Is chastity realistic in the 21st century?

[ChibiViolet]

Perhaps it would be best to wait to start dating until one is ready for marriage (I mean, not completely, but at least wanting to get married in the relatively near future.) Dating is looking into the vocation of marriage after all.

 

[vera_dicere]

The question is: how much do you love God?

There are people out there, right now, on this planet being tortured and imprisioned and facing executed for just being Christian. Would you perfer their lot instead of those pesky hormonal urges being encouraged by the secular media in the West?

And now we’re squabbling over whether we can keep it in our pants or not?

Shameful. Of course its realistic, of course its possible.

 

[Turtle_Turtle]

Though some pull it off, no, it’s not realistic.

That’s why we need to get off our high horses and stop telling people that are called to the vocation to wait until they’re 30+ with PHD’s and a house paid off. Seriously. Enough of that ridiculous notion. What is so terrible about a married couple living in a parent’s home (provided they are OK with that) until they are financially “secure”? This is a very anti-marriage point of view IMO.

I don’t see what chastity has to do with a married couple living in a parent’s home.

And no one pulls chastity on their own, not without God’s help.

 

[GEddie]

I don’t see what chastity has to do with a married couple living in a parent’s home.

And no one pulls chastity on their own, not without God’s help.

I think they meant that the time required for the couple to afford a home of their own, makes it unlikely they can remain chaste long enough to do that.

ICXC NIKA

 

[thewanderer]

Absolutely. Yes. If a couple wants to they can. It just takes a certain amount of effort. And not just effort to avoid occasions of sin, but effort to truly understand why the Church teaches what she does. The greater ones conviction of the truth of this teaching the easier it is to remain chaste. My boyfriend and I are more than ready to be married in every respect except financially. We are stuck waiting, with no end in sight, until our finances at the very least become stable. However, I have no doubt that we will be able to remain chaste. The reason? Both of us truly accept and hold the Church’s teaching on sexuality. We see it as both copletely beautiful and true. We don’t just accept it because the Church says so, we don’t grudgingly go along with it despite what we want. Our whole understanding of sexuality and how it plays into our relationship is so firmly in line with Church teaching that, to be perfectly honest, I would lose **a ton **of both respect and trust in my boyfriend if he were to try to push things too far. Waiting is hard, but the only way to remain true to ourselves is to wait, and both of us have such a high expectation of marital relations as complete unity and gift of self that we could neither give nor accept a gift that belies any part of ourselves. Also, we’re no prudes, and spend plenty of tie alone in each others company, but are still careful to avoid any real occasions of sin for us. Being alone with a beloved is not necessarily an occasion of sin, it depends in large part on their dispositions and stage of internalization of the Church’s understanding of sexuality. This is something that is true of all times, not just the present day.

You know, in a way I would say that the reservation of sex until marriage is even more important today than ever. No matter what precautions you use, if a couple has relations it is possible that they will become pregnant. This is true even if one person has been sterilized. There is always a chance. Every child deserves to grow up in a loving stable environment with both parents. This means that it is a duty of those who want to have relations to ensure they are in a truly stable relationship before starting. And no matter how much you want to convince yourself that your relationship is stable, if you’re not married, there has been no real permanent comittment. You might contest that there are plenty of failed marriages to, so that marriage is not a real sign of a permanent comittment. Yes, many people go into marriage without truly understanding it as a permanent comitment, however, how many people recognize the importance of a permanent comittment yet refuse to get married? If you refuse to get married you don’t understand the significance of a permanent comitment. If you do understand the significance of a permanent commitment you will recognize that no such permanent commitment has actually been made until one is married. Without a permanent commitment there is no gaurantee of a stable home for ones children. I might add that none of this is coming from church teaching on sexuality, the true understanding of that adds a whole nother dimension to the argument to wait until marriage. Its just common sense based on the recognition that we have a responsibility to treat others well. Not having a stable home is absolutely devastating for children. Coming froma broken home myself and knowing others who have also done so I can personally attest to this. While I’ve somehow managed to come through it pretty stable the trauma my brother endured has helped him develop severe psychological issues going into full catatonic states sometimes for weeks at a time. (yes, I realize it is probably not the sole cause, but it is definatelya huge contributing factor). And my family even got off lightly because we didn’t have to suffer through ridiculous custody battles etc. Just read the research. Its pretty darn selfish to have kids if one is not in a truly stable relationship.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I think they meant that the time required for the couple to afford a home of their own, makes it unlikely they can remain chaste long enough to do that.

ICXC NIKA

Indeed, although I’m not inclined to view marital relations as merely something to be “surrendered” to in order to prevent sin. No, indeed - marriage is a calling, a vocation.

 

[andremiguel]

On the one hand, those who believe they are called to the married state of life engage in courtship (dating). While dating, sooner or later, if there is mutual attraction, esp. physical, there will be expressions of affection. From what I’ve read on these forums, such expression must be confined to hand holding, embraces, and short kisses, since even prolonged kisses can stir up the passions and become an opportunity for sin.

The problem is, times have changed. Has anyone seen the movie The Godfather? There is a scene in which Michael Corleone is courting a young woman in Sicily. They go for a walk, and soon we see that about 15-20 old ladies were following them about 50 meters behind. It was a sort of chaperoning. We really don’t have that today.

We therefore recommend group dating to limit the times that a couple is alone. But sooner or later, a young (or even adult) couple is going to want to be alone, and it will happen: in the car, on a walk, etc. And since so many people delay getting married until after college when they have some financial stability, that means that a Catholic couple would have to be content with a quick peck on the lips and hugs for years. I just don’t see how we can expect that “situation” not to escalate. I mean, sooner or later, those quick pecks on the lips will evolve into longer kisses.

Compare all this to an earlier era, when women got married shortly after puberty and men got married about the age of 18. Social structures were in place to prevent premarital sex…see Godfather reference above. Heck, before that, marriages were arranged!

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to be chaste. But I don’t necessarily think that premarital sex, heavy petting, etc. is always a mortal sin either. Times have changed, but our bodies haven’t. We’re only human, and holding hands for years just doesn’t seem very realistic. Though it is a good ideal, one surely to be strived for—with God’s help.

My view:
Sex is a part of a man.
Man is unbalanced.
Modern man is much more unbalanced, terribly so.
The amount of sexual unbalance is proportional to the whole individual unbalance.

 

[GEddie]

Indeed, although I’m not inclined to view marital relations as merely something to be “surrendered” to in order to prevent sin. No, indeed - marriage is a calling, a vocation.

Well, ok. But the point was that waiting to marry until they could afford homeownership would result in surrendering to sin, IIUC.

ICXC NIKA

 

[TarkanAttila]

Thanks for a thoughtful post. I have no desire to sleep around, contracept…I guess the main thesis of my post was that with the way things have changed, I don’t believe that premarital sex, heavy petting, etc. is always a mortal sin. Circumstances have changes, and circumstances in part determine the moral quality of a concrete act, as the CCC teaches us. (1750)

If masturbation is not always a mortal sin (2352, second paragraph), surely the same might be applicable for heavy petting and premarital sex. All I’m saying is, let’s not always be too hard on people who lost control in this different world of ours…that includes ourselves.

That being said, chastity of course should be the aim.

Advocate, while bearer is a bit heavy-handed, he hits it right on the nose.

You have misread that portion of the Catechism.

Read it again:

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

Now all of this states that masturbation is definitely a mortal sin. Here is the part that seems to be throwing you for a loop:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum,** moral culpability**.

The boldened phrase is the key. It reduces your culpability for the sin. It makes masturbation no less grave a sin.

Think of it like an addiction. Addictions (like to cigarettes, alcohol, or any behaviour) cause grave damage to the body and soul. They pull one away from God, even into hatred of God. They degrade the body over time (for example, overeating can turn you into the size of a house). They can even kill you. (I once read the story of a man in Korea who played video games for 50 hours straight and then died of exhaustion.)

Addictions also separate you from reality. Really, what are you trying to do when you masturbate? Live in the reality that is presented to you in television, at the movies, in the media. Don’t believe me? When’s the last time you watched something on TV? And when’s the last time you’ve seen something that didn’t contain nudity, sexual innuendo, violent language, or some kind of sexual humour?

People in entertainment have, with its movies, TV shows, and Internet media, manufactured a different reality for people which makes a lot more money, but which affects how we perceive reality. If you are filling your brain with prime-time TV, films, and YouTube all day, what makes you think you are not going to begin thinking in line with what you see?

But it’s all a lie. None of it is true. That is why it doesn’t happen off-screen. And masturbation has no basis in the real world at all (I mean, unless buxom naked women come into your house molesting you every night ). It’s a fantasy. It’s an attempt to live something that simply can never be so. Masturbation, like a drug, makes it more difficult to cling to reality.

But when it says in the Catechism:

“lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability”

It means that because you’ve built it up as a force of habit which is difficult (but never impossible) for you to get out of. It only means this: you’ve opened the floodgates, and now you are having trouble resisting the flow. You still need to overcome the bad habit, as it is still hurting you tremendously. But now you have a lot less power over this sin than you did before.**

 

[Bookcat]

Virtue, prayer, and grace.

The early Christians where chaste in the midst of the pagan world…

Let our words echo theirs: I am a Christian

 

[djeter]

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to be chaste. But I don’t necessarily think that premarital sex, heavy petting, etc. is always a mortal sin either.

Whether it is a sin or not is less the point (you seem to be saying) than what’s wrong with it to begin with. Roger Scruton in his essay The Five Myths About Sex poses some of the same questions:

If they really do want to do it, and the feeling is mutual, then what on earth is wrong? That is the view I wish to challenge. What I say may not persuade everyone; indeed, it may not persuade anyone. But I will have achieved half of my purpose if I convince you that the argument is not about consent but about the very nature of the sexual act and the desire expressed in it…

This way of describing and in consequence experiencing sexual phenomena I believe to be founded in five myths. Some of the myths originate in wishful thinking, and some in scientific and pseudoscientific theories…

Perhaps the greatest evidence of the triumph of these myths is the growing indifference in our society toward the glut of pornography. For if these myths are true, it is impossible to condemn pornography or the practice of those who use it as a sexual stimulant. Indeed, pornography might even be regarded as the best form of sexual recreation, in that it is free from the dangers — medical, psychological, and personal — of sex with a partner. As Oscar Wilde said of masturbation: “It is cleaner, more efficient, and you meet a better class of person; by which he meant himself.

Hope you enjoy it.

dj

 

[edwest2]

On the one hand, those who believe they are called to the married state of life engage in courtship (dating). While dating, sooner or later, if there is mutual attraction, esp. physical, there will be expressions of affection. From what I’ve read on these forums, such expression must be confined to hand holding, embraces, and short kisses, since even prolonged kisses can stir up the passions and become an opportunity for sin.

The problem is, times have changed. Has anyone seen the movie The Godfather? There is a scene in which Michael Corleone is courting a young woman in Sicily. They go for a walk, and soon we see that about 15-20 old ladies were following them about 50 meters behind. It was a sort of chaperoning. We really don’t have that today.

We therefore recommend group dating to limit the times that a couple is alone. But sooner or later, a young (or even adult) couple is going to want to be alone, and it will happen: in the car, on a walk, etc. And since so many people delay getting married until after college when they have some financial stability, that means that a Catholic couple would have to be content with a quick peck on the lips and hugs for years. I just don’t see how we can expect that “situation” not to escalate. I mean, sooner or later, those quick pecks on the lips will evolve into longer kisses.

Compare all this to an earlier era, when women got married shortly after puberty and men got married about the age of 18. Social structures were in place to prevent premarital sex…see Godfather reference above. Heck, before that, marriages were arranged!

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to be chaste. But I don’t necessarily think that premarital sex, heavy petting, etc. is always a mortal sin either. Times have changed, but our bodies haven’t. We’re only human, and holding hands for years just doesn’t seem very realistic. Though it is a good ideal, one surely to be strived for—with God’s help.

“times have changed”? From the standpoint of sober Catholic thinking, nothing has changed. With all due respect, just living in the 21st Century has not given us anything new in terms of changing our approach to dating/chastity. However, starting in the late 1960s, the outside world began to poison our neighborhoods, the media, and even our judicial system, which gradually, over a 40 year period, dripped poison into our veins - to the point that it’s changed our thinking to ‘there’s another answer or approach to chastity.’

I went to Catholic school. Prior to 1968, it was drilled into our heads: “No sexual intercourse before marriage. Period.” Sure, you could kiss the girl but the goal was to really get to know each other, to earn each other’s trust and perhaps become friends. However, that all changed in 1968 with the Sexual Revolution.

In a nutshell: sexual pleasure with anybody, anytime, no strings attached. As Catholics we resisted that, but as time passed, some of us fell for it. Use illegal drugs. Pleasure is number one. And finally, don’t trust or listen to any authority figures, especially the Church, nuns, priests, mom, dad. Just listen to US, we are your new teachers and we will gently take you buy the hand and give you false/sinful freedom.

So, as Catholics, we tried to tell our sons and daughters who were living with someone in the 1970s: “If you really love this person then why don’t you get married?” But, as I heard a few months back from a guy who was living with his girlfriend, "So she comes up to me and says ‘I don’t want to do this anymore,’ so I said: “OK. Bye.”

In the 1970s, my 100% Hippie friend tells me: “I don’t need no piece of paper to live with my old lady.” And he calls fornication “natural acts.”

As the 70’s pass into the 80’s and 90’s, what do we get? More and more bad role models and it’s all about sex and temporary hook-ups. What was once love and romance has turned into “just sex.” like going to the bathroom.

So chastity is realistic today. No, I AM NOT saying the past was perfect but the male and the female both knew the rules and were willing to endure sound doctrine. In 1968, we were given “permission” by radical anarchists to indulge our passions at all times - sex, illegal drugs and other things, summed up by the Hippie saying, “Hey man. If it feels good, do it.”

And abortion in 1973. My God - we were all lied to:

catholicnewsagency.com/resources/abortion/articles-and-addresses/an-ex-abortionist-speaks/

So, for years, Christians were told to shut up about people living together or having three kids with three different women, and No-Fault Divorce, $75 and you’re out, in the 1980s. Oh yeah, a lot of kids were traumatized by that.

So, we were taught – the old ways were too hard and too emotion draining. They were bad - accept the easy way. Your girlfriend goes on the pill, you move in together, have lots of sex and maybe, just maybe, decide to get married. Which, research now shows, has a greater chance for divorce later.

Can anyone think of anything worth doing that is not difficult? Anything? Can I take shortcuts? Why not? Or can I just increase the temptation level?

In the past, people took at least a year to date, followed by courtship which was followed by a one year engagement. Minimum. The goal was to really get to know the whole person, not “she’s hot,” the end. You have to find out if you enjoy each other’s company no matter what you’re doing together, even going shopping. That’s a sign that the same thing will continue after the ceremony. And really understanding the other person is FIRST in importance, even though physical attraction was the start.

A few years back, I met a total beauty. She was 6 foot, one, and looked model perfect. I found out a few things as we got to know each other. She was divorced. Why? “I had to kick my husband out of my house because I found out he was a nut!” How long were you married? “Nine months.”

Apparently, her husband’s nutty behavior was not known to her before the ceremony.

Peace,
Ed

 

[djeter]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/marriage2.jpg?w=450&h=441

"No-Fault Divorce, $75 and you’re out, in the 1980s. Oh yeah, a lot of kids were traumatized by that.

Married adults now divorce two-and-a-half times as often as adults did 20 years ago and four times as often as they did 50 years ago… between 40% and 60% of new marriages will eventually end in divorce. The probability within… the first five years is 20%, and the probability of its ending within the first 10 years is 33%… Perhaps 25% of children ages 16 and under live with a stepparent.
Brian K. Williams, Stacy C. Sawyer, Carl M. Wahlstrom, Marriages, Families & Intimate Relationships, 2005

No Fault took away the idea that marriage would be a permanent relationship. Instead of the law having a presumption of permanence and society siding with the partner who sought that, the law now had a presumption of impermanence siding with the party who wants to end the marriage. The old law accommodated exceptions in certain situations to the rule of permanence but never supported the idea of impermanence.

Follow the arguments of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, she of the Ruth Institute as she makes a short presentation to the Rhode Island House Judiciary on March 1, 2011. Reportedly, a stunned silence followed her testimony in our nation’s most Catholic state. See if she doesn’t blow you away, too.

The next post is related so follow the above here. There is a link too on PayingAttentiontotheSky.

dj

 

[TheAdvocate]

Indeed, although I’m not inclined to view marital relations as merely something to be “surrendered” to in order to prevent sin. No, indeed - marriage is a calling, a vocation.

**Originally Posted by GEddie
I think they meant that the time required for the couple to afford a home of their own, makes it unlikely they can remain chaste long enough to do that.

ICXC NIKA
Indeed, although I’m not inclined to view marital relations as merely something to be “surrendered” to in order to prevent sin. No, indeed - marriage is a calling, a vocation.
**

I think what GEddie wanted to say was, “it’s better to marry than to burn.” (Paul, 1 Cor. 7:9).

 

[edwest2]

Though some pull it off, no, it’s not realistic.

That’s why we need to get off our high horses and stop telling people that are called to the vocation to wait until they’re 30+ with PHD’s and a house paid off. Seriously. Enough of that ridiculous notion. What is so terrible about a married couple living in a parent’s home (provided they are OK with that) until they are financially “secure”? This is a very anti-marriage point of view IMO.

I agree 100%. But the media has portrayed families as busybodies, annoyances, too controlling. There were people who got married and lived in their parent’s home so they could save some money, or in a two family house where you were upstairs and mom and dad were downstairs.

Your mom and dad raised you and guided you - who carved it in stone that getting married means automatically ejecting them from your life, or your relatives for that matter? We must stop the “separation doctrine.” To have strong Catholic families, and communities, we must work together as families.

And we must renew our minds that visiting our in-laws is this big imposition or bother on our part. Didn’t your relatives love you when you were a kid or your wife’s? Families - not isolated units.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

http://payingattentiontothesky.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/marriage2.jpg?w=450&h=441

No Fault took away the idea that marriage would be a permanent relationship. Instead of the law having a presumption of permanence and society siding with the partner who sought that, the law now had a presumption of impermanence siding with the party who wants to end the marriage. The old law accommodated exceptions in certain situations to the rule of permanence but never supported the idea of impermanence.

Follow the arguments of Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, she of the Ruth Institute as she makes a short presentation to the Rhode Island House Judiciary on March 1, 2011. Reportedly, a stunned silence followed her testimony in our nation’s most Catholic state. See if she doesn’t blow you away, too.

The next post is related so follow the above here. There is a link too on PayingAttentiontotheSky.

dj

Thank you, very much.

At the time, the reason No-Fault was peddled as the answer was “court dockets are too full. Currently, divorce settlements mean long, drawn out battles with one or both parties trying to hide assets.” That was the excuse.

The reality for too many was, “Hey, this is easy.” And don’t worry, kids. You can still see mommy and daddy on alternate weekends.

It was a fact in the 1960s and it’s a fact now, that some people made a huge mistake and were abused, badly abused. I get that. Make a mistake ONCE. I get that. At the time, I had the impression that the divorced party would either never marry again or be very, very careful with marriage number two.

Today, I know plenty of people with at least two divorces, and slightly fewer on marriage number three. I personally watched a family get torn apart while one party got everything they asked for, the kids attended Catholic school, both parties communicated, and then, one day, the grass was greener on the other side - so this person got marriage # 3.

Catholic or not - this is not better. In no way, shape or form. And young people today are getting that. They really are. One problem is they think the Baby Boomers caused all this UH, UH. In the 1960s, the culture was your friend, most of your neighbors were good neighbors and you were surrounded by good examples. NO, it was not perfect.

But because we were so kind and trusting and naive, we trusted the wolves in sheep’s clothing as the media gradually, slowly dripped poison into our veins. Adult Bookstores everywhere with hardcore sex before 1968? I NEVER DREAMED IT WOULD HAPPEN. The same with topless bars and strip clubs in the 1970s. And we were constantly being lied to – about abortion – about homosexuality – about what sex really meant.

To any young people reading this. We protested hard, but the pornographers and strip club owners had the money and lawyers to yell at us and try to stop us at every turn.

To my fellow Catholics, we can change this. The answer is by using our will to do as God has always asked of us. Oh yeah, back in the late '60s, I heard: “You Catholics think sex is dirty.” And - “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope!” Yeah, and who else should we be listening to - the people who were bragging about sleeping around with the easy girls?

Peace,
Ed

 

[sw85]

On the one hand, those who believe they are called to the married state of life engage in courtship (dating). While dating, sooner or later, if there is mutual attraction, esp. physical, there will be expressions of affection. From what I’ve read on these forums, such expression must be confined to hand holding, embraces, and short kisses, since even prolonged kisses can stir up the passions and become an opportunity for sin.

The problem is, times have changed. Has anyone seen the movie The Godfather? There is a scene in which Michael Corleone is courting a young woman in Sicily. They go for a walk, and soon we see that about 15-20 old ladies were following them about 50 meters behind. It was a sort of chaperoning. We really don’t have that today.

We therefore recommend group dating to limit the times that a couple is alone. But sooner or later, a young (or even adult) couple is going to want to be alone, and it will happen: in the car, on a walk, etc. And since so many people delay getting married until after college when they have some financial stability, that means that a Catholic couple would have to be content with a quick peck on the lips and hugs for years. I just don’t see how we can expect that “situation” not to escalate. I mean, sooner or later, those quick pecks on the lips will evolve into longer kisses.

Compare all this to an earlier era, when women got married shortly after puberty and men got married about the age of 18. Social structures were in place to prevent premarital sex…see Godfather reference above. Heck, before that, marriages were arranged!

I’m not saying that we shouldn’t try to be chaste. But I don’t necessarily think that premarital sex, heavy petting, etc. is always a mortal sin either. Times have changed, but our bodies haven’t. We’re only human, and holding hands for years just doesn’t seem very realistic. Though it is a good ideal, one surely to be strived for—with God’s help.

It is certainly the case that premarital sex is not always a mortal sin, for instance, when full consent of the will is impaired, or when a person is inculpably ignorant of the gravity of the offense. If, on the other hand, what you’re saying is that premarital sex is not in principle wrong and that people who know better can have it freely and still be in the clear, well, no, this is flatly contrary to the Church’s teachings. I believe holding this belief is itself sinful.

It is precisely because human nature has not changed that premarital sex remains illicit, because the prohibition on it arises from human nature itself.

If the social order is no longer conducive to holy living, that is evidence that we need to withdraw from the social order, not presume to rewrite the moral law God has inscribed on the hearts of men.

 

[kbwall]

It’s realistic and it is possible. Remember the early Christians had to remain chaste when people were going off to have a weekly orgy and a brothel was on every street corner.

Wow, this is a good thing to remember. I will remind anybody of this next time they use the fallacious argument of this being the 21st century. Yes, our society is sexually corrupted, but Christianity was born in Ancient Rome, a time and place of far worse sexual debauchery and overally immorality than anything the 21st century has thrown at us (of course, the century is still young).

 

[andremiguel]

Chastity and Virginity are out of fashion in a society where 12 kids give birth to other kids; where prostitution of kids is rampant; where people go to Thailand and other poor countries to have sex with minors; where some parents ask the daughters whether they are STILL virgin (Time Magazine); where some people comment that a 10-year old marriage is already a TOO long marriage; where Paria Hilton is considered a model; where a 25-year old virgin is considered deranged; where collecting partners is a proof of a real, vivid, fully human way of life; where a 50-year old marriage comes as big news in TV; where in the movies, 5 minutes after they met they are already in bed; where you make pre-nuptial agreements, meaning, this is not going to last; where the songs, in 20 years, changed the lines from “I love you” to “It’s gonna be good tonight” (at least could be “this week”); where, finally, you be born of a sperm and a ovula, raised in another womb and educated by another family: so 5 parents in all…

Yes, Chastity as preached by the Church is out of fashion. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, given the state of this rotten society.

 

[Non_sum_dignus]

Why is it that people are so willing to do all sorts of philosophical gymnastics to justify disordered sexual behavior, but no one wants to tell me it’s okay to beat the stuffing out of people who bother me?