Sacraments and vocation correlations

[klmt123]

There are only 2 Sacraments of service. Marriage and holy orders. How does anyone not see the correlation between 2 sacraments of service and 2 vocations as only being single with no sex , and marriage??? There is no in between state. You can’t be single and sexually active. For Catholics, If we want to be sexually active, we have to find someone to love and get married. Otherwise we are to be celibate or in the religious life and be celibate. So it’s clear to see that there are only 2 vocations in life, marriage or celibacy(single with no sex for life).

 

[Arwing]

Uh… I’m not really sure I understand your point, sorry.

If what you’re saying is that if it were acceptable to be single and sexually active there’d be a sacrament for it, then… I guess?

 

[klmt123]

I wrote a topic earlier and nobody could comprehend that either. It’s okay. I was told I didn’t know what I was talking about and had no knowledge. It was very rude.

 

[Arwing]

I was told I didn’t know what I was talking about and had no knowledge.

Well, I’m sorry you were told that, that certainly isn’t true! God bless.

 

[Fauken]

There are only 2 Sacraments of service. Marriage and holy orders.

Correct.

How does anyone not see the correlation between 2 sacraments of service and 2 vocations as only being single with no sex , and marriage???

Because it’s a little more complicated than just those two? And what of people who have been previously engaged in sexual activity? Like, for example, priests who received their Holy Orders after their wives died? Are their Orders invalid due to their carnal knowledge? Or Deacons who are ordained while they’re married? Celibacy does not mean no sex. More specifically, celibacy refers to not marrying. When an priest or a deacon takes a vow of celibacy, he vows to henceforth never marry.

There is no in between state.

I just listed at least one that would be considered “in-between”.

You can’t be single and sexually active.

Agreed.

For Catholics, If we want to be sexually active, we have to find someone to love and get married.

I’m not sure I like how you worded this. Marriage is a Sacrament of Service as you said, not Sacrament that Gives License to Have Sex.

Otherwise we are to be celibate or in the religious life and be celibate.

No, we are to be chaste or enter religious life and be celibate.

So it’s clear to see that there are only 2 vocations in life, marriage or celibacy(single with no sex for life).

Celibacy does not mean what you think it means, and that is where a lot of confusion is coming from.

 

[klmt123]

Chaste is loving others without having sex. We are all called to be Chaste. Celibacy is abstaining from all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom.

 

[klmt123]

And a Catholic marriage is NOT VALID without consummation. So therefore there must be sex or there is no validity.

 

[klmt123]

Thank you, I appreciate that!

 

[Fauken]

Celibacy is abstaining from all sexual activity for the sake of the kingdom.

No, it’s not.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-...nence-9-things-to-know-and-share#.Wvz8fslOm7M

“Celibacy is the state of not being married.”
“Chastity is the virtue of being sexually pure.”

While unmarried people can be said to be celibate, they are not necessarily called to celibacy, else they would remain unmarried.

And a Catholic marriage is NOT VALID without consummation. So therefore there must be sex or there is no validity.

Actually, it is valid. It can, however, be dissolved, unlike a consummated marriage.

Canon Law and Consummating a Marriage - Canon Law Made EasyCanon Law Made Easy

 

[klmt123]

Um I thought a person couldn’t marry unless the opposite sex spouse had a working penis, if you are female. That is the point in heterosexual marriage. Without sexual intercourse and no consummation it would be like saying it’s okay for homosexuals to get married in the church. Obviously later in life there are medical reasons for not being able to have sex, but in order for the church to allow you to get married in the church both people must be able to have sex. I am trying to simplify things, cut straight to the point and everyone just quotes what they can’t explain easily.

 

[Fauken]

Impotency is one thing, abstaining from sex is another. One of those is a physical impairment that (presumably) cannot be overcome, therefore, the marriage cannot be open to life. A “marriage” between two members of the same sex is invalid for that same reason: it cannot be open to life. The abstaining couple, however, can be open to life. They’re fully capable of consummation, it’s just for whatever reason (for example, they don’t have the financial means to support a child), they are mutually abstaining from sex.

Was the marriage between St. Joseph and the Blessed Mother not valid because of their lack of consummation?

 

[klmt123]

No, it was valid because the angel told Joseph to marry her, but it was consummated after the birth of Jesus. Every Bible says so in Matthew Chapter 1:25… http://biblehub.com/matthew/1-25.htm … Maybe it was maybe, it wasn’t who really knows? The Bible is meant to have divine inspiration when reading and that’s what I got from reading it. Don’t take this the wrong way, I am not speaking against the Virgin Mary because she was a Virgin, it was immaculate conception, she was chosen to have the son of God and Jesus said at the foot of the cross “this is your mother” . I just don’t believe that she was a virgin her entire life because it doesn’t say that or go into detail much about the life of Mary and Joseph’s marriage. It says “she remained a virgin until she gave birth to a son or he did not consummate the marriage until she birth” … God created sex and sex is good as long as it’s within the proper relationship, which is marriage, because premarital sex is wrong on so many levels and for so many reasons.

 

[Fauken]

No, it was valid because the angel told Joseph to marry her, but it was consummated after the birth of Jesus. Every Bible says so in Matthew Chapter 1:25

I noticed on your profile that you’re Catholic. You should know then that the perpetual virginity of Mary is the view that’s held by the Church, and I don’t think it’s negotiable.

http://m.ncregister.com/blog/darmst...-the-perpetual-virginity-of-mary#.Wv2ODMlOm7M

The “until” in Matthew 1:25 does not mean that Joseph and Mary did have relations after the birth of Jesus. This article points out other verses (1 Samuel 15:35; 2 Samuel 6:23; Matthew 12:20) where this is the case and also proves it through other verses.

 

[edward_george1]

What about the consecrated religious life? To be a religious means to be celibate, and in the broad majority of cases, religious aren’t ordained. This is because a huge number of religious are female, and the ones that are male are not always members of clerical societies.

As for “celibacy” and “chastity,” you seem to have your definitions a little mixed up. Celibacy is the state of abstaining from marriage. A single person who is just not yet married (or who hasn’t taken a promise of celibacy) is not said to be celibate, since it is an actual chosen commitment, and not simply one’s circumstances. And chastity is the virtue of being sexually pure. All people are called to chastity. Married people must be chaste within the context of marriage, meaning that their relations are open to life and exclusive.

You keep posting about this seeming binary between sexual/non-sexual way of life and how that correlates to marriage/celibacy, but it’s really not quite that simple. There are many other layers to this, and different ways people can live their lives, whether permanently or in transition. And besides, per your earlier thread, just because someone can control himself sexually doesn’t mean that he should automatically become a priest. There are many priests who struggle with sexual temptation (one doesn’t stop being human the moment he’s ordained). And there are many married people who control themselves sexually. In fact, if one can’t exercise self-control sexually, this can present problems within marriage. It’s just not the case that priesthood (or religious life) is this state for magical, quasi-angelic beings with no sexual desire, and that marriage is a sexual free-for-all for those with no self-control. If someone doesn’t have sexual desire, this is not necessarily a positive or normal thing, and they may be rejected for seminary or religious application (this is part of the psychological evaluation done beforehand). And if someone views marriage as this unchecked license to simply have sex all the time, this could be very problematic for that state in life as well.

In short, all are called to chastity, each within his particular state in life. That’s going to look different in different vocations. It’s not quite as simple as you’re making it.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[klmt123]

Thank you, I am reading a lot on sexuality and just finished a book called sex and virtue. Currently reading Catholic sexual ethics and bought a book called rape within marriage and just finished humanae vitae and am reading familiaris consortio, Im reading all kids of Catholics stuff on sexuality and natural family planning stuff . Have listened to talks on theology of the body and read the textbooks for high scjool and middle school on theology of the body for teens, Have about 40 Bibles in my house, and am not looking for debates just conversation, I do not want to feel attacked by anyone . We are all on our own walk with God

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Marriage is a vocation, religious life is a vocation, and single life can be a vocation if you feel called to commit to it (rather than just waiting for marriage to come along or waiting till you can be admitted to a religious order).

Whether or not you have to be “celibate” is determined by the requirements of your vocation in conjunction with the rules of the Church.

Just being “celibate” in and of itself, without more, is not a “vocation”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If I may ask, what’s the big interest you have in sexuality? It seems like a lot of your posts are focusing on this issue, sometimes to the exclusion of other related issues.

The fact that you have 40 Bibles in your house doesn’t mean much of anything to me. Somebody could have 1 Catholic Bible in their house and still be able to have thoughts on this topic.

 

[klmt123]

We are all sexual beings. I have been abstaining for several years and to help me not give in to casual sex I read books on Catholic sexuality. I converted to Catholic at 24 and used to be sexually active. I stopped having sex at right before my 27th birthday and am now 30 soon to be 31 in summer. I get harassed about not being sexually active and do not know anyone who isn’t having sex so I keep to myself have no friends, separated myself from everyone I used to know and they just all think I’m a lesbian or bisexual because I am not having sex , some of them claimed to be Catholics and they aren’t or else they’d understand the teachings about no sex until marriage. Books help strengthen me .

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you for the explanation. I understand better now.

Yes, I can see the difficulty in this world of you following the path you have chosen.

it’s even hard for married people - if you suggest to anyone that sex is not the centerpiece of your happy marriage, that maybe something else is more important, immediately you get made fun of or called names, people assume you are miserable in your marriage or that your spouse must be, or that you have some psychological problem. Very quickly, one learns not to talk about sex, even to one’s friends.

If you are a single person and don’t want a sexual relationship then likewise, everyone assumes you must have something wrong with you. It is just sad.

I wish you the best on your continued faith journey with Christ.

 

[JulianN]

I’m sure that’s very difficult – but perhaps you could find friends who do not feel this subject needs to be discussed? I cannot imagine talking about my sexual activity, or lack thereof, over coffee with my friends.