tradition. Here they are again; make sure you read them:
“Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.” (I Corinthians 6:9-10, Douay-Rheims).
“Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.” (1 Corinthians 7:1-2)
“But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.” (1 Corinthians 7:6-9)
It is thus stated that fornicators can not enter the kingdom of heaven. Fornication is sex outside of marriage. It also states that the only alternative to celibacy is marriage.
I would venture to say that, if you’re being honest with yourself, you’re not looking for something logical; you’re looking for a rationalization so that you don’t have to exert yourself in being celibate. I can understand that; I had difficulty with it too. The only advice that can be given is this: prayer, penance, and mortification. You can’t try to rationalize it by doubting the Church’s authority, because the New Testament itself, aside from the Magisterium and Catechism, condemns fornication, extols celibacy, and permits marriage as an alternative for those who can’t remain celibate.
Instead of trying to make the truth conform with your lower passions, why not try to make yourself conform to the truth? It’s true, you can’t do it yourself; celibacy is nearly a supernatural virtue insofar as it is against our base nature. But that is precisely what baptism, confirmation, and the Eucharist is for: to maintain supernatural life and give you the fruits of the Holy Spirit, to be able to do all things “through Him, with Him, and in Him.”
As far as your comments of being “bitter and frustrated,” I’m celibate myself, and I’m nowhere near frustrated or bitter. I can honestly say that I’m the happiest I’ve ever been, not in the least bit “frustrated.” Do you know what’s really frustrating? Knowing the truth, and denying it because you’re chained to sinful behavior. It’s true, you have to put in a little bit of effort and “self denial” at first, but so what? Jesus himself said no one can be His disciple unless they take up their cross daily, and follow Him. What is a little cross of resisting sin, compared to His Cross endured to set you free from it?
I
inthenameofGod
Guest
wow…that was quite an effective answer, thank you very much, truly. may God Bless you
however, the moral trouble i have isnt so much with fornication, its more so the principle that sexual conduct of any kind has to be within marriage, and must be unitive and procreative. the only answer i ever get when i ask this is “that’s what the Church says” but i dont see why it teaches that. it bothers me because i dont like being kept in the dark, i can accept Church authority on some things, but on an issue as personal and influential as this, it would help a lot if i could get a different answer, one that explained this to me from a bit more of a philosophical and logical stand point.
- Status