Should Catholic women wear the veil?

[CatholicMan85]

After listening to some Catholic podcasts I am getting some pretty good impressions on how “strict” the faith is - in terms, you would pretty much have to be a Priest to be “pure” even if your wanting to get in the married life. (Or do they spread these guidelines to discourage people from sexuality and encourage them into the priesthood?)

• Looking at a woman “lustfully” is a sin, thus in theory it is a sin to look at someone as a possible person you would want to date, eventually get engaged to, and marry??? Sure looking at someone as a friend is fine, but anything more than a friend means you have sexual desires for the other - LUST - and this is evil. How are we supposed to get married if we don’t want to look at someone as someone we were to marry?
• Kissing is a sin as it can be sexually stimulating. Touching, hugging, all these are off limits as well. In other words, kissing your girlfriend when your leaving to go back to your place is a sin.
• Masturbation, for Men, is “pollution” and is a mortal sin, even if you are not thinking lustfully of anyone else. Meaning God will strike you down if you don’t repent for doing this, even when done inside of marriage.
• For women, masturbation is fine as long as it is done in Marriage.
• Sex can only be done to reproduce and have children. In theory, Natural Family Planning would have the intent to stave off pregnancy and thus ruin the “openness to life.”
• A marriage to someone has to be for the purpose of raising a family. If the woman is unable to have children due to medical conditions (such as ovarian cancer, etc…), she is unfit for marriage and should become a Nun or be single forever.
• After marriage, the woman is submissive to the man. The woman can work, but her primary role is to be at home with children. The woman should never make important decisions as she is too emotional and men are more rational.

In other words, you pretty much have to be priestly in order to be saved according to “moralists” or “purists.”

 

[coco2]

Huh? Can’t you look at someone you love without thinking about sex? Can’t you touch or hug someone without thinking about sex?

A kiss goodnight makes you want to have sex? Certainly you can kiss someone to show you love them without that.

Masturbation is a mortal sin for a woman in and out of marriage.

You have to be open to have children at any age. Who is to say that anyone is too old? Elizabeth became with child and also Sarah in the Bible after their time of conceiving. As long as you are open to it, you are ok to have sex within marriage at any age.

If you are open to having children, but are sterile, you still can marry because you are open to it, and if God wants to work a miracle, then great!

 

[icamay]

I’m currently attending Catholics Come Home, and I’m interpreting this completely different. Maybe if I post my perspective on some of these, we can get answers together.

• Looking at a woman “lustfully” is a sin, thus in theory it is a sin to look at someone as a possible person you would want to date, eventually get engaged to, and marry??? Sure looking at someone as a friend is fine, but anything more than a friend means you have sexual desires for the other - LUST - and this is evil. How are we supposed to get married if we don’t want to look at someone as someone we were to marry?

This is pretty uniform in most religions. First, let’s look at what Mr. Webster has to say about lust:

lust: intense or unbridled sexual desire

This is not a healthy way to look at someone of another gender, IMO. Yes, I have been attracted to people of the opposite gender; however, to have attraction to my friend that is “intense or unbridled” can be socially hindering and quite uncomfortable for all of us! There is a huge gap between “attraction” and “lust”.

• Kissing is a sin as it can be sexually stimulating. Touching, hugging, all these are off limits as well. In other words, kissing your girlfriend when your leaving to go back to your place is a sin.

Kissing, or heavy petting? This may be a matter of personal accountability, and many may feel that it puts someone in a precarious position. Maybe I’m more liberal, but I think kissing our date can be fun, as long as we all stay buttoned up!

• Sex can only be done to reproduce and have children. In theory, Natural Family Planning would have the intent to stave off pregnancy and thus ruin the “openness to life.”

Our class discussed that we have our spouse’s body to love and enjoy. Sex is our gift from God that binds us in a way that we are bound to no other person; it is the ultimate symbol of marital love. However, it is sinful to intentionally prevent pregnancy during intercourse, because then the bonds of love are blocked (as is any plan for life that God may have) - children being that ultimate result of this bond. In other words, sex is for love, and children may result from that love. I think your interpretation is looking at that from the opposite perspective.

• A marriage to someone has to be for the purpose of raising a family. If the woman is unable to have children due to medical conditions (such as ovarian cancer, etc…), she is unfit for marriage and should become a Nun or be single forever.

To marry without the intention of having a family is to marry in vain. Anyone who cannot naturally have children is not avoiding children out of intention, therefore, it is not a vain union. Those who are unable may still find themselves open to adoption, fostering, etc.

 

[Sunflake9]

“Looking at a woman “lustfully” is a sin, thus in theory it is a sin to look at someone as a possible person you would want to date, eventually get engaged to, and marry??? Sure looking at someone as a friend is fine, but anything more than a friend means you have sexual desires for the other - LUST - and this is evil. How are we supposed to get married if we don’t want to look at someone as someone we were to marry?”

If you look at anyone lustfully you are just looking at them just a “piece of meat” not as a person you thought was attractive and would like to get to know.

I dont know what podcasts youve been listening to but you might want to find diffrent ones.

 

[CatholicMan85]

First of all, is there really a difference between lust and sexual attraction? They are the same thing as far as I see it unless someone can explain it differnetly.

Also, maybe I should have rephrased the first thing to make more sense.

If I didn’t have the desire to have sex with someone which means getting married FIRST - and leads to the results of raising children, having a family, supporting those children, and eventually growing old together - then WHY in the world am I wasting my time dating someone, and not just being friends instead?

I would think dating someone because they are in a lower social status and you feel sorry for them and going into marriage for the whole purpose of supporting them is kind of not the purpose of marriage. Marriage in my opinion is a journey designed by God for two individuals who mutally love each other to share for the rest of their lives and even after death, and sex / sexual desire (same thing as lust in my books) is a very crucial part of marriage because if you didn’t have this desire for each other, then the marriage is pointless.

 

[WFS5801]

In other words, you pretty much have to be priestly in order to be saved according to “moralists” or “purists.”

I guess you’ll have to “excuse” the Church for being trying to follow Christ teachings “too” closely:

*[27] You have heard that it was said to them of old: Thou shalt not commit adultery. [28] But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart. [29] And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell. * – Matthew 5

 

[icamay]

I would think dating someone because they are in a lower social status and you feel sorry for them and going into marriage for the whole purpose of supporting them is kind of not the purpose of marriage.

Please delete whatever podcasts you’ve been listening to. Try this one.
:aok:

 

[CatholicMan85]

Please delete whatever podcasts you’ve been listening to. Try this one.
:aok:

sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

^ those are the ones I was basing it off of, along with my last 24 years of going to masses - admitted, they usually don’t talk about sexuality during your run-of-the-mill weekly mass.

 

[LilyM]

First of all, is there really a difference between lust and sexual attraction? They are the same thing as far as I see it unless someone can explain it differnetly.

The difference between lust and sexual attraction is like the difference between gluttony and enjoyment of food and drink. Of course we are sexually attracted to people - it’s part of God’s design for us. And of course we enjoy food and drink. God created these desires and created them good.

But that natural enjoyment of food and drink can be perverted, can become sinfully disordered, to the point where we focus unduly on our food and drink and become gluttons.

So that natural sexual attraction can also be perverted, and become sinfully disordered to the point where it crosses the line into lust.

The Catechism defines it thus:

“2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. [note - not properly ordered desire or enjoyment, not any and every type of desire or enjoyment] Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”

So yes, it is perfectly fine to desire and enjoy sex (or the thought thereof) with another person - IF such desire and enjoyment has to do with the legitimate ends of sex - procreation of children and/or UNITY (not just of body, but of mind, heart, soul and spirit) with another person.

So, as the CCC states, if you desire or enjoy sex wholly and solely as an end in and of itself, as an isolated activity, rather than as a means to the more noble purposes of procreation and unity with your spouse, only then does the desire and enjoyment cross the line and become lust.

Moreover, lust has nothing to do with the sort of random thoughts that and feelings that occur unbidden - we most all of us have those, and really have little if any control over them. These are therefore not sinful in any sense.

Sin only arises if we choose to create, entertain or dwell on inappropriate thoughts (for example, thoughts about someone we shouldn’t be thinking of having sex with), by for example consciously choosing to watch or listen to something that we know engenders those thoughts in us.

Hope this helps explain the difference.

 

[Shin]

After listening to some Catholic podcasts I am getting some pretty good impressions on how “strict” the faith is - in terms, you would pretty much have to be a Priest to be “pure” even if your wanting to get in the married life. (Or do they spread these guidelines to discourage people from sexuality and encourage them into the priesthood?)

• Looking at a woman “lustfully” is a sin, thus in theory it is a sin to look at someone as a possible person you would want to date, eventually get engaged to, and marry??? Sure looking at someone as a friend is fine, but anything more than a friend means you have sexual desires for the other - LUST - and this is evil. How are we supposed to get married if we don’t want to look at someone as someone we were to marry?

This is a good deal to digest, take it one step at a time…

One most properly marries for the spiritual calling, and expresses spiritual love therein, subordinated to God. After one has properly discerned the vocation. Most people don’t do this.

Acts of impurity alone are forbidden for both men and women, inside and outside of marriage.

Women can make important decisions. The man is simply the head of the family, by virtue of the ‘office’ of father. The woman has the ‘office’ of ‘mother’ and ‘wife’. Think of a captain and a lieutenant in the army. Neither is the general, both have a mission, one has somewhat more authority than the other but they both require one another and have their talents and spheres. They live out their offices for the sake of God, not for the sake of each other truly, that is subordinate. We love our neighbor for God’s sake.

It is true however, that to be saved one has to be pure. And that this purity is a purity that is different from what everyday and worldly people expect.

However it is not in fact as difficult as it may seem from someone caught up on vice in the beginning. It is simply the bad habits that make it seem so.

We are addicted to many vices and passions normally in this society. Coming out of it takes work. But that’s the spiritual life.

Generally, anything engaged in for the sake of sensual pleasure in and of itself, is a problem. If you -eat food- for the sake of the sensual pleasure alone, that’s a sin. You need to eat to live, not live to eat.

And if you do this, you will begin to appreciate the material world in its proper place.

God calls us to an entirely more spiritual life, where one subordinates physical desires to their actual reason and purpose for existence.

The natural law points in fact to, that it is shameful to indulge in sensual indulgence for its own sake. So a person can feel regret after being gluttonous, lustful, etc. naturally unless through habit this natural reaction has been trained out.

The Christian life is very different than the life commonly lived by people. But it is what we are called to. And it is a very good life, once we have detached from the vices of the old way of living.

 

[puzzleannie]

maybe you should look for podcasts that actually give Catholic teaching, rather than opinion of people who are not speaking for the Church but from their own issues.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

After listening to some Catholic podcasts I am getting some pretty good impressions on how “strict” the faith is - in terms, you would pretty much have to be a Priest to be “pure” even if your wanting to get in the married life. (Or do they spread these guidelines to discourage people from sexuality and encourage them into the priesthood?)

We are all called to be saints, not just priests.

• Looking at a woman “lustfully” is a sin, thus in theory it is a sin to look at someone as a possible person you would want to date, eventually get engaged to, and marry??? Sure looking at someone as a friend is fine, but anything more than a friend means you have sexual desires for the other - LUST - and this is evil. How are we supposed to get married if we don’t want to look at someone as someone we were to marry?

There is a difference between being attracted to a member of the opposite sex and lusting after him or her. There is also a difference if you are married or single. Both the Ninth Commandment and Jesus talk about this.

• Kissing is a sin as it can be sexually stimulating. Touching, hugging, all these are off limits as well. In other words, kissing your girlfriend when your leaving to go back to your place is a sin.

Light kisses are fine for those who are in a serious relationship. Passionate kissing (e.g. French kissing) is sinful outside of marriage. There is a difference between a goodnight kiss and making out.

• Masturbation, for Men, is “pollution” and is a mortal sin, even if you are not thinking lustfully of anyone else. Meaning God will strike you down if you don’t repent for doing this, even when done inside of marriage.

Yes, it is a mortal sin.

• For women, masturbation is fine as long as it is done in Marriage.

If you are talking about manual stimulation either herself or her husband in connection with the marital act, this is a debated point. St. Alphonsus says it is licit.

• Sex can only be done to reproduce and have children.

Correct. It doesn’t have to be your primary purpose of having sex, but the act has to be ordered towards that end. Pretty much as long as you aren’t engaging in unnatural sex or contraception and you are married, it is fine.

In theory, Natural Family Planning would have the intent to stave off pregnancy and thus ruin the “openness to life.”

NFP – properly called “periodic continence” (refraining from sexual activity during the most fertile times of the month) – is sinful unless it is done for a grave reason.

• A marriage to someone has to be for the purpose of raising a family. If the woman is unable to have children due to medical conditions (such as ovarian cancer, etc…), she is unfit for marriage and should become a Nun or be single forever.

No, the purpose of marriage is raising children. However, if the fault is on the side of nature, it is not our fault as long as they can still consummate the marriage. Hannah and Elizabeth both had problems having children, God fixed that. Of course, if you knew you were infertile and didn’t tell your spouse before the wedding, that’s a grave issue and grounds for an annulment based on misrepresentation/fraud.

• After marriage, the woman is submissive to the man. The woman can work, but her primary role is to be at home with children.

Correct. If a woman has children in the home and doesn’t have a serious reason to work (such as the husband is out of work or underemployed or she is a single mother), is a sin against the children to work outside of the home. It is unhealthy for kids to be raised in daycare simply because the parents want a fourth car or a big screen TV. It is also more important for mothers to be at home than to save up for their childrens’ college education.

The woman should never make important decisions as she is too emotional and men are more rational.

Men are the head of the household. This is the order of nature, not a simplistic “women are emotional, men are rational”. It is the duty of the husband to protect and care for his wife; it is the duty of the wife to care for her husband, to keep house and raise children. These duties are often reflected in the wedding vows.

In other words, you pretty much have to be priestly in order to be saved according to “moralists” or “purists.”

We all have to be saints. It has nothing to do with being priests – there are good priests and bad priests, but there are no bad saints.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html

^ those are the ones I was basing it off of, along with my last 24 years of going to masses - admitted, they usually don’t talk about sexuality during your run-of-the-mill weekly mass.

I love Fr. Ripperger, he is the Professor of Dogmatic and Moral Theology at the FSSP seminary in Nebraska. He is a solid Thomist, so seek to understand the reasons, he doesn’t just make a series of assertions without teaching according to St. Thomas and the other Doctors and Fathers of the Church.

Of course, if you are used to listening to the pap found in most Catholic parish homilies, then listening to FSSP or SSPX priests’ sermons and conferences would probably be rather jarring.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Why is this thread entitled Should Catholic women wear the veil? if it’s not a thread about veiling?

 

[LilyM]

Correct. If a woman has children in the home and doesn’t have a serious reason to work (such as the husband is out of work or underemployed or she is a single mother), is a sin against the children to work outside of the home. It is unhealthy for kids to be raised in daycare simply because the parents want a fourth car or a big screen TV. It is also more important for mothers to be at home than to save up for their childrens’ college education.

This seems to be an overly simplistic analysis of the reasons why women work. My own parents were both doctors and worked full time. Did they absolutely need the money? Possibly not, though even back then raising five children would have been very difficult on one income. Certainly luxuries weren’t a motivation in her decision to work.

My mother made a critically important contribution to the community, in a part of the world where female doctors were and are much needed and in short supply. We children had more than enough time and attention from both our parents that we were raised well, and never left to daycare. And learned that one can have a career outside of marriage and motherhood without sacrificing the career, the marriage or the parenting.

My mother was happier being a working mother too - she would have been frustrated, intellectually understimulated and unhappy, and a much poorer parent as a result, if she’d stayed at home full-time.

 

[stephe1987]

^ If your mother was a doctor in a part of the world that needed doctors, that would qualify as a grave reason to work, provided that her children were cared for and not neglected (left at home alone when they’re too young to be left alone; where I live that would be those under the age of 12).

The passage about veil is not so much saying that women have to wear veils as much as it’s saying that women should distinguish themselves from men. You should be able to tell what gender a person is by looking at him/her; it is a virtue to accept the gender to which God assigned you. Of course, women are free to wear a veil if they so choose, but it is no longer required.

There is a HUGE difference between attraction and lust. Attraction makes you interested in getting to know a person. Lust makes you see the person as a piece of meat, and can be a cause for distraction from normal daily activities. Like the difference between liking food and gluttony. Liking food means you want to eat. Gluttony means you eat so much that you are constantly thinking about your next meal (and are not a chef) and/or are overweight from eating too much or eating unhealthily.

 

[CatholicMan85]

There is a HUGE difference between attraction and lust. Attraction makes you interested in getting to know a person. Lust makes you see the person as a piece of meat, and can be a cause for distraction from normal daily activities. Like the difference between liking food and gluttony. Liking food means you want to eat. Gluttony means you eat so much that you are constantly thinking about your next meal (and are not a chef) and/or are overweight from eating too much or eating unhealthily.

This is what I guess I just don’t get.

Using this explination, I’m attracted to all my friends, my parents, my coworkers, my girlfriend’s parents, her family, and actually quite a few people. Everyone I meet I want to get to know better, but not necessarily a sexual way. In fact, the only person I want to get to know better in a sexual way after I have met the woman I am with is her.

Sexual attraction is differnet yes - I could say that I am attracted to my girlfriend sexually. I want to get to know her better sexually in a marriage environment and physically express that love to her when the context is right and make shure that she derrives as much pleasure out of it as possible. And children, if they come along, are a neat byproduct as well.

To be honest, this “sexual attraction” that I described above is the whole driving force behind me wanting to move the relationship to the next steps (engagement, marriage) versus just be a “nice friend” of hers for the rest of her and my life.

The problem is, that is also what I call lust - not sure if that’s the definition of it but shure sounds like it to me! - because in reality it’s thinking of her in a sexual way.

Am I right or wrong?

 

[LilyM]

This is what I guess I just don’t get.

Using this explination, I’m attracted to all my friends, my parents, my coworkers, my girlfriend’s parents, her family, and actually quite a few people. Everyone I meet I want to get to know better, but not necessarily a sexual way. In fact, the only person I want to get to know better in a sexual way after I have met the woman I am with is her.

Bingo. Sounds like you ‘get’ perfectly that there is a huge difference between love and sexual attraction.

Sexual attraction is differnet yes - I could say that I am attracted to my girlfriend sexually. I want to get to know her better sexually in a marriage environment and physically express that love to her when the context is right and make shure that she derrives as much pleasure out of it as possible. This is the whole driving force behind me wanting to move the relationship to the next steps (engagement, marriage) versus just be a friend of hers for the rest of my life. The problem is, that is also what I call lust - not sure if that’s the definition of it but shure sounds like it to me! - because in reality it’s thinking of her in a sexual way.

Am I right or wrong?

Put it this way - are you looking at sex as an end in itself? When you say ‘pleasure’ do you just mean physical pleasure (lust) and not the other kinds of joy and pleasure that sex with someone you are deeply committed to can bring (rightly ordered sexual attraction)?

And do you want yourself and her to derive as much pleasure as possible from sex purely for its own sake? Do you want sex purely because sex is fun and enjoyable? (lust) Or do you want the pleasure for yourself and her because you know it will bring the two of you closer together in other ways (rightly ordered sexual attraction)?

As I’ve shown, your answers to the above questions will help you discern your feelings better.

And before you start saying ‘oh, but I want it for a mix of reasons’, it’s OK to want it for a mix of reasons - if you reread the CCC definition, the line between sexual attraction and lust is crossed when sex is viewed ‘in isolation’ (ie totally separate) from the good and rightly ordered ends to which it is meant to tend.

 

[CatholicMan85]

Bingo. Sounds like you ‘get’ perfectly that there is a huge difference between love and sexual attraction.

Put it this way - are you looking at sex as an end in itself? When you say ‘pleasure’ do you just mean physical pleasure (lust) and not the other kinds of joy and pleasure that sex with someone you are deeply committed to can bring (rightly ordered sexual attraction)?

And do you want yourself and her to derive as much pleasure as possible from sex purely for its own sake? Do you want sex purely because sex is fun and enjoyable? (lust) Or do you want the pleasure for yourself and her because you know it will bring the two of you closer together in other ways (rightly ordered sexual attraction)?

As I’ve shown, your answers to the above questions will help you discern your feelings better.

What if the answer is both? Because it is fun and enjoyable yes, but also because it consumates the marital contract making us both “as one” in the eyes of God, pleasures both the body and spirit (as well as being the most personal form of communication there is!) - and it does have the possible chance of producing children - although this may be more challenging than for most couples in my situation I’m getting into.

 

[LilyM]

What if the answer is both? Because it is fun and enjoyable yes, but also because it consumates the marital contract making us both “as one” in the eyes of God, pleasures both the body and spirit (as well as being the most personal form of communication there is!) - and it does have the possible chance of producing children - although this may be more challenging than for most couples in my situation I’m getting into.

I KNEW you were going to say something like this - must’ve edited my post as you were responding. Please read the last paragraph, which should answer your questions.