Is wanting to be a husband a worthy vocation?

[Marc_Anthony]

TROLOLO

If he’s wondering about marriage, he’s going to wonder about a spouse. I thought I’d warn him about the dark side of CAF before he accidentally steps into it.

It’s happened before, just sparing him the misery-inducing treatment that someone breaking the 11th Commandment would receive here. Keep calm and carry on.

I’m going to repeat myself, because I’m not sure if you’re accusing me of trolling (which I’m not) or you’re admitting that you yourself are trolling.

What on EARTH is this 11th commandment? How does CAF make him feel like a second-class citizen?

 

[Chevaleresse]

I’m going to repeat myself, because I’m not sure if you’re accusing me of trolling (which I’m not) or you’re admitting that you yourself are trolling.

What on EARTH is this 11th commandment? How does CAF make him feel like a second-class citizen?

I’m not accusing you of trolling. “Trolololo” is an alternative to the usual “LOL”. I just thought a Russian “LOL” was needed.

I just made the commandment up. Since commandments are supposed to help us live our lives in a happier way, I thought adding one like the above would help others. It will help them avoid the pain, misery, and guilt induced by criticism of such wrongheaded thinking, like having requirements for a spouse.

So, yeah… there’s enough self-righteousness on here… to… wow, there’s a lot of self-righteousness on here…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

So, yeah… there’s enough self-righteousness on here… to… wow, there’s a lot of self-righteousness on here…

Oh, so are you saying that people on here only want you to marry a virgin?

 

[LRCnow]

Yes, I do have another story to tell. I have been married for 38 years. The first 35 years I lived as an atheist; my wife Christian. She suffered through, with God’s call for patience on her part, while I gleaned the fields for my indulgences in life. In other words, my selfishness and sin.

In a stunning moment, God took me in the middle of a sleepless night, and I have begun to understand what love truly is as God has intended it to be. My wife has grown from her patience - putting her gifts to work - and I have begun to become someone who can love and be loved.

I ask that you look deep inside yourself and understand the true meaning of love before you believe that you can be a good husband to a good wife. This is not meant to put you off from marriage, but to encourage you forward. You need not be perfect in love in order to marry, but you do need to humble and open yourself before your wife as a natural course in your life. Marriage is a contract with God. It is one of His miraculous ways for us to find redemption, sanctification and ultimate union with our Father Almighty.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

I typed this from a tv prog on EWTN:

Love and Life in the Divine Plan Family (2011)
Sister Jane Dominic O.P.

"Openness to the mystery of God to lead us away from selfishness. To allow love to be definitive. What good is our marriage vows if they do not cost us anything? In marriage we give what we don’t even have to give- our future. Marriage is the mystery of the limit. God ( who is love ) teaches us the limit. He embraced the limit our human nature In His incarnet limit which had a limit of suffering on the cross to brings with Him into the limitless into the horizon of eternity across the threshold of divine love.*

We imitate the way He loves by follow in His footsteps with our wedding vows, “'this one for all my life”. There by in embracing the limit we find entry into the limitless.

Marriage draws us out of ourselves. * Those in heaven neither marry nor are given in marriage. This does not mean that your spouse is no longer importantto you because it is your spouse who helped you to grow out of that selfish love. *Your love was transformed & so in fact you’ll have an even more tender, purified, & deeper love *for your spouse. *That love will be transformed & taken in most perfectly & completely into Divine Love."

When love seeks to be definitive to the end it embraces the limit. And God himself who is love, he comes to teach us this mystery of loving in the limit. *He embraced the limit of our human nature in the incarnation. *The limit of suffering on the cross. *He was nailed to it died on it. *All to bring us with him Into the limitless. Into the horizon of eternity across the threshold of divine love. So we imitate his way of loving we imitate the one who is love … How … By following in his footsteps to embrace the limit into the limitless.

The measure of love is this, the amount of responsibility one takes for the beloved is the measure of love. *A husband takes responsibility for his wife, for children; protects & provides. *A wife takes responsibility for her husband, her children; nurtures & supports. *God takes responsibility for us. *He created us. *Fell in love with us. *Called us to love as he loves. *When he turned away he came to suffer & die for us & to redeem us. *He continues this work of redemption; this work of love everyday in the Eucharist and the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Celebrated from the rise of the sun to it’s setting. *He is here right now for us in the Eucharist in all the tabernacles of the world. *He will be here for us until the end of time. *

Glory be to the Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. *As it was in the begging is now & ever shall be world without end. *Amen

 

[Agatha813]

Of course marriage is a worthy vocation and, moreover, the one to which the majority of men are probably called.

You can’t divorce your self-interest from consideration of what your vocation is. If you answer your calling appropriately, you will find fulfillment in it. That said, the most perfect reason to answer one’s vocation is not self-interest but obedience to the will of God. Which means you need to be prepared to abandon your desire for marriage if, in fact, it doesn’t match up with His desires for you.

Yep. I agree!

 

[Chevaleresse]

Oh, so are you saying that people on here only want you to marry a virgin?

No, the general opinion is that a person (a virgin) is a selfish, contemptible wretch if they want to marry another virgin. I’ve also seen such people told to get professional help for having that desire.

So, yeah, again just a warning to the OP.

 

[Irishmom2]

“Don’t ever break the 11th Commandment of CAF, though (“a person must not require a virgin spouse”). If you do break that commandment, you’ll become a second-class citizen on here. In fact, Catholic guilt will seem like nothing compared to the guilt you’ll feel after 20 people tell you off.”

This has nothing to do with the OP’s question. It is merely an opportunity for you to spout off on your animosity towards certain people you have encountered, (and by no means are they only type of person the OP will meet on CAF,) so no need to bother with your supposed “heads up.”

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No, the general opinion is that a person (a virgin) is a selfish, contemptible wretch if they want to marry another virgin. I’ve also seen such people told to get professional help for having that desire.

So, yeah, again just a warning to the OP.

I’ve never seen anything close to that attitude on here. Preferably I would marry another virgin, sure, but I also wouldn’t ule out a non-virgin.

I’m honestly not sure where you’re getting this from.

 

[Chevaleresse]

This has nothing to do with the OP’s question. It is merely an opportunity for you to spout off on your animosity towards certain people you have encountered, (and by no means are they only type of person the OP will meet on CAF,) so no need to bother with your supposed “heads up.”

It does. But thanks anyway for displaying greater animosity towards me, being uncharitable, assuming the worse, and in general, being rude.

I can always expect that. Thanks for not disappointing.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, the general opinion is that a person (a virgin) is a selfish, contemptible wretch if they want to marry another virgin. I’ve also seen such people told to get professional help for having that desire.

So, yeah, again just a warning to the OP.

OK, so you’ve gotten the topic out on the table again. Yes, I have seen posts that imply that a person who does not intend to marry anyone who is not still a virgin is a self-righteous prig. Mostly, though, those answers are more “you might find someone who changes your mind”, but if someone more vitriolic than that is out there, I’m game to take the flames for you. (If you can’t take “you might find someone who changes your mind” because it is too self-righteous for you, I can’t imagine how you can stand to be around anyone with an opinion of their own, but whatever…)

I don’t think it is at all unusual or shocking at all that a virgin would want to marry another virgin. You save yourself for someone you imagine has been saving himself or herself for you: fair enough. That is, after all, the way it is meant to work. If a pair of virgins have this attitude, find each other, and marry, what business is that of anyone else’s? The world is full of people with college degrees and a good credit history, looking for each other and not interested in those who loused up academically, professionally, or financially, and no one blinks an eye. Our past, after all, gives us baggage that cannot always be easily shed. Confession does not remove the temporal results of sin.

Maybe what you are hearing is simply the most vocal opinion, which is a defense of whether those who have repented are inherently lovable or belong in God’s plan or are worthy of the state of marriage. After all, there is a reason that the only women the evangelist Matthew chose to put in the geneology of Our Lord were Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, put into the same long breath as Our Lady. If you are saying anything like that, you deserve to get some strong responses!!

I think, though, that if you were to write that you refuse to think about marrying someone who had ever been convicted of a felony, anyone who had ever ruined their credit history, anyone who had ever done something that rightly got them fired or disbarred, anyone who had ever had the habit of drunken binges on weekends or been convicted of DUII, and so on, and in fact any other history of serious sin other than those crimes that have a very high recidivism rate, you’re going to get the same response: that is, if the person has both repented and shown a history of amendment, what is wrong with them? After all, no one is saying you ought to be fully willing to marry someone who was either actively engaged in those things, only recently repented, or who hadn’t committed any of these things but thought them perfectly moral. Well, I will defend you: You are not saying that. If someone says you are, then you might ask: Oh, so if someone proposes to you, and you turn them down even though you are quite ready to marry when the “right” person comes along, then you’re saying you’re better than they are, is that it? Of course it isn’t. So let’s get off of that.

In other words, the uproar is usually not over the idea that one wants to find a chaste spouse, but over whether having failed at that single virtue alone ought to make a person unacceptable for life, no matter what history of repentance and amendment of life followed. They are not devaluing chastity, but putting real belief in repentance.

Fair Enough but…Repentance doesn’t cure your herpes, and who knows what else is going around out there. Repentance doesn’t erase the other person who has “known” you as no one has ever “known” your virgin spouse. I don’t blame anyone who excludes anyone who’s been doing things that could have exposed them to a latent STD, if nothing else. It will narrow the field and exclude some people who are perfectly fine human beings, but we aren’t talking about deciding who is going to be with us in Heaven. We’re talking about who is going to spend a human lifetime navigating this evil world from beside us in our bed, within our most intimate embrace. We are talking about the one person who is going to become one with us as no one else will. If you decide your future spouse must have the right number of freckles, that is your perogative, and a life of chastity is more important than freckles.

If you’re looking for someone who has never committed a mortal sin, well, why not want to marry a saint? A felon with a life of crime behind him could want that, and who could blame him? Good luck to him about getting it, Heaven help him if he wasn’t ready to show reciprocal merit if he got it, but one never knows.

So there. I hope I have acknowledged the resistance you have been getting while still defending your right to hope to marry a virgin like yourself. You can let me take all the flames, and if you’d like, you can sit and watch this time.

So…tell me, fellow CA posters–you, too, Chevaleresse, if you like!–where did I go wrong in my response?

 

[EasterJoy]

To the OP: If you have discerned that the sacrifice involved in a life as a spouse and a parent is more in keeping with the gifts and challenges God has given you (or allowed you to be given) than a life of virginity dedicated without distraction to God (whether inside or outside a religious community), then of course it is worthwhile to want to become a husband, just as it is worthwhile to want to become a wife.

Do remember two things:

1. You have chosen to put your life in God’s hands, just as if you had hoped to join a monastery or become a priest. You must continue to live your current state of life faithfully until the door opens to allow you to do what you hope to do, and you must actively serve God in that capacity until the opportunity to become a husband arises. You may not put off serving God until the spouse you hope for comes along.
2. You have a lot to do to prepare yourself. What if you hoped to become a priest, but could not apply to seminary? You’d still have your spiritual life to look after, you could still study the things a pastor needs to know, especially those things not taught in seminary, you can pray to God to show you the way, in case there is feedback forthcoming. You’d have to know how to do household things and cooking and meal planning, in case you did not get a housekeeper, and how to do maintenance, in case you were given a small parish that needed rebuilding. Be ready to marry, but be ready to take on every role of a parent and spouse. Just as women must be ready for the possibility that their husbands cannot be the sole breadwinners, so husbands must not assume what roles they will be called upon to fulfill in marriage. Do not presume that there will be any work that you can simply lay on your wife alone. Both spouses must be ready to do anything required by their spouses and families! (If you are in college, for instance…take a course in child psychology, not to make you a slave of the experts, but so you know the stages children go through and the spectrum of thinking on what makes kids tick.) Obedience means listening, so always listen. Every journey has work to do before it starts, so that the sojourner will be prepared for what is to come. Don’t neglect that work or that listening.

If you remember those things, then of course it is fine to believe you have heard your call. Of course it is! That is just the way it happens with priests and religious all the time…that is, many know from the time they’re in 3rd grade what they hope to be, even long before they have any idea if they will be allowed to pursue that vocation.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“OK, so you’ve gotten the topic out on the table again.”

I actually mentioned it as a warning, not just to get it “back on the table”, as IrishMom so kindly alleged. It wasn’t meant to be taken up by someone else and dominate the thread. Of course I forget how easily I make myself a lightning rod on here.

“Yes, I have seen posts that imply that a person who does not intend to marry anyone who is not still a virgin is a self-righteous prig.”

Thank you for openly admitting the existence of such responses. Of course, you’re now an outcast like me.

“Mostly, though, those answers are more “you might find someone who changes your mind””

If only… I can’t think of a faster way to be hated by a large percentage of people on a Catholic forum.

“but if someone more vitriolic than that is out there, I’m game to take the flames for you.”

If you saw the kinds of PMs I get, you might change your mind.

“If you can’t take “you might find someone who changes your mind” because it is too self-righteous for you”

It’s often said and presented in a really snotty way, but if read in a neutral tone without additional “commentary” by the person, it’s not self-righteous (to me).

“I don’t think it is at all unusual or shocking at all that a virgin would want to marry another virgin. You save yourself for someone you imagine has been saving himself or herself for you: fair enough. That is, after all, the way it is meant to work. If a pair of virgins have this attitude, find each other, and marry, what business is that of anyone else’s?”

Apparently the self-appointed gatekeepers of Heaven. I mean really, marriage is supposed to be that way and it’s decried as a whole range of evil things. Even less than ideal arrangements of spouses are promoted over the one God intended for marriage (a virgin should marry a non-virgin because “at least they know that person has an existent sex drive”). And that stupid line of thinking about forgiveness being equated/co-requisite with acceptance is the most annoying sophist garbage I’ve yet to see in relation to the topic. The hypocrisy is almost paralyzing when you question further.

“The world is full of people with college degrees and a good credit history, looking for each other and not interested in those who loused up academically, professionally, or financially, and no one blinks an eye.”

This is one of those hypocritical/logically inconsistent lines of thought that annoy me: it’s more acceptable for you to reject someone on a bad credit score but not on unchastity.

“Maybe what you are hearing is simply the most vocal opinion, which is a defense of whether those who have repented are inherently lovable or belong in God’s plan or are worthy of the state of marriage.”

Not that I’ve witnessed. It is interesting to see how sensitive people are to the topic and how vitriolically they’ll attack something that is perfectly acceptable (and moral, and advisable). I wish they’d spend their time attacking things actually opposed to the faith, not expressed preferences perfectly in line with it. Now that I think about it, I think it strikes nerves because of widespread unchastity, which I guess forumgoers are not exempt from. I guess that proves my point about emotional baggage and longstanding damage.

Actually, it’s funny; there are actually people praying that I never find someone to marry because they don’t like my expressed preference (and the fact that I have the nerve to utter it aloud).

“In other words, the uproar is usually not over the idea that one wants to find a chaste spouse, but over whether having failed at that single virtue alone ought to make a person unacceptable for life, no matter what history of repentance and amendment of life followed. They are not devaluing chastity, but putting real belief in repentance.”

I don’t think I’ve suggested that someone is unacceptable for marriage in general, but only certainly for me. There is a sense of devaluation. I have a tough time putting it into words.

“Fair Enough but…Repentance doesn’t cure your herpes, and who knows what else is going around out there. Repentance doesn’t erase the other person who has “known” you as no one has ever “known” your virgin spouse. I don’t blame anyone who excludes anyone who’s been doing things that could have exposed them to a latent STD, if nothing else. It will narrow the field and exclude some people who are perfectly fine human beings, but we aren’t talking about deciding who is going to be with us in Heaven. We’re talking about who is going to spend a human lifetime navigating this evil world from beside us in our bed, within our most intimate embrace. We are talking about the one person who is going to become one with us as no one else will.”

This paragraph might necessitate a name change. LOL. Of course, this is what I tell people, and they don’t like it.

“If you decide your future spouse must have the right number of freckles, that is your perogative, and a life of chastity is more important than freckles.”

There’d be less objection if I said they must have the right number of freckles. It probably doesn’t hit home as much with their own personal experience(s).

“If you’re looking for someone who has never committed a mortal sin, well, why not want to marry a saint?”

I might have a better chance, actually.

“I hope I have acknowledged the resistance you have been getting while still defending your right to hope to marry a virgin like yourself. You can let me take all the flames, and if you’d like, you can sit and watch this time.”

I think you did a mind-meld over the Internet which was fairly successful.

 

[EasterJoy]

I actually mentioned it as a warning, not just to get it “back on the table”, as IrishMom so kindly alleged. It wasn’t meant to be taken up by someone else and dominate the thread. Of course I forget how easily I make myself a lightning rod on here.

Thank you for openly admitting the existence of such responses. Of course, you’re now an outcast like me.

If only… I can’t think of a faster way to be hated by a large percentage of people on a Catholic forum.

If you saw the kinds of PMs I get, you might change your mind.

It’s often said and presented in a really snotty way, but if read in a neutral tone without additional “commentary” by the person, it’s not self-righteous (to me).

Apparently the self-appointed gatekeepers of Heaven. I mean really, marriage is supposed to be that way and it’s decried as a whole range of evil things. Even less than ideal arrangements of spouses are promoted over the one God intended for marriage (a virgin should marry a non-virgin because “at least they know that person has an existent sex drive”). And that stupid line of thinking about forgiveness being equated/co-requisite with acceptance is the most annoying sophist garbage I’ve yet to see in relation to the topic. The hypocrisy is almost paralyzing when you question further.

This is one of those hypocritical/logically inconsistent lines of thought that annoy me: it’s more acceptable for you to reject someone on a bad credit score but not on unchastity.

Not that I’ve witnessed. It is interesting to see how sensitive people are to the topic and how vitriolically they’ll attack something that is perfectly acceptable (and moral, and advisable). I wish they’d spend their time attacking things actually opposed to the faith, not expressed preferences perfectly in line with it. Now that I think about it, I think it strikes nerves because of widespread unchastity, which I guess forumgoers are not exempt from. I guess that proves my point about emotional baggage and longstanding damage.

Actually, it’s funny; there are actually people praying that I never find someone to marry because they don’t like my expressed preference (and the fact that I have the nerve to utter it aloud).

I don’t think I’ve suggested that someone is unacceptable for marriage in general, but only certainly for me. There is a sense of devaluation. I have a tough time putting it into words.

This paragraph might necessitate a name change. LOL. Of course, this is what I tell people, and they don’t like it.

There’d be less objection if I said they must have the right number of freckles. It probably doesn’t hit home as much with their own personal experience(s).

I might have a better chance, actually.

I think you did a mind-meld over the Internet which was fairly successful.

If “they” were going to cast me out, they’d have done it already, for posting too much.

I do not doubt there are Catholic women who aren’t going to want to marry you when they find you are only interested in marrying another virgin, but frankly, I think there will be enough virgins left after that for you to have a fair chance with the prospective spouse pool you’ve been saving yourself for…because believe me, there are women who’ve been saving themselves who are not entirely sure their male counterpart exists any more. What their friends and relatives, virginal or not, think of your mutual agreement on this subject is their problem.

If you yourself are not a virgin and you still are bent on marrying one, well, if you admit are like the felon holding out for a saint, that’s your perogative, provided you admit that this is your plight. (If you imply that only females have to be pure for marriage, you’re in for a stoning, but I don’t hear you say that.) You’d have a chance to find your saint, but I would have a Plan B in place, for a virgin who would marry a non-virgin is not likely to be impressed if the non-virgin gives himself airs about purity because he’s hoping to marry a virgin himself. What would you be saying about her standards, after all?

The most important thing is that make it clear that your desire to find a spouse who has kept herself pure in *no way implies *that you do not think sanctity is entirely possible for those of either sex who have not been so wise in the care of their bodies. We know the Lord said the tax collectors and the prostitutes were going to heaven before those who “worship me with their lips, but whose hearts are far from me”, so of course there are prostitutes in Heaven. Let us hope neither you nor anyone else here at CA disputes that!

If they put words in your mouth and say the two are the same, just ignore them. Really.

 

[Chevaleresse]

I do not doubt there are Catholic women who aren’t going to want to marry you when they find you are only interested in marrying another virgin, but frankly, I think there will be enough virgins left after that for you to have a fair chance with the prospective spouse pool you’ve been saving yourself for…

Uhhh, I am woman…

because believe me, there are women who’ve been saving themselves who are not entirely sure their male counterpart exists any more.

…and the above is probably the disappointment.

What their friends and relatives, virginal or not, think of your mutual agreement on this subject is their problem.

It seems people like to share their problems.

If you yourself are not a virgin and you still are bent on marrying one

I of course am.

You’d have a chance to find your saint, but I would have a Plan B in place, for a virgin who would marry a non-virgin is not likely to be impressed if the non-virgin gives himself airs about purity because he’s hoping to marry a virgin himself. What would you be saying about her standards, after all?

And vice versa: when it comes to not accepting people on that detail.

The most important thing is that make it clear that your desire to find a spouse who has kept herself pure in *no way implies *that you do not think sanctity is entirely possible for those of either sex who have not been so wise in the care of their bodies.

That is my view too, and something that people really want to overlook when bashing me.

 

[Chevaleresse]

I do not doubt there are Catholic women who aren’t going to want to marry you when they find you are only interested in marrying another virgin, but frankly, I think there will be enough virgins left after that for you to have a fair chance with the prospective spouse pool you’ve been saving yourself for…

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, though. Are you saying (assuming this can be reversed; i.e. a woman only wanting to marry another virgin) that I’ll be scaring guys off who are virgins? I’m not sure I’m totally clear.

 

[EasterJoy]

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at, though. Are you saying (assuming this can be reversed; i.e. a woman only wanting to marry another virgin) that I’ll be scaring guys off who are virgins? I’m not sure I’m totally clear.

No, at least not very many.

–There undoubtedly are virgins who would not want to marry someone who would not take them if they were not a virgin but if they had amended their life. They’d want someone who wouldn’t hold a repented sin against them. That is their perogative: that is, for a girlfriend to choose to make a boyfriend’s forgiving attitude towards the girlfriend’s past even more important than the purity of the boyfriend’s past. (of vice versa). These are the virgins who you feel are flaming you–and I do think some of the flames you are getting are from those who have walked the difficult path you are walking–what you’re saying is very close to home, and they feel very strongly about it.

–There are people who for whatever reason believe that sexual purity is more important in the opposite sex than in their own. I hope they are not surprised when the virgins of the opposite sex do not see it that way. A virgin might have a quarrel with that attitude, whether or not the prospective spouse holding the attitude is a virgin or not.

–I think, however, that most people who are saving themselves for marriage are hoping to find someone that is also saving themselves for marriage. They might value the attitude that even a serious sin in a person’s past is not a permanent mark against them, but at the same time I think the security of finding someone else who believes in the value of chastity enough to go through the trials they have gone through–including the trial of being looked down upon for loving this virtue, let’s not act as though the virgins have cornered the market on “I wouldn’t want to be like you”!!–is something such a person would find attractive. They will be able to understand the hope of finding a bird of the same feather, and that it is nothing against the other birds.

I think the ideal would be, “I was hoping that when I found you, you’d still be a virgin, but since I’ve gotten to know you, I’d want you no matter what was in your past.” That is what everyone wants, isn’t it? But to have the attitude, “When I found a girl wasn’t a virgin, I kept looking, because I knew you were out there, and I had saved myself for you just as I knew you were saving yourself for me” is not repugnant to someone who has been doing that same kind of saving. The first is the best attitude, but the second is not going to repel many who have had to go through the difficulty of remaining chaste in this sex-worshipping, chastity-hating world. A few, but not many.

Does that make sense?

 

[Chevaleresse]

“There undoubtedly are virgins who would not want to marry someone who would not take them if they were not a virgin but if they had amended their life. They’d want someone who wouldn’t hold a repented sin against them. That is their perogative: that is, for a girlfriend to choose to make a boyfriend’s forgiving attitude towards the girlfriend’s past even more important than the purity of the boyfriend’s past. (of vice versa). These are the virgins who you feel are flaming you–and I do think some of the flames you are getting are from those who have walked the difficult path you are walking–what you’re saying is very close to home, and they feel very strongly about it.”

That seems to make sense (what you’re saying, not the fact that they’re flaming me). I don’t think someone is holding a repented sin against another, but rather the consequences, the general attitude, and the views that the go along with committing it. I also find it strange when people will have thresholds for the other’s past. I mean, I thought they the person was “overlooking” the past? Or was it too large a past to even see the extent.

“There are people who for whatever reason believe that sexual purity is more important in the opposite sex than in their own. I hope they are not surprised when the virgins of the opposite sex do not see it that way. A virgin might have a quarrel with that attitude, whether or not the prospective spouse holding the attitude is a virgin or not.”

Always annoying when I see this. I would certainly quarrel with that attitude.

“I think the ideal would be, “I was hoping that when I found you, you’d still be a virgin, but since I’ve gotten to know you, I’d want you no matter what was in your past.” That is what everyone wants, isn’t it? But to have the attitude, “When I found a girl wasn’t a virgin, I kept looking, because I knew you were out there, and I had saved myself for you just as I knew you were saving yourself for me” is not repugnant to someone who has been doing that same kind of saving. The first is the best attitude, but the second is not going to repel many who have had to go through the difficulty of remaining chaste in this sex-worshipping, chastity-hating world.”

I don’t think the first attitude is better than the second. They are both equal, being preferences. It’s easier for the person who has a past to say “it’s a better deal” because they’ve made the mistake and now are wanting to have it overlooked (i.e. the felon and the saint example). However, most people I know who’ve been in this situation were many times uncomfortable about it, but felt they had no real choice (it’s hard to find people, period). In that case, one person is not as happy as the other, or as happy as both people could be in the second case (both virgins). I had a friend who actually confessed the desire to marry a virgin (as a sin) because of the attitude that such as a desire is “wrong” etc. That’s where my annoyance starts to show at people who have nothing better to do than run the “guilt mill” overtime.

But yes, that makes sense.

 

[EasterJoy]

That seems to make sense (what you’re saying, not the fact that they’re flaming me). I don’t think someone is holding a repented sin against another, but rather the consequences, the general attitude, and the views that the go along with committing it. I also find it strange when people will have thresholds for the other’s past. I mean, I thought they the person was “overlooking” the past? Or was it too large a past to even see the extent…

The desire to marry a virgin, like any other desire for a good thing, could be rooted in either good or bad attitudes, whether or not you yourself are a virgin. It can’t be wrong to want a virgin, per se: after all, God Himself chose a virgin, a woman innocent, spotless, and obedient in every way! That was not a vanity or a degradation of the human race or womankind or any of the rest. It was simply that the role called for required a woman of unsurpassable excellence. And let us say this applies to looking for a spotless record in any particular virtue necessary for marriage, not just sexual purity. I’m sure some people could look past failures in sexual purity but wouldn’t dream of marrying anyone who had ever been 30 days late with a rent check!

Obviously, marriage itself requires some level of excellence. Because no one out there is sinless, there is obviously always going to be a “threshold” with regards to a person’s past. Everybody has one, and there isn’t much else to go on with regards to predicting what they are likely to do in the future. Yet people grow, amend, and also regress, too, so it is a judgement call: that is, judging whether this person, regardless of how much affection or passion she elicits from you, possesses the qualities required for marriage at the level of excellence that is required. That is not judging whether a person is redeemable, but judging whether they are capable of meeting a vital challenge.

You can desire this good thing for wrong reasons, too, such as pride or a sort of greed to have only the best for yourself, where virginity is not a virtue that pleases God and is offered to God but a rather as some kind of a “thing” your spouse has kept safe for the sole purpose of pleasing you. “If the attitude is all about me, it probably isn’t a virtue” applies here as well as anywhere!

I don’t think the first attitude is better than the second. They are both equal, being preferences. It’s easier for the person who has a past to say “it’s a better deal” because they’ve made the mistake and now are wanting to have it overlooked (i.e. the felon and the saint example). However, most people I know who’ve been in this situation were many times uncomfortable about it, but felt they had no real choice (it’s hard to find people, period). In that case, one person is not as happy as the other, or as happy as both people could be in the second case (both virgins). I had a friend who actually confessed the desire to marry a virgin (as a sin) because of the attitude that such as a desire is “wrong” etc. That’s where my annoyance starts to show at people who have nothing better to do than run the “guilt mill” overtime.

But yes, that makes sense.

The reason I say that the first attitude is better is that I am applying it to the whole spectrum of virtues and I am projecting forward that some people who had a perfect record before marriage will not have a perfect record after marriage. Yes, virgins have been known to get married and then to be unfaithful. It happens. This is where the first attitude becomes a great asset to the marriage.

If you accept the idea that your spouse may have failures that you don’t know about–both in her past and in her future!–and your attitude is that you would never want her to make a sinful choice but you will always be there to help her pick up the pieces and amend if she does, then your marriage is going to be much more resilient and your wife is going to have the security of knowing that she can always come to you when she does fail. Your spouse is going to sin against you, after all. That is a given. Your spouse might even selfishly choose to sin gravely against you. What then? If the marriage is valid, the choice to sin afterwards does not render it null. You have to live with that grave offense.

I am going to argue that if that fall makes your spouse into a person you see as unfit to be your wife, then if either you or she fall, reconciliation will be exceedingly difficult. I think you can see why. How can you ask her to forgive you when you fail so grievously, if you do not have the attitude that you would take her as a person even if she had chosen her selfish desires over the desire to love you? I don’t think most decent people would have an easy time with that, and I think some could not do it at all. They could literally never forgive themselves.

So, apropos of this thread, I think that a man who wants to prepare himself to be a husband does best if he both has a deep desire to root all sin out of his nature and if he has a desire for his wife that combines a repugnance for sin with a deep desire to make whatever sacrifice is necessary for the conversion of a fellow sinner. That is what I mean by “I was hoping that when I found you, you’d still be a virgin, but since I’ve gotten to know you, I’d want you no matter what was in your past.” We want someone who will be a help to us by their excellent example in renouncing sin and pursuing virtue, that is a very good desire, a most excellent desire, but we are also generous in our willingness to help even our spouse repent and amend when they fail by sinning grievously against us.

That is why I think the choice between these two attitudes falls into a category that is different than a simple preference.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“I’m sure some people could look past failures in sexual purity but wouldn’t dream of marrying anyone who had ever been 30 days late with a rent check!”

I don’t think people would flame me as much if I rejected someone over money mistakes. I think I’m starting to see that it is a knee jerk reaction. Basically, lashing out at someone who reminds them of their mistakes. (My theory: if a behavior is more common, it is more likely for others to bash you over rejecting people for it.)

“some people who had a perfect record before marriage will not have a perfect record after marriage. Yes, virgins have been known to get married and then to be unfaithful.”

Yes, fine, but “can do” and “likely to do” are two different things. Non-virgins are more likely to be unfaithful in marriage than virgins. Much more likely.

“This is where the first attitude becomes a great asset to the marriage.”

Are you suggesting that because someone wants to marry a virgin, they therefore cannot/will not forgive their spouse in marriage?

“If you accept the idea that your spouse may have failures that you don’t know about–both in her past and in her future!–and your attitude is that you would never want her to make a sinful choice but you will always be there to help her pick up the pieces and amend if she does, then your marriage is going to be much more resilient and your wife is going to have the security of knowing that she can always come to you when she does fail. Your spouse is going to sin against you, after all. That is a given. Your spouse might even selfishly choose to sin gravely against you. What then? If the marriage is valid, the choice to sin afterwards does not render it null. You have to live with that grave offense.”

You are making it sound like the attitudes from both cases are mutually exclusive. That is completely wrong, and quite offensive.

“I am going to argue that if that fall makes your spouse into a person you see as unfit to be your wife, then if either you or she fall, reconciliation will be exceedingly difficult. I think you can see why. How can you ask her to forgive you when you fail so grievously, if you do not have the attitude that you would take her as a person even if she had chosen her selfish desires over the desire to love you? I don’t think most decent people would have an easy time with that, and I think some could not do it at all. They could literally never forgive themselves.”

Having read enough about abusive husbands, yes, some falling does actually make them unfit.

“So, apropos of this thread, I think that a man who wants to prepare himself to be a husband does best if he both has a deep desire to root all sin out of his nature and if he has a desire for his wife that combines a repugnance for sin with a deep desire to make whatever sacrifice is necessary for the conversion of a fellow sinner.”

This applies to people in both cases.

“We want someone who will be a help to us by their excellent example in renouncing sin and pursuing virtue, that is a very good desire, a most excellent desire, but we are also generous in our willingness to help even our spouse repent and amend when they fail by sinning grievously against us.”

Being an excellent example works both ways (for both spouses). You sound almost as if you’re condescending to the (potential) spouse who has failed, that they aren’t responsible for their own actions or that they need to be hand-held. Also, before marriage and in marriage are two different states. If I can avoid grievous sins on the part of someone else before marriage, I will (especially with the consequences being well known).

“That is why I think the choice between these two attitudes falls into a category that is different than a simple preference.”

Based on my comments above in this post, it is still a preference. You portrayal of the two attitudes is a bit of a false dilemma.