enterthenewage:
I think you are dangerously close to the sin of pride. “I’ve kept my virginity, so I’m superior/more valuable to/than those that haven’t” seems to be your line. Ask any saintly person if he/she considers him/herself superior to or more valuable than others? That doesn’t mean he/she would be okay with or celebrate sin, or even trust somebody deep in sin, just as you shouldn’t marry someone who shares opposing values or sees no value in virginity and sexual morality, but to completely discard a person as a potential mate based upon, not his/her convictions, but a past sin which is not (according to the church) worse than many other non-sexual mortal sins, is very rigid a judgement and appears to be based upon pride (another mortal sin).
“Ugly” is not the same thing as “not my type” or “I’m not attracted to that person”. Ugly is a derogative term that is okay for most mature men to throw around at each other, but completely insensitive to throw at most women since they are so incredibly sensitive about thier looks, considering how society exaggerates the importance of some physical traits. There is biologically healthy and there is culturally emphasized and exaggerated. A medical comprehensive examination would be far more revealing of health than looks. Many “beautiful women” have more health (including fertility) problems than “plainer” looking or “ulgy” women.
The Truth is the Truth. But there are damaging ways of administering the truth and there are constructive ways of administering it. Delivering truth in “blunt” (as you call it) ways is no more Truth than delivering it in a constructive, compassionate way, which is more like what Jesus calls us to do. You are responsible for the damage you do while you administer the truth. You must be VERY AWARE of this with children and sensitive people. So, I suggest you acquaint yourself with more constructive and Christ-like ways of interacting with people before you have children with your equally prideful wife.
Robnv & enterthenewage:
I think WHY someone does or doesn’t do something is far more important in terms of character and morality that WHAT they do. If someone does the right thing for fear of the legal consequences- well, that’s great that they did the right thing, but it doesn’t show character and moral virtue like those who do the right thing because its the right thing, in spite of, or even against the law. Someone who engaged in pre-marital sex in order to prove himself or even to express love to another without the understanding that the action itself was disordred outside of marriage can hardly be blamed for it.
Someone who did “illegal drugs” in order to attain a higher level of spirituality, without the understanding that this is perhaps not the best way, may be more commendable for his reasons than someone who did not partake in illegal drugs because he was told not to by an authority, or because he feared the legal consequences. Frankly, some of the most defiant and disordered individuals can become some of the most observant and ordered individuals later in life. I’m not necessary suggesting that marrying a former nymphomaniac is recommendable (although it is outside the realm of possibility given the circumstances and the whole person- see below), but some past sexual sins are hardly a good reason to discard a potential spouse.
Those who have faced temptation, failed and then committed to morality are sometimes even STRONGER in character and moral strength than those who have not been tested and failed. That is NOT an invitation to commit sin or to view past sinners as “superior” to those who have always traversed the straight and narrow. But REFORMING your life is far harder than living it straight from the beginning, and thus shows a great strength or character and moral virtue. To be re-formed is to be made anew, cast again in a forge and re-made into a stronger, more virtuous person. This indicated moral strength, not weakness (which is in the past).
Just think how lukewarm many cradle Catholics are. Some are Catholic in name only. But converts or reverts are rarely lukewarm. It takes commitment and strength to throw your old ways away and embrace new virtues.
Although you’re entitled to any number of wild criteria for choosing your spouse, discarding a person who has reformed their life and restrengthened their moral virtue outright doesn’t seem very logical.
And although I understand the necessity of physical attraction, I have also never understood those who discard good, potential spouses for their hair color. Looking at the whole person is a far better way of judging the suitability of a potential spouse. Okay, so she’s not a virgin, but WHY did she have sex and WHY is she celibate now or is she willing to be celibate in our courtship? What kind of person is she? Does she help the poor and feed the hungry or does she sit about pridefully and judge others to be “inferior”?
Robnv:
So for those women who are not sinfully prideful and understand your new moral strength, your sexual past should not be a huge hurdle. On another more practical level, the level of sinful corruption in society is so high, that the “pool” of “pure” individuals, especially those not prone to the sin of pride
is not very high, so you’re unlikely to be discarded on this basis too, otherwise most women would have to discard most men.
Yes, how very true.