Is wanting to be a husband a worthy vocation?

[EasterJoy]

To address the last thing first, I was referring to the husband only because the OP asked about wanting to be a husband as a vocation, not about whether it was OK to want marriage as a vocation. Particular question–>particular answer.

I think it borders on rash judgement to simply assume that those who object to what they think your attitude is probably do so because they themselves lost their virginity prior to marriage. Another virgin could easily have the same objections, particularly (for instance) a priest who has had more occasion to learn about human nature than either of us do. A virgin who married a non-virgin could also feel prompted to come to the defense of the spouse they chose, don’t you think? And we know who said, “Let the one of you without sin cast the first stone.” Definitely a fellow virgin, dear…and the son of a mother who had a lot of people assume she was not a virgin when she married, let’s just say that.

As for splitting hairs between “can do” and “likely to do”, I’m just saying that you need to realize that the “worse” in “for better or worse” can include infidelity, even when you marry a virgin. You really do need to admit that when you take your vows. Other people may hazard more, but you’re taking that risk, so just be aware.

You also seem to be confusing my advocacy for an attitude for an advocacy of letting go of a desire for marrying a virgin. I’m not saying you shouldn’t care if your spouse is a virgin or not! I’m saying that if, having chosen your spouse, you choose the attitude that you would have been willing to overcome that particular fault because it is a wrinkle in the person you have chosen to love, that this attitude will give your marriage added resilience.

After all, we both agree that someone who has been chaste prior to marriage is more likely to be chaste after marriage. I don’t know who could deny this; as far as I know, it is all but established as a fact (you can never know for sure when there is the limitation of self-reporting in establishing the facts). If preserving one’s virginity and marrying another virgin increases the chance that your marriage will succeed, then it is not a mere preference. It is a preference with consequences.

OK, fine. Why is it so hard to believe that the person who chooses the attitude that they would not abandon their virginal spouse if their spouse did not have a history of chastity also bode more favorably for the chance that the spouse would choose the attitude that they will not abandon marriage with a spouse who strays after marriage? Why would it not favor that person’s ability to accept that kind of generosity of heart? If one attitude makes a marriage more likely to succeed than another, then I think the choice between the attitudes is something more than mere preference.

And then there is this: 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. Exactly what does this mean “need to be hand-held”? You sound almost as if you think mercy is carte blanche to sin. There is no such teaching in the plain meaning of the Gospels. Our Lord did not teach that an attitude of mercy towards others was an invitation to sin, right? So why would the same attitudes towards the sins of others not apply within a marriage as well as outside of it? Do you think your spouse will need to have you overlook her faults out of love for her? I hope you do.

Again: I am not saying you are wrong to want to find a spouse with every virtue. I’m not saying you ought not give special weight to the virtue of chastity. I am saying that the best case is when the attitude that values chastity lives alongside an attitude that depends upon and expects to extend mercy. If you think that involves an inherent conflict, please re-examine the plain meaning of the Red Letters in the Gospel. You’ll find that the two attitudes existing together are at the heart of the call of the disciple of Christ.

PS Have you noticed that no one has stepped in to flame me? Hmmm…

 

[Chevaleresse]

“I think it borders on rash judgement to simply assume that those who object to what they think your attitude is probably do so because they themselves lost their virginity prior to marriage.”

It’s not, actually. I found the meanest, rudest, and/or most judgmental comments that were supportive of that attitude and found fornication to be present (concretely) in 70% of the cases. So no, it wasn’t rash, it was well-founded. And I find it hilarious.

“A virgin who married a non-virgin could also feel prompted to come to the defense of the spouse they chose, don’t you think?”

Yeah, choice-supportive bias.

“And we know who said, “Let the one of you without sin cast the first stone.””

That was referring to adultery, so nope, doesn’t really work here.

“As for splitting hairs between “can do” and “likely to do”, I’m just saying that you need to realize that the “worse” in “for better or worse” can include infidelity, even when you marry a virgin. You really do need to admit that when you take your vows. Other people may hazard more, but you’re taking that risk, so just be aware.”

That’s not splitting hairs, that’s recognizing the higher risk your marriage has of failing. Prudence. I get the fact that virgins can go postal in marriage, but they’re much less likely to. Of course I recognize that if I get married I have to deal with the “worse” part (if it does happen). Someone’s track record does give a good indication. I’d also be writing off (former or not) alcoholics, felons, and more because of the risks involved. Honestly, I don’t have much sympathy for people who marry someone thinking they can “fix them”; that mysterious subconscious attitude is probably what gets people to overlook sexual pasts. And, yeah, people still marry non-virgins (which provides me with lots of data to make my decision).

“I’m saying that if, having chosen your spouse, you choose the attitude that you would have been willing to overcome that particular fault because it is a wrinkle in the person you have chosen to love, that this attitude will give your marriage added resilience.”

That’s still offensive. Are you still suggesting that someone who would only marry a virgin would not be able to have a marriage with that “added resilience”? That they’re incapable of it? That’s quite a judgmental attitude.

“OK, fine. Why is it so hard to believe that the person who chooses the attitude that they would not abandon their virginal spouse if their spouse did not have a history of chastity also bode more favorably for the chance that the spouse would choose the attitude that they will not abandon marriage with a spouse who strays after marriage? Why would it not favor that person’s ability to accept that kind of generosity of heart? If one attitude makes a marriage more likely to succeed than another, then I think the choice between the attitudes is something more than mere preference.”

Oh, easy. You mentioned it earlier yourself: STDs and all of the temporal consequences of fornication (especially men, since they have on average a higher number of sexual partners). You’re also overlooking the before marriage part and after marriage part. They’re different. I.e.: risk analysis in business is done before a venture, but is different once it is undertaken. If you’re taking the step into marriage, it only makes sense to not ignore warning signs.

“And then there is this: 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. Exactly what does this mean “need to be hand-held”? You sound almost as if you think mercy is carte blanche to sin. There is no such teaching in the plain meaning of the Gospels.”

No. I’m saying that making someone think that another person needs them as an example is condescending. I’m not comparing mercy to sin. And then there’s the guilt trip of making someone out to be less merciful or forgiving because they don’t want to marry a non-virgin. That’s just plain evil.

“Our Lord did not teach that an attitude of mercy towards others was an invitation to sin, right?”

Yes. I’ve been told by guys that one of the things that allows them to have sex with a few people before marriage is the knowledge that most women (Catholic, too) will forgive/overlook it.

“So why would the same attitudes towards the sins of others not apply within a marriage as well as outside of it?”

Already addressed.

“Again: I am not saying you are wrong to want to find a spouse with every virtue. I’m not saying you ought not give special weight to the virtue of chastity. I am saying that the best case is when the attitude that values chastity lives alongside an attitude that depends upon and expects to extend mercy.”

Mercy doesn’t have to be stupid or life-endangering. Mercy shouldn’t make your life miserable.

“Have you noticed that no one has stepped in to flame me? Hmmm…”

Yes. People are obviously reading the thread. Maybe because I’m here?

 

[EasterJoy]

It’s not, actually. I found the meanest, rudest, and/or most judgmental comments that were supportive of that attitude and found fornication to be present (concretely) in 70% of the cases. So no, it wasn’t rash, it was well-founded. And I find it hilarious.

Yeah, choice-supportive bias.

That was referring to adultery, so nope, doesn’t really work here.

That’s not splitting hairs, that’s recognizing the higher risk your marriage has of failing. Prudence. I get the fact that virgins can go postal in marriage, but they’re much less likely to. Of course I recognize that if I get married I have to deal with the “worse” part (if it does happen). Someone’s track record does give a good indication. I’d also be writing off (former or not) alcoholics, felons, and more because of the risks involved. Honestly, I don’t have much sympathy for people who marry someone thinking they can “fix them”; that mysterious subconscious attitude is probably what gets people to overlook sexual pasts. And, yeah, people still marry non-virgins (which provides me with lots of data to make my decision).

That’s still offensive. Are you still suggesting that someone who would only marry a virgin would not be able to have a marriage with that “added resilience”? That they’re incapable of it? That’s quite a judgmental attitude.

Oh, easy. You mentioned it earlier yourself: STDs and all of the temporal consequences of fornication (especially men, since they have on average a higher number of sexual partners). You’re also overlooking the before marriage part and after marriage part. They’re different. I.e.: risk analysis in business is done before a venture, but is different once it is undertaken. If you’re taking the step into marriage, it only makes sense to not ignore warning signs.

No. I’m saying that making someone think that another person needs them as an example is condescending. I’m not comparing mercy to sin. And then there’s the guilt trip of making someone out to be less merciful or forgiving because they don’t want to marry a non-virgin. That’s just plain evil.

Yes. I’ve been told by guys that one of the things that allows them to have sex with a few people before marriage is the knowledge that most women (Catholic, too) will forgive/overlook it.

Already addressed.

Mercy doesn’t have to be stupid or life-endangering. Mercy shouldn’t make your life miserable.

Yes. People are obviously reading the thread. Maybe because I’m here?

Again: I am not talking about your desire to marry a virgin. I am talking about the attitude you will either choose or else not choose towards the virgin you actually marry. These are two entirely different things. I’ve said it twice, though. Either you get that or you don’t, but I give up.

BTW: If you’re right 80% of the time, you’re guilty of rash judgement 20% of the time. In any case, whether you are right or whethe you’re judging rashly, there is nothing hilarious about it. (I know sometimes you have to laugh if you don’t want to cry, but “hilarious”?)

To your contention that “Mercy doesn’t have to be stupid or life-endangering. Mercy shouldn’t make your life miserable.” I say this: “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Sometimes, Chevaleresse, life-endangering is not only exactly what mercy ought to be, but what God has ordained that it must be. If you think that marriage is an exception, do think again.

But that is my last thought on the subject. You are the only one arguing with me about this, and you’re arguing and taking offense about something I’m not even saying. I have better uses of my time.

 

[Chevaleresse]

“Again: I am not talking about your desire to marry a virgin. I am talking about the attitude you will either choose or else not choose towards the virgin you actually marry. These are two entirely different things.”

But how is that related? If you’re implying a connection between the two, I’d like you to be more explicit about it. If wanting to marry a virgin means that I’m choosing a different (worse? deficient?) attitude towards my husband than if I were to accept his sexual past, just say it.

“BTW: If you’re right 80% of the time, you’re guilty of rash judgement 20% of the time. In any case, whether you are right or whethe you’re judging rashly, there is nothing hilarious about it. (I know sometimes you have to laugh if you don’t want to cry, but “hilarious”?)”

I meant hilarious more in the pathetic sense. I always sense an angry desperation. I also find the cognitive dissonance between recognizing the consequences of premarital sex and overlooking them later to be annoying. One of the side effects of cognitive dissonance is anger. Oh so surprising.

"To your contention that “Mercy doesn’t have to be stupid or life-endangering. Mercy shouldn’t make your life miserable.” I say this: “Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do. Sometimes, Chevaleresse, life-endangering is not only exactly what mercy ought to be, but what God has ordained that it must be. If you think that marriage is an exception, do think again.”

That is so beyond stupid and short-sighted, I can’t help but be embarrassed (and worried) for people going into marriage with that idea. Those are the kinds of inane things people tell women in abusive situations.

“you’re arguing and taking offense about something I’m not even saying.”

You’re being unclear.

 

[EasterJoy]

But how is that related? If you’re implying a connection between the two, I’d like you to be more explicit about it. If wanting to marry a virgin means that I’m choosing a different (worse? deficient?) attitude towards my husband than if I were to accept his sexual past, just say it.

That is so beyond stupid and short-sighted, I can’t help but be embarrassed (and worried) for people going into marriage with that idea. Those are the kinds of inane things people tell women in abusive situations.

I’ve been married for over 20 years. Before you marry, you would do well to learn to bridle your tongue and how to disagree without telling the person you are disagreeing with that what they have said is “so beyond stupid” or “inane”. Expressing that kind of contempt is extremely damaging to marriages. Sexual fidelity, after all, is necessary but not sufficient for a fully faithful marriage. Giving yourself permission to talk in a contemptuous manner also damages marriages. If you want to avoid it even when you are hopping mad with your spouse, you’d do well to renounce it completely, even here.

No, I’m not implying a connection. The attitude I’m suggesting applies whether you marry a virgin or not. The only connection is that some people (not by any means most, let alone all) who know that both they and their spouse were virgins at marriage are totally unprepared for the possibility that either of them may be unfaithful afterwards. They just assume that if it happens, their marriage is over. Depending on the nature of the infidelity and whether the offender repents, it might be over, that is true. Sometimes, that cannot be helped, no matter what attitude the wronged spouse takes, and I am not saying otherwise.

All I am saying is that if an attitude exists that even infidelity is something that a couple *might *be able to get past, provided there is sufficient contrition and amendment on the part of the offending party, then the marriage has a greater chance of survival. People who wouldn’t think of marrying a non-virgin are not wrong to desire a virgin like themselves! Far from it! They can be, however, more prone to assume that infidelity can never happen to them. I will tell you that this is not true. Having waged the battle successfully before marriage bodes well for your ability to do so afterwards, yes, but it does not guarantee being successful at it forever. It is those who think they are invulnerable to infidelity who are in fact the most vulnerable (save, of course, those who plan to be unfaithful, but that is not a valid marriage).

I can assure you that “Mercy shouldn’t make your life miserable” is the unrealistic idea. When marriage gets hard, it can feel pretty miserable, but that is also exactly when mercy does the most good.

As for women in abusive situation you spoke about, those who stick around to be abused are not being merciful. That is not what “turn the other cheek” means! They are putting their own lives in danger and putting their dignity as human beings aside for the sake of someone else, yes, but in a way that is only going to give their spouse a near occasion of grave sin. That is no mercy to anyone. To leave the situation can be the far far more merciful course, and very often it is. An abuser who is tolerated, after all, has very little chance of amendment, which is a moral necessity.

Now, this time I really have to be going. You’re going to have to puzzle out what I wrote on your own, as best as you can.

 

[Chevaleresse]

Before you marry, you would do well to learn to bridle your tongue and how to disagree without telling the person you are disagreeing with that what they have said is “so beyond stupid” or “inane”. Expressing that kind of contempt is extremely damaging to marriages. Sexual fidelity, after all, is necessary but not sufficient for a fully faithful marriage. Giving yourself permission to talk in a contemptuous manner also damages marriages. If you want to avoid it even when you are hopping mad with your spouse, you’d do well to renounce it completely, even here.

Sorry.