Only ready to be a husband if ready to be celebate?

[DL82]

I’ve recently been trying to discern whether I’m called to married life or the life of a lay brother in an enclosed religious order. It’s all been quite confusing, but beautifully enriching and uplifting at the same time.

In an odd way, the more I think about celebacy, the more I realise how wonderful marriage is, and the more ready I feel for it. Once I start considering looking for a woman though, I suddenly fall back into old lustful ways, and end up feeling unready for marriage, and in need of celebacy.

The more I struggle against my lustful inclinations, the more I realise that our society has turned opposite-sex attraction into as much of a disorder (relative to God’s ideal) as same-sex attraction. Lustful thoughts for either sex are not helpful to chaste Catholic living, whether married or celebate.

The more I see what a chaste marriage would look like, the less I see the need for it. That is to say, if I can be chaste, and if I marry purely for mutual companionship, self-giving and procreation, then that marriage won’t actually give me an outlet for lustful desires and I’ll have to go on fighting them within marriage, in which case, I’d be as well being celebate.

To be ready to be a faithful, chaste husband, in other words, I need to be perfectly comfortable relying on God alone, and not need a woman to complete me or to quiet my desires, in which case, I may as well stay celebate and become a monk.

Am I missing something here? Why do good faithful Catholics marry if in order to be ready to really live out matrimonial chastity we have to be capable of living a celebate life anyway?

 

[bilop]

I’ve recently been trying to discern whether I’m called to married life or the life of a lay brother in an enclosed religious order. It’s all been quite confusing, but beautifully enriching and uplifting at the same time.

In an odd way, the more I think about celebacy, the more I realise how wonderful marriage is, and the more ready I feel for it. Once I start considering looking for a woman though, I suddenly fall back into old lustful ways, and end up feeling unready for marriage, and in need of celebacy.

The more I struggle against my lustful inclinations, the more I realise that our society has turned opposite-sex attraction into as much of a disorder (relative to God’s ideal) as same-sex attraction. Lustful thoughts for either sex are not helpful to chaste Catholic living, whether married or celebate.

The more I see what a chaste marriage would look like, the less I see the need for it. That is to say, if I can be chaste, and if I marry purely for mutual companionship, self-giving and procreation, then that marriage won’t actually give me an outlet for lustful desires and I’ll have to go on fighting them within marriage, in which case, I’d be as well being celebate.

To be ready to be a faithful, chaste husband, in other words, I need to be perfectly comfortable relying on God alone, and not need a woman to complete me or to quiet my desires, in which case, I may as well stay celebate and become a monk.

Am I missing something here? Why do good faithful Catholics marry if in order to be ready to really live out matrimonial chastity we have to be capable of living a celebate life anyway?

I think you are misdiagnosing a chaste marriage somewhat.

Within a Catholic Marriage, you are supposed to need your spouse to complete you. The two become one.

Also, one of the ends of marriage is to quiet concupiscence. A healthy marital sex life should help one deal with one’s lust.
When you love your wife, as you are intended too, sex should become loving, not lustful, and should help you fight lustful desires. Even though sex is self-giving, that does not mean it doesn’t meet the natural urges, and is not very pleasurable.

I imagine you should be discerning this with a spiritual director.

God Bless

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

I think you are confusing chaste and celibate. Celibate is going completely without sex. Chaste is living according to God’s plan for sex. So, if you are not married, it means remaining celibate and pure. If you are married, it means not misusing sex and turning it into something selfish and disordered. Sex within marriage is supposed to be chaste, but married people are not called to celibacy. make sense?

 

[Magicsilence]

To be ready to be a faithful, chaste husband, in other words, I need to be perfectly comfortable relying on God alone, and not need a woman to complete me or to quiet my desires, in which case, I may as well stay celebate and become a monk.

Am I missing something here? Why do good faithful Catholics marry if in order to be ready to really live out matrimonial chastity we have to be capable of living a celebate life anyway?

I think you are over-analyzing things here.

You should be ready for God’s will, whatever it may be.

But whatever that is, God ALWAYS wants you to be chaste, whether you are married or not.

If you are chaste, THEN you are ready for marriage, and once you enter marriage you must strive to make sure that you don’t lust within the marriage.

If you are not chaste, then marriage or not, your soul is in spiritual danger.

Malia (Feanaro’s wife) also explained the difference between chastity/celibacy well.

 

[BamaRider]

I’ve recently been trying to discern whether I’m called to married life or the life of a lay brother in an enclosed religious order. It’s all been quite confusing, but beautifully enriching and uplifting at the same time.

In an odd way, the more I think about celebacy, the more I realise how wonderful marriage is, and the more ready I feel for it. Once I start considering looking for a woman though, I suddenly fall back into old lustful ways, and end up feeling unready for marriage, and in need of celebacy.

The more I struggle against my lustful inclinations, the more I realise that our society has turned opposite-sex attraction into as much of a disorder (relative to God’s ideal) as same-sex attraction. Lustful thoughts for either sex are not helpful to chaste Catholic living, whether married or celebate.

The more I see what a chaste marriage would look like, the less I see the need for it. That is to say, if I can be chaste, and if I marry purely for mutual companionship, self-giving and procreation, then that marriage won’t actually give me an outlet for lustful desires and I’ll have to go on fighting them within marriage, in which case, I’d be as well being celebate.

To be ready to be a faithful, chaste husband, in other words, I need to be perfectly comfortable relying on God alone, and not need a woman to complete me or to quiet my desires, in which case, I may as well stay celebate and become a monk.

Am I missing something here? Why do good faithful Catholics marry if in order to be ready to really live out matrimonial chastity we have to be capable of living a celebate life anyway?

You lost me on this bro. Are you saying you might wanna get married but not have sex? Just be mutual companions? Is it a sin to lust after one’s wife?? You gonna tell her that before ya get married or after? Cause then she’ll be coming on here, “Well I married this guy but he says no sex, all he wants is mutual companion kind of relationship.” And then we have this loooong thread about what SHE oughta do. LOL.

You sure you’re not thinkin too much about all this? Just go find a nice Catholic girl and see what happens. Ok, so you might have some lustful thoughts about her, deal with it! He’ll help ya!

I realized the celibate life wasn’t for me when I was about 4 years old, so my perspective is way different, I can’t begin to advise ya if you should go the religious order route or get married.

God made it very clear to me what I was suppose to do. Ok, so I messed up along the way sometimes, but I always knew what I was *susppose *to be doin. I guess with me He knows gotta keep things simple. LOL.

 

[Magicsilence]

You lost me on this bro. Are you saying you might wanna get married but not have sex? Just be mutual companions? Is it a sin to lust after one’s wife?? You gonna tell her that before ya get married or after? Cause then she’ll be coming on here, “Well I married this guy but he says no sex, all he wants is mutual companion kind of relationship.” And then we have this loooong thread about what SHE oughta do. LOL.

You sure you’re not thinkin too much about all this? Just go find a nice Catholic girl and see what happens. Ok, so you might have some lustful thoughts about her, deal with it! He’ll help ya!

I realized the celibate life wasn’t for me when I was about 4 years old, so my perspective is way different, I can’t begin to advise ya if you should go the religious order route or get married.

God made it very clear to me what I was suppose to do. Ok, so I messed up along the way sometimes, but I always knew what I was *susppose *to be doin. I guess with me He knows gotta keep things simple. LOL.

:bowdown2: post of the day

 

[Ruthie]

My DH and I had been married 8 years when we joined the Church. I had been married previously, so we were celibate for two years, until my first marriage was declared null.

We fought with lust a bit - but had a pretty easy time, since what we want most for each other is to get to Heaven. Receiving the Eucharist was more important than that other thing, too.

I think the problem is, where do you draw the line between lust and the marital act? Remember that, in addition to being unitive and procreative, it is also a renewal of your marriage vows.

Lust is when it’s all about you, and you are using your spouse as a tool for your own gratification. Love is when you want more to gratify than to be gratified. It’s all about being one flesh!

Hope this helps, and God bless you in your discernment,

Ruthie

P.S. You made a really good point here:
“… our society has turned opposite-sex attraction into as much of a disorder (relative to God’s ideal) as same-sex attraction.”

 

[chevalier]

People ought to be able to hold their urges and live in the state they’re in. This doesn’t mean they cannot desire a different state. Finding internal peace does not mean giving up desires or wishes or dreams.

 

[DL82]

People ought to be able to hold their urges and live in the state they’re in. This doesn’t mean they cannot desire a different state. Finding internal peace does not mean giving up desires or wishes or dreams.

Thanks Chevalier, your post is brief, but is as good an analysis as any. Thanks for all the other responses too.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying I want to get married but not have sex, that would be a contradiction. I suppose I’m saying that in a way the faith presents us with a contradiction - we’re not ready to marry until we can cope with living faithful chaste lives as single people, but in order to be in control of ourselves as single people, we need to not be having or giving in to sexual urges. So, basically, you can only have sex once you no longer need to.

How does that work? How does a person become comfortable and faithful as a single person (I’m still struggling with the urge to covet women or desire them for sexual reasons), and then discern the good of married life? How do you go from a kind of chastity that is celebate to a kind of chastity that is faithful to marriage vows? I’m struggling to find a single married couple who really honestly did it that way round, as opposed to people who started off sinful and converted, or started off imperfect at least, and began to be more faithful to the Church’s teaching on marriage. All the single people I know who are really committed to living a pure Catholic life seem to be either happy remaining single, looking out for a similarly committed Catholic spouse who never appears, or discerning priesthood or religious life.

Anybody who’s walked the walk of chaste and pure courtship like to tell me how it’s done? Just so I’d know what I’d be aiming for if I was to take that route in life, and whether it’s something I’d be better suited to than religious life or not.

 

[chevalier]

Yes, I know what you are saying. I believe that one ought to be at peace with what state you are in, but this does not mean that one needs to stop desiring a state in which one is not but is free to enter into.

 

[Norseman82]

Where does our faith teach us that we have to be able to accept celibacy or chaste singleness first before we are ready to be a husband? Please tell me where you heard that.

In fact, the inability to handle lifelong celibacy is a signal that you should get married. I think many singles and young adult groups have forgotten about the lessons of the one group of people who discern celibacy the most - seminarians. Please note that many do indeed leave the seminary (or don’t enter in the first place) because they realize that they cannot handle lifelong celibacy and so they realize married life is for them.

Also, please note that following Scripture passages:

Matthew 19:11-12
1 Corinthians 7

The bottom line is that not everyone can handle lifelong celibacy, and if you cannot, you should seek marriage (provided there are no canonical impediments to marriage).

Also, please check out this blog that another CAF member posted in another thread that debunks a lot of the recent trend of making people feel ashamed for wanting to get married:

thegiftofsingleness.blogspot.com/

Although not written by Catholics, there is a lot of good biblical and practical thoughts in there.

 

[Norseman82]

Yes, I know what you are saying. I believe that one ought to be at peace with what state you are in, but this does not mean that one needs to stop desiring a state in which one is not but is free to enter into.

Let’s be realistic: if we made everyone wait until to be at peace with being in the single state before we allowed them to get married, how many marriages would ever occur?

Again, look at the example of seminarians who need to factor in the ability to handle lifelong celibacy in their discernment.

 

[GhostMan]

Doesn’t Paul tell us, “it is better to marry than to burn?” I take burn to mean burn with lustful desires. It seems that part of marriage involves - for some people - the conversion of lustful burnings into positive sexual desires.

Frankly, I would advise you, from what you have posted here, to avoid marriage until you are clear on the reasons you want to marry.

 

[bilop]

Doesn’t Paul tell us, “it is better to marry than to burn?” I take burn to mean burn with lustful desires. It seems that part of marriage involves - for some people - the conversion of lustful burnings into positive sexual desires.

Frankly, I would advise you, from what you have posted here, to avoid marriage until you are clear on the reasons you want to marry.

I think St. Paul meant both “burn with lustful desires” and “burn in Hell” for sexual sin.

God Bless

 

[manualman]

No you don’t need to conquer sin before you marry. Earth would be a lonely place if that were true.

Christopher West uses food as an analogy for sexuality. Lust and its manifestations are like eating out of a dumpster and healthy married passion is like eating at a delicious banquet.

When you are hungry, the dumpster might start to look pretty good at times, especially if everybody else around you is in there filling their bellies.

The fact that your belly rumbles at the thought of the dumpster doesn’t mean you won’t be able to appreciate and participate properly at the banquet. It just means you have not yet learned to appreciate the difference between garbage and food - and how could you if you haven’t been to the banquet yet (gotten married)?

But if THE thing that makes you pause about religious life is the loss of sexual intimacy, get a spiritual director’s help. It’s very easy to erroneously build up the importance of sex way beyond its actual role in life when our whole culture embraces and celebrates the dumpster.

 

[DL82]

Thanks again all.

I guess the real question is, if I think I CAN (with the help of God’s grace of course) handle a life of celebacy, does that mean I shouldn’t marry?

On the other hand, being realistic about my ‘prospects’ I know I’m not exactly a ‘catch’ - 26, overweight, suffering anxiety and scrupulousness, a graduate student living on a stipend for the next 2 years (and not a Law or science graduate either, likely to find a low-paying public policy research or lecturing job), still struggling with lustful thoughts and an immoral past, quiet, not very fashionable, losing hair. I know I’m unlikely to find a woman who’s not just settling for whatever she can get, and even though I know marriage is supposed to be an image of Christ’s redemptive death for us, I don’t think I can enter freely and honestly and lovingly into such a situation.

Maybe the fairest thing for all is for me to accept religious life as the best use I can make of my talents. I certainly feel more at peace with that road than with the idea of pursuing marriage, except that it’s a sad peace, a peace of accepting a living death, a living sacrifice, because at least that way I won’t be disappointed.

Another analogy comes to me - I have met people who have studied Law and have pushed themselves through years of boring books and memorizing cases to get themselves through law school, because at the end they’ll become the hot-shot lawyer they’ve always dreamed of being. Only problem is, they realise that when they get there the job they’ve dreamed of consists of studying boring books and memorizing cases!

Surely the same is true of the hope of heaven. In heaven, we will be alone with only God, but also in perfect community. We will not marry. We will serve and pray and praise and adore, and this will be our eternal joy. If I’m not willing to be happy with such a life on earth, then why do I even want to go to heaven? If I’m not trying my very hardest on earth to live the life of heaven, then I’m rejecting God’s call. It seems to me that for me to marry would be to say to God “thanks for heaven, but not just yet, let this woman and me enjoy ourselves for a while on earth first”.

To reiterate, if I think religious life is a possibility, however unwelcome a possibility, for me, should I pursue it before even considering marriage?

 

[lovemysix]

Hi there!

As a person who suffered through years of scrupulosity, I really do empathize with you. And I admire that you are seriously trying to discern God’s Will for you. However, I do feel after reading through these posts that you are (like most scrupulous people!) overthinking things a bit.

I don’t have answers for you, but I do have a bit of (name removed by moderator)ut. You asked about couples who were chaste before marriage. My husband and I were both virgins when we married, and I don’t mean “virgins in name only”. We didn’t push the envelope at all—never even French kissed. This does NOT mean that we didn’t have sexual desires for each other, though. You seem to think that unless you have absolutely no sexual desires for each other and can live like brother and sister, then you aren’t chaste as a couple. That’s simply not the case. Our sexuality is a gift from God, and the sexual desires we have are part of that gift. Granted, maintaining control over those desires so that they are properly ordered is the hard part!

Just because you are attracted to women doesn’t mean you are sinning. Look, I’ll be the first to admit I’m not a man and therefore am not subject to the same types of temptations (Recently I saw a clip of a comedian who said…It’s a good thing women DON’T know what we are really thinking----if they did, they’d never stop slapping us!! ) But I do know that if my husband did NOT have strong sexual desires for me, I’d be hurt. I want him to want me! (just like the song) And that wanting isn’t something that is supposed to be shut off during courtship and suddenly turned on when you get married. It’s all part of a normal, healthy continuum.

I’m very blessed in that I met and married a man with a very healthy attitude toward sexuality. Given the scrupulosity I was suffering with at that point in my life, I think I could have been really messed up if I had ended up with somebody who also had unhealthy attitudes about sexuality and sin.

As far as contemplating a vocation, God simply expects you to be open to the idea. If you have feelings of repulsion (i.e. you say it’s a very unwelcome idea to you), that may be a sign it’s not for you. Having never struggled with wondering if I had a vocation, I am no expert and would advise consultation with a priest/spiritual advisor to help you with that journey.

As far as being overweight and such…have you looked at the people who are married? We’re not all beautiful, skinny, and blessed with high-paying jobs!! If that’s how high the bar was raised, I’d venture few of us would find mates

I DO, however, think it’s important to get yourself in a healthy place—physically AND mentally—before entering into any vocation. Exercising can really help with scruples, too! I would try to find a spiritual advisor with some knowledge of scruples, too.

You know, feelings aren’t bad. So many people seem to think that feelings/desires need to be suppressed in order to be in control. My personal opinion is that the suppression itself can lead to a lot of mental anguish. Feelings are a gift from God and need to be integrated into their proper places in our lives.

Just some ramblings from somebody whose been through some scruples and has come out the other side (thank you, GOD!! what a relief to have that behind me)

Peace.
Lauren

 

[chevalier]

Where does our faith teach us that we have to be able to accept celibacy or chaste singleness first before we are ready to be a husband? Please tell me where you heard that.

In fact, the inability to handle lifelong celibacy is a signal that you should get married. I think many singles and young adult groups have forgotten about the lessons of the one group of people who discern celibacy the most - seminarians. Please note that many do indeed leave the seminary (or don’t enter in the first place) because they realize that they cannot handle lifelong celibacy and so they realize married life is for them.

Also, please note that following Scripture passages:

Matthew 19:11-12
1 Corinthians 7

The bottom line is that not everyone can handle lifelong celibacy, and if you cannot, you should seek marriage (provided there are no canonical impediments to marriage).

Also, please check out this blog that another CAF member posted in another thread that debunks a lot of the recent trend of making people feel ashamed for wanting to get married:

thegiftofsingleness.blogspot.com/

Although not written by Catholics, there is a lot of good biblical and practical thoughts in there.

One ought either to abstain from sex or to marry. This is something we must realise and accept. One ought to accept that one will stay chaste within one’s state, which means no sex if unmarried, sex only with the spouse if married. In this way, one must accept the possibility that one may be unmarried even if one very much feels called to marry. One also needs to consider that what one feels to be his calling may not in fact be that calling.

 

[chevalier]

Is it a sin to lust after one’s wife??

Yes, it is. To desire is not, to lust is. However, this requires a proper understanding of lust. That is not desire but an act of harbouring or cherishing a desire which is disordered. One is able to have such desires with regard to one’s spouse.

 

[Norseman82]

One ought either to abstain from sex or to marry. This is something we must realise and accept. One ought to accept that one will stay chaste within one’s state, which means no sex if unmarried, sex only with the spouse if married. In this way, one must accept the possibility that one may be unmarried even if one very much feels called to marry. One also needs to consider that what one feels to be his calling may not in fact be that calling.

I am not trying to make excuses for unchastity, and that is not the subject of this thread. There is the ridiculous, impossible, and unbiblical notion that is being pushed on single people today that you need to be happy alone before being ready to be married. A previous poster (manualman) used the analogy of a “belly rumbling”:

The fact that your belly rumbles at the thought of the dumpster doesn’t mean you won’t be able to appreciate and participate properly at the banquet.

Although his point was to contract the good acts within marriage vs. the sinful and unhealthy acts outside of marriage, I would like to carry the “belly rumbling” image furter to illustrate the ridiculousness of whatthe OP was told.

Suppose a mother had a child and the child’d belly was rumbling from hunger. What would you think if the mother said the following:

“I will not feed you until your belly stops rumbling”.

Or:

“Until you are ready to die from hunger, you will not be ready to be fed”.

Ridiculous, right? Well, extrapolate that to the rebuffs many single people today are told when they seek marriage and you will see how ridiculous those are, too.