Realistic sexual values

[mcteague]

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

So what are you saying? What exactly is more ‘flexible and modern?’

 

[edwest2]

Man has not changed in the last 2000 years. That’s why we can watch a Greek play written 2000 years ago and understand it. The modern view of human sexuality is based on one simple, but wrong idea: We Cannot Control Our Own Sexuality. Ask yourself: who decides when I engage in sexual activity? The answer is you do.

I invite you to read the following:

catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rolltide]

Man’s laws are written, as much as possible, to create the minimum number of laws and the least intrusive laws as is possible without society collapsing. They are written with the intent of giving us a high degree of freedom. As such, they are written to the lowest possible standard. In other words, they tend to portray the bare minimum of acceptable behavior that we can get away with.

God’s laws are entirely different. They are written with the purpose of illustrating what life would be like in utopia. In other words, in an utterly ideal world, how would people behave? As such, they are written to the highest possible standard. They are also, by definition, unachievable, but they give us a goal to strive for with our actions on earth.

In the world that we live in, virtually all people live somewhere BETWEEN these two sets of rules. Most of us behave far better than the bare minimum that society expects, but at the same time, we fall short of God’s law.

Now… just because a teaching is tough or times have changed DOESN’T mean that I go out and change God’s law, because it’s original purpose never changes! For example, if you have an extremely high crime area in your town, the solution is NOT to change the law to legalize theft! Sure, technically, the crime would be gone, but what have you really achieved? The rules of the Catholic Church should NOT be changed, but the church realizes that people DO fail to live up to them. This is why we have sacraments in place to help us achieve forgiveness. An ideal world is impossible to achieve, but if you change the rules, it isn’t really a model for an ideal world anymore, is it?

 

[broconsul]

I think you’re suggesting, tell me if I’m wrong, that the Church adopt sexual teaching that is “of this world.”

Right?

 

[Dorothy]

With God all things are possible. To want sexual matters to be more “realistic” I understand that you are saying that it is impossible to be chaste till one gets married. Difficult yes…impossible no.

We need to hold up high standards for those who follow Jesus.They ARE possible if one cooperates with His grace. What God wants for us is happiness now, and forever. Following His commands can achieve that happiness.

Repentance and forgiveness is there for those who seek it.

 

[jilly4ski]

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

Go back and read the example again. Mary was 12 or 13, when she gave birth to Jesus. Of course as Christians we believe that Mary was a virgin at that time, and as Catholics that she remained a virgin throughout her life. And if you read more into the story, Joseph was not 12 or 13. He was older and established. This merely points to the fact the girls were often married off young, but does not point to the same fact with boys/men. In fact it was assumed that in order for a man to marry and thus have sexual relations, he would already be established and be able to care for a wife and children, therefore he would not be 12 or 13. So all we have really seen is a upward push in the age of females getting married not males.

 

[seanflynn]

where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more).

Look at your own language: “We generally want . . .”

Moses didn’t say from Mt. Sinai, "God generally wants . . . "

They are commandments from God, unchangeable, immutable, objectively good (even when we don’t understand), and good for us.

If what we want is opposed to God’s command, then our desire is what is disordered. I’m not saying it’s a sin to go to college before getting married, only that God is more interested in our obedience than our education.

Many generations of people lived lives of labor without college or career. If they went to heaven, I’d rather live like them than the comfortable modern man, if that means going to hell.

I would consider this “a more flexible and modern approach” that doesn’t violate God’ teaching and doesn’t delay sexuality as late:

Get married young (18-21) while continuing your education. Live in larger family communities than is currently normal, like multi-generational households, to save on the cost of living for all involved. When the young couple has graduated and secured a better income, they move out (with their presumably small children). The problem with this approach is that it requires the flexibility from us, not the Church.

 

[Reuben_J]

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

Hi. What do you expect to hear in a Christian forum? I can only argue about it from the point of my belief. What is realistic and what is not, do not figure in the law of God for God decides what it is. We only have to obey.

You have valid reason of course for you are dealing with reality. Human reality however does not often times squares with God’s way.

 

[mcteague]

Yes it is possible to live by these rather strict interpretations. But it certainly would have been easier when marriage ages were commonly younger. I would also think that some of the extreme positions I have heard here; ie supporting the repressing of even sexual thoughts are probably psychologically aberrant. It is not something I think a normal person can, or should do.
By more modern and flexible I primarily mean this. Discussing the issue in the bifurcated way that the Heaven Hell paradigm does can cause us to ignore and avoid addressing moral issues as they exist in the real world. So instead of teaching young people what is appropriate or good behavior in a sexually orientated situation, we can avoid it because such interaction should not be taking place at all. But it is taking place. Very few people are actually devoid of previous sexual activity when they marry. This is true even on a site like.

It is also true that asking people to do something completely contrary to human nature, which I admit is difficult but not impossible, may push them away from the community that I would think you all would want them to be a part of.

I hardly feel qualified to speak for the Catholic Church, and only slightly more so for God. But I believe a proper moral philosophy should focus less on immutable distinctions of right and wrong, and more on a hierarchy of preferential behaviors, and the cultivation of better habits. Yes I admit it. To some degree I am a moral relativist. But I don’t think that means what some people here think it does. And of course any moral system may have its limitations and abuses. I would not say to some one that its acceptable to cheat on your wife as long as you don’t make a habit of it.

Heading back a little closer to point, I would rather that when your teenage sons are heading off to college that you have taught them to respect others, and that no means no rather then having those, in my opinion, more important moral issues being ignored because of an unrealistic belief that the issue should not or would not come up in the first place. I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live. You might still say to them that according to the religious teachings you follow that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But it might be equally or more important to teach them take responsibility for the actions they do take. That might mean supporting a child if that is the result of the act. But it also might mean engaging in that act in the most responsible way they can. And yes I mean even if the process of taking responsibility may be considered a sin.

 

[davidv]

Yes it is possible to live by these rather strict interpretations. But it certainly would have been easier when marriage ages were commonly younger.

Why? Was adultery or lust any less prevalent?

I would also think that some of the extreme positions I have heard here; ie supporting the repressing of even sexual thoughts are probably psychologically aberrant. It is not something I think a normal person can, or should do.

Why do you think the Church teaching request “repressing”? It calls for self-control.

By more modern and flexible I primarily mean this. Discussing the issue in the bifurcated way that the Heaven Hell paradigm does can cause us to ignore and avoid addressing moral issues as they exist in the real world.

Bifurcated, like you want to all the things that takes you away from God (hell), but you don’t want to go there? How real is that?

So instead of teaching young people what is appropriate or good behavior in a sexually orientated situation, we can avoid it because such interaction should not be taking place at all.

Based on this comment, I don’t think you know what the Church teaches in these situations.

But it is taking place. Very few people are actually devoid of previous sexual activity when they marry. This is true even on a site like.

Since when does popularity define what is true?

It is also true that asking people to do something completely contrary to human nature, which I admit is difficult but not impossible, may push them away from the community that I would think you all would want them to be a part of.

Your basic error is assuming that purity is unnatural. Quite the contrary, it is the most natural way of humanity.

I hardly feel qualified to speak for the Catholic Church, and only slightly more so for God. But I believe a proper moral philosophy should focus less on immutable distinctions of right and wrong, and more on a hierarchy of preferential behaviors, and the cultivation of better habits. Yes I admit it. To some degree I am a moral relativist. But I don’t think that means what some people here think it does. And of course any moral system may have its limitations and abuses. I would not say to some one that its acceptable to cheat on your wife as long as you don’t make a habit of it.

Heading back a little closer to point, I would rather that when your teenage sons are heading off to college that you have taught them to respect others, and that no means no rather then having those, in my opinion, more important moral issues being ignored because of an unrealistic belief that the issue should not or would not come up in the first place. I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live. You might still say to them that according to the religious teachings you follow that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But it might be equally or more important to teach them take responsibility for the actions they do take. That might mean supporting a child if that is the result of the act. But it also might mean engaging in that act in the most responsible way they can. And yes I mean even if the process of taking responsibility may be considered a sin.

It appears that you have an highly distorted view of human sexuality.

 

[Reuben_J]

mcteague, honestly I don’t think you will get anywhere with your argument here. We have different values and our premises are different. For that reason topics about atheism are banned in this forum.

As you can see, what you say do not arise at all in Christianity. You say, “I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live”.

What is “the context of how people actually live”? The context of how Christians actually live is fine, thank you very much. We do not have a problem at all with morality or with our belief. It does not come into equation for us. You do have a problem with yours, I suppose, but that’s really for you to deal with.

Sure there are Christians who are lost, who don’t live their lives according to what they should and those who do not even know what they supposed to believe being not brought up in the environment and being Christians in name only.

 

[joandarc2008]

If I can be chaste at 31 after having been through a divorce and knowing darn well what sex is like I could stayed chaste in my younger years with better teaching on chastity. I am disappointed in myself looking back. Thats all there is too it, education, discipline, and prayer.

 

[Newbie2]

Moses didn’t say from Mt. Sinai, "God generally wants . . . "

Sorry, you had good points in your post, but this strikes me as funny.

“I, the Lord your God, generally want you not to kill”

 

[mcteague]

Before closing this topic let me say a few things. This was never really an argument for or against chastity. And it has little to do with my sexual views. The real question is whether the moral system presented by many Catholics here incorrectly abandons people who may choose, or may be unable, to abide by these rather strict rules.

Is an absolutist moral philosophy really best? Forget for a moment that we are talking about sex. Stealing is wrong. If you could speak to a hungry person who was about to steal food. Would you simply repeat over and over again that they were sinning, or would you speak to them about doing the least possible harm?

One can certainly advocate for the values of love, or of Christianity if you prefer, in a non marital sexual encounter. It does not have to be base, selfish, or vulgar. If one does not engage in that conversation, and takes an exclusively black and white stance, are we contributing to the moral development of our societies to the degree we could.

This is especially true if one believes as I do that most people will ignore the more extreme argument. Shouldn’t the moral teaching focus on the underlying values rather than the rather rigid dogmatic view of in marriage only.

 

[Timothy17]

Before closing this topic let me say a few things. This was never really an argument for or against chastity. And it has little to do with my sexual views. The real question is whether the moral system presented by many Catholics here incorrectly abandons people who may choose, or may be unable, to abide by these rather strict rules.

The rules are not strict. Telling your child not to touch a hot stove-top is not strict. It’s truth. Your child may well protest at the seeming crime of his being unable to touch a hot stove-top with impunity, and charge you with being overly strict (though it is not you that is strict, but reality) ; nonetheless, you would not - if you have any love for your child whatsoever - therefore change your rule to permit the child to burn himself.

Is an absolutist moral philosophy really best?

Absolutely.

Forget for a moment that we are talking about sex. Stealing is wrong.

Says whom ? Because your elected officials tell you so ? Because your conscience tells you so ? Is stealing someone’s innocence not a crime, though you proclaim stealing to be wrong ?

If you could speak to a hungry person who was about to steal food. Would you simply repeat over and over again that they were sinning, or would you speak to them about doing the least possible harm?

Sinning, and I can say that, because I know what it is to be hungry and desire stealing to accomodate it. Faith liberates us from sin, for only with Faith can a man say, “Though my life be threatened with hunger, and though my body may perish, nonetheless God sees me and knows my need, and will never permit me to suffer death or hell for abiding by His commands.” Faith tells us that though we may perish, we will yet rise again. Based on this Truth a man can confidently shed his own life for the sake of another.

One can certainly advocate for the values of love, or of Christianity if you prefer, in a non marital sexual encounter.

You presume to dictate on your own authority what someone may or may not advocate ?

It does not have to be base, selfish, or vulgar. If one does not engage in that conversation, and takes an exclusively black and white stance, are we contributing to the moral development of our societies to the degree we could.

Our society does not have morals when it engages in sexual deviancy. Sexual deviancy is a root sin ; i.e., the spring of all sins.

This is especially true if one believes as I do that most people will ignore the more extreme argument. Shouldn’t the moral teaching focus on the underlying values rather than the rather rigid dogmatic view of in marriage only.

“Rather,” you say ? By what measure ? By your own self do you measure and mete out for others.

Pax,
Tim

 

[mcteague]

You presume to dictate on your own authority what someone may or may not advocate ?

This is a misinterpretation of what I have written. I am not dictating to anyone.
Writing " One can tie ones shoes" simply means the act of shoe tying shows is possible. It does not mean I am dictating who may or may not tie shoes.

The reverse position (seemingly held here) regarding the issue, that one can not make more morally correct choices once one chooses to violate the basic ‘in marriage only’ precept, is actually the more dictatorial one. Its all or nothing

 

[Tantum_ergo]

This is a misinterpretation of what I have written. I am not dictating to anyone.
Writing " One can tie ones shoes" simply means the act of shoe tying shows is possible. It does not mean I am dictating who may or may not tie shoes.

The reverse position (seemingly held here) regarding the issue, that one can not make more morally correct choices once one chooses to violate the basic ‘in marriage only’ precept, is actually the more dictatorial one. Its all or nothing

Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, else what’s a heaven for?

You know, throughout history, men and woman have striven to achieve what seems ‘impossible’.

Did any civilization ever advance when it decided to NOT try to do what was difficult, and rather to ‘lower’ expectations?

Study history. The civilizations which stopped trying wound up dying.

So why should ‘sex’ be any different from the other concepts and ways in which humanity tries to achieve ‘greatness’?

 

[davidv]

Before closing this topic let me say a few things. This was never really an argument for or against chastity. And it has little to do with my sexual views. The real question is whether the moral system presented by many Catholics here incorrectly abandons people who may choose, or may be unable, to abide by these rather strict rules.

The Church does not abandon any. It is the sinner who abandons God and His Church.

Is an absolutist moral philosophy really best? Forget for a moment that we are talking about sex. Stealing is wrong. If you could speak to a hungry person who was about to steal food. Would you simply repeat over and over again that they were sinning, or would you speak to them about doing the least possible harm?

One can certainly advocate for the values of love, or of Christianity if you prefer, in a non marital sexual encounter.

This is not Christian love.

It does not have to be base, selfish, or vulgar. If one does not engage in that conversation, and takes an exclusively black and white stance, are we contributing to the moral development of our societies to the degree we could.

Why is it when dealing with human moral behavior there are always attempts to lower the bar of excellence. In almost all other human endeavors the bars is being constantly raised?

This is especially true if one believes as I do that most people will ignore the more extreme argument. Shouldn’t the moral teaching focus on the underlying values rather than the rather rigid dogmatic view of in marriage only.

It is precisely because of the underlying values that the Church teaches as she does. Those values demand adherence to the unchanging truth, not some relativistic feeling.

 

[edwest2]

Yes it is possible to live by these rather strict interpretations. But it certainly would have been easier when marriage ages were commonly younger. I would also think that some of the extreme positions I have heard here; ie supporting the repressing of even sexual thoughts are probably psychologically aberrant. It is not something I think a normal person can, or should do.
By more modern and flexible I primarily mean this. Discussing the issue in the bifurcated way that the Heaven Hell paradigm does can cause us to ignore and avoid addressing moral issues as they exist in the real world. So instead of teaching young people what is appropriate or good behavior in a sexually orientated situation, we can avoid it because such interaction should not be taking place at all. But it is taking place. Very few people are actually devoid of previous sexual activity when they marry. This is true even on a site like.

It is also true that asking people to do something completely contrary to human nature, which I admit is difficult but not impossible, may push them away from the community that I would think you all would want them to be a part of.

I hardly feel qualified to speak for the Catholic Church, and only slightly more so for God. But I believe a proper moral philosophy should focus less on immutable distinctions of right and wrong, and more on a hierarchy of preferential behaviors, and the cultivation of better habits. Yes I admit it. To some degree I am a moral relativist. But I don’t think that means what some people here think it does. And of course any moral system may have its limitations and abuses. I would not say to some one that its acceptable to cheat on your wife as long as you don’t make a habit of it.

Heading back a little closer to point, I would rather that when your teenage sons are heading off to college that you have taught them to respect others, and that no means no rather then having those, in my opinion, more important moral issues being ignored because of an unrealistic belief that the issue should not or would not come up in the first place. I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live. You might still say to them that according to the religious teachings you follow that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But it might be equally or more important to teach them take responsibility for the actions they do take. That might mean supporting a child if that is the result of the act. But it also might mean engaging in that act in the most responsible way they can. And yes I mean even if the process of taking responsibility may be considered a sin.

Well, let’s talk about how people actually live. You are hired to perform a job and you are given certain rules. In a few cases, not obeying a few of those rules may cause you to lose your job. Your employer understands you are a human being, that you might get sick on occasion or have some other legitimate reason to be absent. Otherwise, he expects you to follow the rules as long as you work there. You have no say.

You may even disagree with a few rules, but you understand that all must follow these rules regardless of what they personally think. You agree to follow the rules. Now, why should anyone be Catholic or want to be Catholic if we can just do things our way from time to time? Wouldn’t it be better to simply borrow a few good ideas from the Church and from a few other sources that appeal to you and leave it at that? What we need to know is what Pope Benedict is very concerned about right now, “Too many people are living as if God does not exist.” Sure, people can make little agreements among themselves and personally take responsibility should something unplanned happen, but the Church has God’s Word as her and our guide.

Peace,
Ed