Realistic sexual values

[Thoughtfulone]

I agree in some ways with the O.P. It is irresponsible parenting not to give your child all the information available to keep themselves safe. Also, Joseph was probably a widower when he married Mary and so would have been married at a younger age. It is difficult for people who hit puberty at 12 but are told to just ignore all sexual thoughts or activity for 15 more years. I’m not saying it can’t be done or that we shouldn’t by all means strive for purity, but just saying, “Don’t do it” and not allowing any room for discussion is just asking for trouble.

 

[Mrs_V]

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.

THIS is exactly what my husband and I did, thanks to my caring and VERY GIVING parents. I know we will return the caring & giving down the road when they are in need of family to care for them.

 

[wjp984]

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”

Although that is pretty much how it is interpreted. You shall not kill unless you are in a war or self defense, or capital punishment, etc.

All the commandments really could be generally when you think about it.

 

[Viki63]

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

I think you misunderstand the Catholic church and her stance. One can, of course, make more and less morally correct choices, and only God can discern your heart and what your guilt or innocence may be.
Frequenting a prostitute is wrong. But beating up or killing a prostitute is much more evil, obviously.
Having premarital sex is wrong. But if you have HIV, it’s certainly more responsible to attempt to safeguard your partner by using a condom.
It’s not all or nothing. Each choice we make takes us a step closer to or farther from our ultimate destiny, God or His absence. And only God can judge our hearts, but our job is to judge our own behavior, and try to make it conform to His will.

 

[edwest2]

I agree in some ways with the O.P. It is irresponsible parenting not to give your child all the information available to keep themselves safe. Also, Joseph was probably a widower when he married Mary and so would have been married at a younger age. It is difficult for people who hit puberty at 12 but are told to just ignore all sexual thoughts or activity for 15 more years. I’m not saying it can’t be done or that we shouldn’t by all means strive for purity, but just saying, “Don’t do it” and not allowing any room for discussion is just asking for trouble.

“asking for trouble”? How so? And what will the discussion be about? Can I follow 95% of Church teaching and just be ‘flexible’ with the other 5%?

Parents had to go through puberty too. They get the attraction and the hormones. They get that. That’s why, not long ago, and today, the young man was politely required to sit down with the girl’s father. “How are you going to take care of my daughter?” He knew the guy was half blind from the girl’s looks and from his hormones, but marriage was, and for some, still is, serious business. You don’t risk bringing another human being into this world by just doing what you think is best or imagining that no one ever felt the way you do right now.

The right and responsible thing to do is to get married and for all the right reasons. Yeah, she’s hot but that is not what will keep you together. You have to genuinely enjoy the other person’s company and have things in common. Less than 5% of your time will be spent in the sack. Someone has to clean house, cook meals, pay bills, keep the car going and all that other stuff. That is what makes for a good, stable marriage. That, and for the father, making sure his daughter does not pick a lazy, possibly abusive, bum.

By not getting any real guidance about how to develop a real relationship, it just turns into a series of sexual ‘test drives,’ with one possible outcome being you never really get to know the other person.

Relationship first. Sex after a commitment is made.

Peace,
Ed

 

[spunjalebi]

I think the problem here is that family values take a backseat to education. I think education is a good thing that everyone should consider, and it doesn’t always have to be at the traditional university which offers a bachelor’s degree. But does education have to be mutually exclusive to family? No.

I am still in college and I have been married for a couple of years. I waited until marriage to have sex. Believe me a lot of people told me that it wasn’t realistic for me to think that I would wait until marriage, that I wouldn’t be strong enough, etc. I got laughed at, scoffed at, etc. I was also over 21 when I did get married, which is a miracle to many people. And I did have “sexual contact” with my husband, if you are referring to kissing and cuddling. Honestly if I didn’t ever kiss my husband I would have had an asthma attack after the wedding

My husband and I discussed what we would do if I got pregnant during college. I talked to lots of people who were pregnant during their college years and what they emphasized was that they had a plan. That may have included taking incompletes and then making up the classes after the baby was born, or taking fewer classes, etc. but it was still a plan.

At my church there was a couple who got married at 19 because they felt that it was right for them and saw no reason to delay marriage. They’ve been married for more than 10 years.

The problem here is you don’t have to have “everything” before you get married and start a family. Even my husband and I have realized that we may never have “enough” money to truly “afford” a baby but it may come a time where we will really, really want a baby and we’ll make do. My husband and I were also broke when we got married, and continued to be so up until a little over a year ago. Honestly, I wouldn’t have waited any longer to get married, simply to finish my bachelor’s or get my master’s, or buy a house or whatever.

I find it very sad that people think it’s not “realistic” to have chaste values toward sexuality, and remain chaste until marriage. This shows a lack of proper instruction from parents about sexuality. I have yet to meet someone whose parents taught them about sexual feelings, proper boundaries, or chastity until marriage. Most parents freak out when they learn that their children have romantic/sexual feelings, and go in two extremes: either squash it to repression, or encourage free love.

 

[joandarc2008]

I think the problem here is that family values take a backseat to education. I think education is a good thing that everyone should consider, and it doesn’t always have to be at the traditional university which offers a bachelor’s degree. But does education have to be mutually exclusive to family? No.

I am still in college and I have been married for a couple of years. I waited until marriage to have sex. Believe me a lot of people told me that it wasn’t realistic for me to think that I would wait until marriage, that I wouldn’t be strong enough, etc. I got laughed at, scoffed at, etc. I was also over 21 when I did get married, which is a miracle to many people. And I did have “sexual contact” with my husband, if you are referring to kissing and cuddling. Honestly if I didn’t ever kiss my husband I would have had an asthma attack after the wedding

My husband and I discussed what we would do if I got pregnant during college. I talked to lots of people who were pregnant during their college years and what they emphasized was that they had a plan. That may have included taking incompletes and then making up the classes after the baby was born, or taking fewer classes, etc. but it was still a plan.

At my church there was a couple who got married at 19 because they felt that it was right for them and saw no reason to delay marriage. They’ve been married for more than 10 years.

The problem here is you don’t have to have “everything” before you get married and start a family. Even my husband and I have realized that we may never have “enough” money to truly “afford” a baby but it may come a time where we will really, really want a baby and we’ll make do. My husband and I were also broke when we got married, and continued to be so up until a little over a year ago. Honestly, I wouldn’t have waited any longer to get married, simply to finish my bachelor’s or get my master’s, or buy a house or whatever.

I find it very sad that people think it’s not “realistic” to have chaste values toward sexuality, and remain chaste until marriage. This shows a lack of proper instruction from parents about sexuality. I have yet to meet someone whose parents taught them about sexual feelings, proper boundaries, or chastity until marriage. Most parents freak out when they learn that their children have romantic/sexual feelings, and go in two extremes: either squash it to repression, or encourage free love.

That was really beautiful!

 

[OraLabora]

One must distinguish between God’s law, which is the highest standard possible, and which is immutable, and pastoral care for the sheep entrusted to the care of His Church.

Quite clearly we are a fallen species, prone to sin. That does not mean we need to water down the “rules”.

It means we have to help the sinner back on his/her feet after each fall, and help the sinner strive for self-improvement.

Someone with a low sex drive might find it very easy to follow God’s law. Someone with a high sex drive or struggling with deep personal issues such as childhood abuse, may have a very tough time indeed. God loves either person as His child. If a human parent has a wayward child, do we not love him or her just as much as our other children? We want the best for the child.

God is the same, but he recognizes the heroic struggles that many face: addiction, worldly pressures, high sex drive, mental illness, etc.

If the person with the high drive or addiction manages to abstain for say X weeks instead of X hours, before falling into sin again, God will surely see that as an improvement and a desire of the sinner to follow God’s way, a small but concrete step on the road to sainthood. He will have mercy for the sinner when in X weeks he falls again, and will sacramentally help him up again.

He may in fact condemn the high and mighty who is “pure” and engages in the sin of pride at his or her purity, while rewarding the effort of the sinner who is far from perfect but admits it in all humility. Remember the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican.

The Church is, as she should be, hard on sin, but soft on sinners. We are all sinners whether it involves sexual matters or other matters, and should be grateful for God’s mercy and sacraments to help us along.

 

[joandarc2008]

And by the way marriage does not necessarily mean that someone is going to be free of sexual sin. There are plenty of ways that someone can commit the sin of lust within the marriage. Pureness of heart is pureness of heart whether single or married. Just a thought.

 

[seanflynn]

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?

If the person is merely feeling the urge to eat after a few hours since their last meal, then I would certainly tell them not to steal. If they were facing starvation, then there is no analogy to be made to sexuality, because no one can possibly die from lack of sex. Consensual sexual acts are never a matter of life or death for the participant. Eating food can be the difference between continuing living and starving to death.

 

[Christopher68]

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.

To me there is a vast difference between the ‘sex’ and ‘stealing’ analogies being used here. I understand the difficulty in comprehending the teachings on sex. For instance, something is considered ‘bad’ under one set of conditions (not being married) but is considered good under another set of conditions (being married), although in the latter there are still further conditions set forth that can make the act ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Stealing, however, will always be ‘bad’ - even if one is stealing to feed their family - because you are taking from a third party without their permission.

 

[Antrim]

Gods laws apply the same now as they did 2000 years ago,. Remember these laws come under the ten commandments.
The sixth forbids all words looks and actions contrary to holy purity. The ninth forbids all impure thoughts and desires wilfully entertained or concented to.
Pray the Rosarey every day. Go to confession and Holy Communion frequently. Say The Chaplet of Devine Mercy every day.

Antrim

 

[mackk]

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.

I can sorta see what you are aiming at …
a couple hundred years ago there was no such thing as teenagers … you were a child then you married and were an adult … there wasn’t any mucking about in the middle of that …
pre-industrial life didn’t lead to longevity. it was hard and fatal in all cases
the morals we live by were created in a time when you would have been a virgin to 13 ish and then you would be an adult … with no middle ground.
and you want to know if perhaps those morals might not be sensibly applicable to an era in which we now have an additional decade or so of maturity time before we are considered adults …
i hope i am correct and haven’t misjudged your question.
my response would have to be that those same morals might be even more advisable in this era … i mean in a pre-industrial civilization there wasn’t much time to make mistakes …
now our children have considerably more time to make permanent mistakes. mistakes that could leave them with parentless children or worse dead. I think that the idea of abstinence is even more important now .
in the setting we live in if a “child” steps back and avoids the occasion of sexuality … until marriage and does not marry until they are say 25 … they have the chance to become a complete person. a whole human who is capable of loving and caring for children rather than begrudging their loss of “freedom”. one who is able to understand the intricacies of marriage in a way that no 13 year old ever could.

 

[mackk]

To me there is a vast difference between the ‘sex’ and ‘stealing’ analogies being used here. I understand the difficulty in comprehending the teachings on sex. For instance, something is considered ‘bad’ under one set of conditions (not being married) but is considered good under another set of conditions (being married), although in the latter there are still further conditions set forth that can make the act ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Stealing, however, will always be ‘bad’ - even if one is stealing to feed their family - because you are taking from a third party without their permission.

I have to disagree that stealing is always bad.
and hungry baby can’t wait for you to find a way to multiply bread .
and failing to see to their needs is INFINITELY more sinful that stealing ever could be.

 

[GraceDK]

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.
.

Pure speculation.
She could have been anything between 14 and 18. There is no need to assume she was a child of 12 (unless you ask the Moslems. They like to say Mary was only 12, in order to compare it with Aisha who was only 9 when Muhammad had sex with her and thus silence Christian voices against child marriage in the Moslem world). Although there is a huge difference between these cases, I gotta wonder about peoples intentions when they insist on believing that Mary was a mere child when she gave birth to Jesus. Seems a bit sick to me.

 

[twoangels]

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.

I got married at the age of 29 and was still a virgin. Chastity wasn’t hard when I wasn’t dating anyone. It was only hard when I was “seriously” dating someone. It was even harder if I dated someone who didn’t value chastity or waiting till marriage.

The thing is, marriage is what God designed. Dating is what we designed in order to choose our own spouses. But jumping your own life from one semi-committed relationship to another is not good for chastity. I see absolutely no reason for a 12 year old to have a boyfriend or for anyone to have a boyfriend if they are not at a point in their life where they’re ready to discern marriage. And I definitely do not see too much of a need to prolong the courtship or the engagement. The key isn’t to surpress feelings but to avoid unnecessary occassions of sin.

What I can say is that the several years I wasn’t in any relationship, it was quite easy to remain chaste.

 

[Christopher68]

I have to disagree that stealing is always bad.
and hungry baby can’t wait for you to find a way to multiply bread .
and failing to see to their needs is INFINITELY more sinful that stealing ever could be.

The person being stolen from will surely disagree with you.

 

[j35u5fr34k]

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

Yes, anytime someone says more modern and flexible it raises flags with me. Second, the OP stated that we must resist lustful urges until marriage. NO! We must resist lustful urges, period!

Lust is a sin. Ordered sexual desire is not.

The values that the Church teaches on sexuality are realistic.

For anyone who wants more information, please refer to Christopher West and the Theology of the Body talks he has called Naked Without Shame.

 

[mackk]

The person being stolen from will surely disagree with you.

funny thing more often than not if i’ve been stolen from i assume that they (the thief) reallllly needed the item that they stole. it is a very rare occasion that you’ll find me pressing charges or fighting and arguing with others over objects.
perhaps this is a matter of imbalanced priorities. things are things and save for a few family relics and the like they can always be replaced. i live personally about 4 inches below the place where folks who are poor hang out. I have learned if you are that attached to items … then they rule your life.
so if you or any one else for that matter are begrudging another human food or warmth perhaps you should re-think what matters.

 

[Christopher68]

funny thing more often than not if i’ve been stolen from i assume that they (the thief) reallllly needed the item that they stole. it is a very rare occasion that you’ll find me pressing charges or fighting and arguing with others over objects.
perhaps this is a matter of imbalanced priorities. things are things and save for a few family relics and the like they can always be replaced. i live personally about 4 inches below the place where folks who are poor hang out. I have learned if you are that attached to items … then they rule your life.
so if you or any one else for that matter are begrudging another human food or warmth perhaps you should re-think what matters.

There is a vast difference between helping someone in need, versus having something stolen from you. Yes, it would be nice if people donated more to help those in need. But that does not give someone the right to steal from another. That’s why I had to comment earlier that the comparison between ‘sex’ and ‘stealing’ is a faulty analogy - because with stealing there is someone who has been victimized.