How can you be abstinent and not repress the sex drive

[Thoma25]

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.

That’s a good question. Marriage is one of the Sacraments; a Sacrament is an outward sign expressing hidden mystery of salvation. One of the reasons why sex is to take place only within marriage is because, within the sacramental bond, it is an expression of self-giving without limitation. Marriage prefigures the union of Christ with his Church. Within it, sex is transformed from a purely instinctual urge, into a way in which each spouse gives themselves to the other unconditionally. Through this union comes procreation, the manifestation of the sacrificial love between spouses mirroring that of Christ for us.

Sex outside the marriage bond is only the gratification of desire. A cohabitating couple that has no permanent union has not pledged themselves to each other unconditionally; as such, their union is not an expression of true love and commitment, but the drive of lower passions. It is not permanent, but usually the result of passing infatuation. Their union, rather than being unconditional self-giving to the other, is a kind of objectification of the human person, making them an object of pleasure to be used as long as it is convenient to do so. This attitude of objectification is reinforced by the widespread use of contraception, which is the withholding of a part of oneself from the other person. It is like saying to the other person, “I’m not giving you my body; I’m only using yours for my own pleasure. If you get something out of it, that’s fine too.” This is intrinsically disordered, as we’ve discussed previously, because it removes sexual pleasure from its broader context in which it finds its meaning.

Another more practical reason for forbidding sex outside of marriage is because the family is the cornerstone of a healthy upbringing; and it isn’t a far-fetched idea to hold that the state of society is a reflection of its family values. Society is an extended family, so to speak; broken societies speak of broken families. When families are deprived of permanence, self-sacrificial love, and trust, they suffer if not dissolve altogether. Promoting fornication weakens the perceived importance of the family, and instills self-centered egotism and pleasure seeking. When “death do us part” becomes, “When we stop feeling like it,” there is no permanence, trust, or sacrificial love. When unconditionally giving oneself to the other out of love becomes withholding a part of oneself through contraception, we begin a dangerous trend of sensual objectification which leads to an increase in moral evil. Thus, for the cohesion of a just society and healthy families, the sacrament of marriage must be upheld. Adultery, fornication, and so on are sins against it which must be overcome, like any other serious sin.

These are my views regarding the topic, but you’ll no doubt receive many more answers from other points of view. I’d recommend that you read more about Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body.” He gives a much more lucid and accurate answer to the questions you’ve asked than any of us could:

theologyofthebody.net/

 

[revert_jen]

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.

No, sometimes you can’t ignore it. Lots of times. That doesn’t mean that you have to submit to it, just that you have to be stronger than it.

but ill think like this if it means getting answers and not living in simpleton obedience.

That was pretty insulting, although I am certainly willing to believe that you didn’t mean that all devout Catholics (which would include me and many others on this forum and all of the saints) were simpletons.

For me, I thought seriously about whether the Church is what she says she is. Once I determined for myself that she is, I would be more of a simpleton to put my own personal opionions over the Spirit-guided opinions of 2000 years of Church teaching. Maybe you would be helped by figuring out if you believe the Church is what she says she is too.

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.

I have never had the (good or bad?) luck to live in an even medium-Catholic community, much less an extremely Catholic one. So maybe that is why my experience of other Catholics is diametrically opposed to yours. However, I can say that you do NOT know thieir souls, their trials, and their pains any more than they know yours, and you appear to be (understanably, but not helpfully) exactly as intolerant of them as they are of you. You may want to pray to see whether you are being fair to them.

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.

I have chosen to be Catholic (after several years of attending Protestant churches) and in doing so I chose to submit. And sometimes I am bitter and frustrated (alhough that would probably surprise people who know me in person), since the dreams I had for my life when I was younger didn’t happen. But the two are completely unrelated. God is the greatest joy I have, and the Church my surest refuge against despondency. It is not the cause of my lost dreams, it is what makes life worth living regardless of whether they come true or not.

Be sure you remember that correlation is not causation. Is it possible that the economical, political, and/or historical characteristics of your community cause the bitterness and the frustration, and that the Catholicism is what keeps it from being worse?

–Jen

 

[LilyM]

I don’t ‘ignore’ or ‘try to work around’ my sexuality. I recognise it, I acknowledge it, I thank God for the gift of it.

At the same time, I realise that it is there as a means to larger ends - unity with my spouse and procreation are two, but more generally our sexuality is given to us as an means of expressing love.

And I further realise that as a single person I can be equally fulfilled in expressing my love for others in non-sexual ways. There are many times where even spouses do the same - if one or other is ill, for example, or if one spouse travels without the other.

 

[inthenameofGod]

No, sometimes you can’t ignore it. Lots of times. That doesn’t mean that you have to submit to it, just that you have to be stronger than it.

That was pretty insulting, although I am certainly willing to believe that you didn’t mean that all devout Catholics (which would include me and many others on this forum and all of the saints) were simpletons.

For me, I thought seriously about whether the Church is what she says she is. Once I determined for myself that she is, I would be more of a simpleton to put my own personal opionions over the Spirit-guided opinions of 2000 years of Church teaching. Maybe you would be helped by figuring out if you believe the Church is what she says she is too.

I have never had the (good or bad?) luck to live in an even medium-Catholic community, much less an extremely Catholic one. So maybe that is why my experience of other Catholics is diametrically opposed to yours. However, I can say that you do NOT know thieir souls, their trials, and their pains any more than they know yours, and you appear to be (understanably, but not helpfully) exactly as intolerant of them as they are of you. You may want to pray to see whether you are being fair to them.

I have chosen to be Catholic (after several years of attending Protestant churches) and in doing so I chose to submit. And sometimes I am bitter and frustrated (alhough that would probably surprise people who know me in person), since the dreams I had for my life when I was younger didn’t happen. But the two are completely unrelated. God is the greatest joy I have, and the Church my surest refuge against despondency. It is not the cause of my lost dreams, it is what makes life worth living regardless of whether they come true or not.

Be sure you remember that correlation is not causation. Is it possible that the economical, political, and/or historical characteristics of your community cause the bitterness and the frustration, and that the Catholicism is what keeps it from being worse?

–Jen

sorry, i didn’t want to insult you, honestly that’s just how it comes across to me sometimes. theres just something about not questioning and just obeying that seems horrific to me, it seems like its just laying down and dieing.

do i believe the Church is what it says it is? i dont know, maybe, but reguardless of what i think it is, i do believe it can be wrong, that much can be historically proven.

as far as the Catholic community thing, it should be good luck, but here they seem like, excuse my bluntness, hollow, mediocre, and unloving people. obviously i’d like to think im fair, but i may be biased- the reason im rather mad though is that it comes across like they just want every one to conform. i just get angry at how close minded, condemning, and unloving they all seem to be.

 

[RachelKH]

my husband and i have been separated for about 8 months now, so no sex. it is very hard – i have high sex drive. but i know that for now it is a no-go. i can’t with my husband and i shouldn’t/won’t with anyone else, so i ‘just say no’ to those strong urges and get very busy with something else. i have a sparkling house and the best weeded garden and best trimmed yard and trees ever. i channel that energy into good outlets. yeah, i could really use a night of sexual release, i want it, the urges are there, even troubling my dreams, but, like that box of doughnuts calling to me from the kitchen, i know it would be wrong to give in no matter what. it’s just the right think to do. why have sex with just anyone just because you have urges? it’s like eating stale bread when a new loaf will be delivered in the morning – the ‘fresh loaf’ will be worth the wait, just like waiting for sex with my husband will be better than anything, in so many ways.

 

[inthenameofGod]

my husband and i have been separated for about 8 months now, so no sex. it is very hard – i have high sex drive. but i know that for now it is a no-go. i can’t with my husband and i shouldn’t/won’t with anyone else, so i ‘just say no’ to those strong urges and get very busy with something else. i have a sparkling house and the best weeded garden and best trimmed yard and trees ever. i channel that energy into good outlets. yeah, i could really use a night of sexual release, i want it, the urges are there, even troubling my dreams, but, like that box of doughnuts calling to me from the kitchen, i know it would be wrong to give in no matter what. it’s just the right think to do. why have sex with just anyone just because you have urges? it’s like eating stale bread when a new loaf will be delivered in the morning – the ‘fresh loaf’ will be worth the wait, just like waiting for sex with my husband will be better than anything, in so many ways.

firstly, sorry for your seperation, i can’t imagine what that must be like. may God me with you
you seem to be about where i was, feeling kind of boxed up. honestly, i kind of threw my morals out the window at that point, and if truth be told that’s where i am now. i dont know if you’ve read my other posts, but i talk about feeling repressed, and you obviously know the feeling that i had before i just kind of gave up on the Church’s sexual teachings, and probably your feeling is stronger than mine. so my question is this: how do you do it? at that point it seems like, as someone else said, you begin to ‘work around your sexuality,’ or as i say, repress it. how do you channel the energy into something else? and if you don’t mind me saying, how can you really think that that’s the way your really supposed to feel and be to please God? that can’t be how a person should live, should it? when i lived like that, it just felt like i was some sort of slave

 

[RachelKH]

sex without the whole package (forever love, forever commitment, knowing each other and accepting and giving totally to each other, etc) is just empty – it feels good for the moment but doesn’t last or make things better. i’m waiting for the whole real deal – sex w/o that is like a great sale on a product i don’t like – not worth a penny.

i guess i do it like this: every day i get up and make a list of what i want to do, what i need to do, what i ought to try to do. sex is at the top of the list, but it is ‘out of stock’ or ‘not on sale’ or ‘out of season’ today, so i scratch it out and move on to the next thing to write on my list. like if i wanted to have a picnic, but the sky turns stormy – i just put it off for another day and quit grumping about it or it would ruin my day and not let me enjoy the stuff i can do. now i can let’s say read that book i wanted while the storm rumbles around outside – no picnic, but something else to occupy me and give me pleasure and wear me out. nothing i can do about it so just move on.

 

[Chancellare]

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.

Marital embrace serves 2 purposes: Procreative and Unitive. And each one is as important as the other. To disregard one is as sinful as sin can be.

 

[borodac]

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.

If you want a rational argument for the four purposes of marriage (I’m not sure if anyone has suggested this yet; I haven’t read the whole thread), definitely read Pope John Paul’s book Love and Responsibility, because that’s exactly what he does. He builds on each point as he goes along and explains it in a very logical, philosophical way. It’s a beautiful book, though a little complicated. It’s very worth it though if you are legitimately looking for answers.

 

[Thoma25]

Marital embrace serves 2 purposes: Procreative and Unitive. And each one is as important as the other. To disregard one is as sinful as sin can be.

It’s a good thing that I didn’t disregard either aspect, then. You’ll notice that not only did I mention that it must be expressed only “within the confines of lawful marriage,” which implies the unitive aspect, I’ve also answered this accusation earlier in the thread.

 

[OraLabora]

Marital embrace serves 2 purposes: Procreative and Unitive. And each one is as important as the other. To disregard one is as sinful as sin can be.

I would rate abortion much, much worse. Avoiding conception without valid reason is surely a sin. But abortion is murder. Not all sins are “equal”.

Back on-topic, suppressing a natural drive is terribly difficult. Someone above said avoiding sexual expression that isn’t appropriate is like avoiding that third corn dog, but avoiding all sexual pleasure (the case for those not in licit marriages) is like avoiding eating altogether. Some people can fast for a very long time, some cannot but eventually all need to eat. Hormone levels, for instance, are not equal. The sex drive is driven by testosterone in both men and women. Those levels can vary, menopause in women can have an impact, etc.

Just like a person who has a higher metabolic like an athlete rate may crave food more often than someone with a slower metabolism who won’t need as much, and what is overeating for one, is barely enough for the other, people with high libido may just find it beyond their strength to remain celibate for 15-20 years after puberty, and should not be judged harshly for their failures. God wants us to do our best though, and as CS Lewis said, I suspect God will have more mercy for the sex addict who manages to overcome temptation just once, than the prude who avoids sexual sin altogether simply because he or she doesn’t face that temptation.

Hormones regulate sexual appetite and some people just have very high testosterone levels and correspondingly strong libidos. I’m willing to bet that men or women in these circumstances don’t choose to become priests, nuns or monks.

 

[Thoma25]

I would rate abortion much, much worse. Avoiding conception without valid reason is surely a sin. But abortion is murder. Not all sins are “equal”.

Back on-topic, suppressing a natural drive is terribly difficult. Someone above said avoiding sexual expression that isn’t appropriate is like avoiding that third corn dog, but avoiding all sexual pleasure (the case for those not in licit marriages) is like avoiding eating altogether. Some people can fast for a very long time, some cannot but eventually all need to eat. Hormone levels, for instance, are not equal. The sex drive is driven by testosterone in both men and women. Those levels can vary, menopause in women can have an impact, etc.

Just like a person who has a higher metabolic like an athlete rate may crave food more often than someone with a slower metabolism who won’t need as much, and what is overeating for one, is barely enough for the other, people with high libido may just find it beyond their strength to remain celibate for 15-20 years after puberty, and should not be judged harshly for their failures. God wants us to do our best though, and as CS Lewis said, I suspect God will have more mercy for the sex addict who manages to overcome temptation just once, than the prude who avoids sexual sin altogether simply because he or she doesn’t face that temptation.

Hormones regulate sexual appetite and some people just have very high testosterone levels and correspondingly strong libidos. I’m willing to bet that men or women in these circumstances don’t choose to become priests, nuns or monks.

With our instincts, we also have will. We must exercise our will in order to avoid our evil impulses. To give into them will indeed make them stronger. To resist them may be difficult at times, if not supernatural. But that is what the Sacraments are for: to confer supernatural grace upon us so that we may go beyond our base nature. If we view the issue as mere psychology, or the action of our own human nature, it would be impossible. But we are given supernatural aid in order to do the “impossible.” Hence, the Sacramental life is an order of magnitude above the mundane life in which resisting our concupiscence is not possible, or at least improbable.

There is a large difference between fasting and celibacy. If we refuse food, then eventually we will die from it. Refusing sex won’t kill us, even if we don’t like it and continually whine about it. To draw such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

As to your comments regarding high testosterone, sex drive, and consecrated life: that is simply not true. I know, because I have high testosterone and a “strong libido,” and yet I’m maintaining a celibate life by God’s grace. I’m also discerning a vocation to the consecrated life within the next 3-5 years. With God, all things are possible; but when we have faith only in ourselves, we’ll soon find our faith to be worthless. The issue truly is whether we have faith in God, the Church, and the salvific/transformative nature of the Sacramental life. If we do, then nothing is impossible. If we don’t, then nothing is possible for us, except enslavement to sin.

 

[rapunzel77]

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.

I understand your frustration. I don’t want to give you platitudes since you are tired of those. The sexual urge is meant to be shared with your spouse. The reasons have been stated in some of the other posts. One of them is that sex is an act of total self-giving to the other. It is a very precious gift but it is also fragile and easily abused. There must be a healthy respect for it. I believe it is probably the most powerful urge. Maybe more than eating, drinking, or sleeping. The desires are good but they must be properly channeled. Afterall, look at the need for water and fire. We all need water and fire to live. Both can be deadly if they go out of control. So, in the case with water, we take from the rivers or divert it into reservoirs and irrigate it into channels. With fire, we regulate it as well weather it is for our ovens/stoves, electricity, or a fireplace. The sexual drive is also very important for the generation of life but it must be controlled or else it can become deadly.

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.

God does not call us to blindly obey. The Church certainly doesn’t want that either. You must use your mind and your heart but it starts with trust.

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.

I’m very sorry that you have encountered people like this. You must know that not every Catholic is this way. Sadly, in your situation, I know that might seem impossible but know that it isn’t true.

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.

. I wish you could meet my pastor. He would change your ideas about priests and religious. Remember that priests and religious are people too and that they don’t all live up to the ideal . They are in just as much need of help as we are.

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.

This isn’t what living the Catholic faith leads to. Please PM me. I think I can help you with some matters here .

 

[OraLabora]

There is a large difference between fasting and celibacy. If we refuse food, then eventually we will die from it. Refusing sex won’t kill us, even if we don’t like it and continually whine about it. To draw such a comparison is intellectually dishonest.

I am fully aware of the difference between the two. I am also fully aware that both exercise a very powerful natural drive on us that is hard to ignore, and for many, very difficult to resist apparently even, for several popes. While they are not completely equivalent, on several levels they are very similar and many reputable sources consider the sex drive to be even more powerful than hunger. I therefore do not share your opinion that it is intellectually dishonest to compare them.

 

[Thoma25]

I am fully aware of the difference between the two. I am also fully aware that both exercise a very powerful natural drive on us that is hard to ignore, and for many, very difficult to resist apparently even, for several popes. While they are not completely equivalent, on several levels they are very similar and many reputable sources consider the sex drive to be even more powerful than hunger. I therefore do not share your opinion that it is intellectually dishonest to compare them.

It is intellectually dishonest to compare them because it implies that having sex is an inevitability, like the necessity to eat, especially if we have a “high libido.” But that is not true, and it may very well be that some have a “high libido” because they constantly give into these impulses and consequently find it very difficult to abstain from them.

You are correct in saying that it is very difficult to ignore; but that’s because we’re not supposed to ignore it. Instead, we’re supposed to sublimate it. As Bishop Sheen used to say, there can be no repression without expression. To repress the base nature is to give expression to one’s spiritual nature via sublimation. To repress the spiritual nature is to express one’s base nature. Thus the entire issue about “repressing the sex drive” stems from a faulty view of the matter to begin with. But the issue isn’t about difficulty, but possibility. To compare celibacy to fasting is to imply that, like fasting, it must come to an end. It doesn’t. It’s not a necessity for life, but merely an expression of our nature which can be equally expressed via the celibate, monastic vocation.

One thing’s for certain: sexuality outside of marriage is a gravely sinful matter, and like any other deadly sin must be avoided at any cost. The same goes for withholding the potential of procreation within marriage via contraception. This is the gist of the original poster’s problem: celibacy before marriage, not sexuality expressed within its proper confines, and it is this these simple facts that are often obscured in the “sexuality debate.”

 

[TheQuestioner]

As well as some of the things that others have written here, maybe I can add something. It seems to me you are asking exactly how one can resist the urge to gratify themselves sexually (whether it be through masturbation or any kind of sex).

It all begins with realizing that what you want or what wish to do each day has to take a back seat to what God wants and what God wishes. This is true for anyone, Catholic or not. This way, when the urges come you recognize that they are there, but since it is unlawful to satisfy them and will displease God to do so presently you will be more likely to put them behind you and go and do something else, like pray. In the end the urges will become unimportant to you compared to God’s majesty and will, so why be more fascinated with them than with God?

When we stop focusing on our selves and turn our attention to God and others in God and ourselves for the sake of God (thus making God the center of our lives) our urges begin to be seen in relation to God. Can this or that urge be used for God? Will attending to it please or displease God? If it will displease Him, and if you don’t want to displease Him, then to you those urges will be an annoyance and a waste of time to pay too much attention to.

Literally, you can’t do it without God.

 

[cecilia97]

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.

As a woman, I’ll jump in here and say that the ideal of procreative and unitive sex within marriage protects women and children. Additionally, as we know from secular science, attached males have lower chances of dying violently…so you could say that a family provides a safe and comfortable place for the man.

1. the unitive aspect binds the spouses physically and emotionally,
2. following from this, the man sticks around to provide for and protect the woman and any offspring, and
3. the wife sticks around to provide for the husband as well

…these are just the biological benefits/effects I can see. There are certainly emotional, psychological, health, and spiritual benefits to sex within marriage that we could debate.

This may make the most sense if we remember that, for most of human history, women have needed men around to kill food and fight off predators and enemies. Our current style of living muddies the roles a bit, but 100 years of social change shouldn’t change morality.

 

[OraLabora]

It is intellectually dishonest to compare them because it implies that having sex is an inevitability, like the necessity to eat, especially if we have a “high libido.” But that is not true, and it may very well be that some have a “high libido” because they constantly give into these impulses and consequently find it very difficult to abstain from them.

Actually, having sex is an inevitability, otherwise the human race would be dead. The difference between sex and eating is that the latter is required for the individual’s survival, the former, for the group’s survival. But both are basic biological drives necessary to keep humanity alive; if everyone starves to death, the group dies. If everyone stops having sex, the group dies.

The comparison in fact is not that sex is not required for immediate survival, it’s that the appetite for it is similar to the appetite for eating and that is not a dishonest comparison to make. In the male, ejaculation is in fact inevitable for the vast majority of men. A portion of unused semen is reabsorbed by the body, but ultimately whether through nocturnal emissions (something that a significant minority of men never experience incidentally), or through sexual acts, ejaculation for the male must occur.

While I agree with you that sex outside marriage is wrong, that ABC is wrong, that abortion is wrong, and that self-gratification is probably wrong (I am unsure on this one despite my best efforts to understand the Natural Law and Church teaching), no discussion about fundamental Truths can take place without considering the Lord’s mercy for those who struggle and fail. Because that mercy is also a fundamental truth and is made of course available through the sacrament of reconciliation.

That said I think your theory about how high libido occurs is far too simplistic. There are far more factors than giving into impulses involved, including hormone levels, the female’s menstrual cycle, psychological factors, social factors, age, fatigue levels, and the list goes on and on.

 

[LilyM]

inthenameofGod:

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.

Good heavens - you really think I’m motivated by any of these things? What a bizarre notion.

What motivates me is a belief in the wonderful CHRIST, who for my sake remained celibate all HIS life, and endured much worse sufferings as well. It’s easy to love someone who has made such sacrifices for my sake, and in my turn to make small daily sacrifices for His sake.

And a desire to imitate Him in all His virtues, including His chastity, as best I can, because following in His footsteps is a sure and safe path to the joy of knowing God in this life, and being with Him forever in the life to come.

As well as a realisation, having indulged in sexual sin in the past, that those fleeting moments of physical gratification in the end are, outside of marriage, really void of meaning and purpose.

It’s a bit like quitting smoking - sure you have strong cravings for a while, but once you’re past that stage you notice the positives. Things like how much better you’re breathing, how much money you’re saving from not buying cigarettes, how food tastes better because your sense of taste isn’t dulled by your smoking, how much the smokers around you stink and things like that.

And when you start to notice that sort of thing, after long enough you don’t even really WANT to go back. And finally you’ll wake up one day and say to yourself ‘how on earth could I have ever thought smoking was a good idea? See how much better my life is without it!’

 

[Thoma25]

Actually, having sex is an inevitability, otherwise the human race would be dead. The difference between sex and eating is that the latter is required for the individual’s survival, the former, for the group’s survival. But both are basic biological drives necessary to keep humanity alive; if everyone starves to death, the group dies. If everyone stops having sex, the group dies.

Procreation is certainly required to keep humanity as a collective alive; but it is not necessary for individual’s immediate survival. I’m not saying that everyone should abstain from legitimate expressions of sexuality within marriage; but I am saying that it is possible for individuals to abstain from sex; that they are commanded to abstain from illicit sex; and that it is not impossible for them to do so. It is not an inevitability on an individual level, as is the case with breaking a fast, and does not pose a threat to their life.

The comparison in fact is not that sex is not required for immediate survival, it’s that the appetite for it is similar to the appetite for eating and that is not a dishonest comparison to make. In the male, ejaculation is in fact inevitable for the vast majority of men. A portion of unused semen is reabsorbed by the body, but ultimately whether through nocturnal emissions (something that a significant minority of men never experience incidentally), or through sexual acts, ejaculation for the male must occur.

Even if ejaculation is required, that doesn’t imply that it must take place within a sexual context. If the body needs to rid itself of excess sperm or other fluids, it will do so, whether through nocturnal emissions or other means. Believe it or not, the body can regulate itself. That’s what it was designed for, after all. I know that many young men use this as an excuse for sexual contact of one form or another, and that’s just what it is: an excuse.

Looking at it from the theological perspective, God requires us to remain celibate before marriage. If remaining celibate for months/years at a time was physiologically impossible, then God is requiring us to do what can’t be done, then punishing us for not doing it. That’s unjust; but God is the Just King, retaining this perfection infinitely; therefore, we can be reasonably certain that it is possible. Those who assert otherwise are fighting a losing battle: their word against God’s.

While I agree with you that sex outside marriage is wrong, that ABC is wrong, that abortion is wrong, and that self-gratification is probably wrong (I am unsure on this one despite my best efforts to understand the Natural Law and Church teaching), no discussion about fundamental Truths can take place without considering the Lord’s mercy for those who struggle and fail. Because that mercy is also a fundamental truth and is made of course available through the sacrament of reconciliation.

Of course, God is infinitely merciful as well as infinitely just. We are humans, and we do fall through our own weakness and frailty. However, if we have true contrition for our sins, have recourse to frequent Confession, do penance for our sins and try again, God will be merciful. If we presume on God’s mercy and make no real effort to overcome our sins, then we will be held accountable. Presumption is the other side of the sin of despair, which is a sin against the theological virtue of hope.

That said I think your theory about how high libido occurs is far too simplistic.

I never said that there was no hormonal component to it, which there definitely is. What I did say was that, in many cases, what we call a high libido is simply the result of our giving into our baser passions and having a difficult time overcoming it. When we give into any sin, we make that inclination stronger, and we have a harder time in freeing ourselves from it. Certainly, there is a hormonal aspect to the libido; but there is also the psychological aspect, which in many cases can be even stronger. No one can remain celebate if they have a psychological attachment to sex, because they will constantly desire what they do not have and do not have the strength of will to deny it. When the desire of the will is removed, what we have left is just a physical impulse that has been neutered of its power. We will not give in to what our will has made a strong resolution to avoid, and what we do not actively desire.