Spiritual Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daughter_of_Eve
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
‘Heed me well. . . and thou shalt hear why the fiend has power to hurt some and not others. The fiend has power over such as go about their marrying with all thought of God shut out of their hearts and minds, wholly intent on their lust, as if they were horse or mule, brutes without reason. Not such be thee. . . For three days deny thyself her favours, and the time you spend together, spend all in prayer. Then, when the third night is past, take the maid to thyself with the fear of the Lord upon thee, moved rather by the hope of begetting children than by any lust of thine. . . thou shalt have joy of thy fatherhood.’

Tobias 6:16-22

It’s a good comparison to compare gluttony and over eating with problems of impurity in marriage. Everyone apparently needs to diet and has a problem with gluttony. Impurity is an even stronger temptation, and by the spiritual writers linked to gluttony. Moreover, the penance due for a sin, is the giving up of not only the sin, but the legitimate exercise of the thing abuse. I.e. one must correct in the opposite direction, to be successful in penance.

There’s far more to this, if you approach it properly instead of seeking to prove points before understanding the issue, especially since many modern statements have problems out of the context of tradition, at best. I am recalling the number of feast days requiring married couples give up their rights… and the priests married before ordination giving up theirs…

Study with an open heart. There’s writ within a person the natural law. . Don’t take this culture’s answers…

What is direct motivation? What is indirect object in the mind, focused on? What is spiritual? What is earthly?

It is said that more people go to Hell for sins of impurity than any other sins, and that at least if they go to Hell for some other sin, they do not do so without also impurity.

People who have exercised impurity for its own sake, take that habit with them into marriage, and have not learned what it takes to work against that habit and understood something… different, I tend to think.

‘Human bodies are like glasses, which cannot come into collision without risk of breaking; or to fruits, which, however fresh and ripe, are damaged by pressure. Never permit any one to take any manner of foolish liberty with you, since, although there may be no evil intention, the perfectness of purity is injured thereby. Purity has its source in the heart, but it is in the body that its material results take shape, and therefore it may be forfeited both by the exterior senses and by the thoughts and desires of the heart. All lack of modesty in seeing, hearing, speaking, smelling, or touching, is impurity, especially when the heart takes pleasure therein. St. Paul says without any hesitation that impurity and uncleanness, or foolish and unseemly talking, are not to be “so much as named” among Christians. Remember that there are things which blemish perfect purity, without being in themselves downright acts of impurity. Anything which tends to lessen its intense sensitiveness, or to cast the slightest shadow over it, is of this nature; and all evil thoughts or foolish acts of levity or heedlessness are as steps towards the most direct breaches of the law of chastity. Avoid the society of persons who are wanting in purity, especially if they are bold, as indeed impure people always are.’

‘O Ye virgins, I have but a word to say to you. If you look to married life in this life, guard your first love jealously for your husband. It seems to me a miserable fraud to give a husband a worn-out heart, whose love has been frittered away and despoiled of its first bloom instead of a true, whole-hearted love. But if you are happily called to be the chaste and holy bride of spiritual nuptials, and purpose to live a life of virginity, then in Christ’s Name I bid you keep all your purest, most sensitive love for your Heavenly Bridegroom, Who, being Very Purity Himself, has a special love for purity; Him to Whom the first-fruits of all good things are due, above all those of love.’

St. Francis de Sales

'Self-love is so subtle a robber that it commits its thefts, even upon God himself, without fear or shame, employing his goods as if they were its own, and assigning as a reason that it cannot live without them. And this robbery is hidden under so many veils of apparent good that it can hardly be detected except by the penetrating light of true love, which always desires to remain uncovered and bare, both in heaven and earth, because it has nothing shameful to conceal.

And, therefore, self-love never understands the nature of pure love; for pure love sees not how the things which it knows as they are in truth could possibly be possessed or appropriated; nothing would displease it so much as to find anything which it could call its own; the reason of this is that pure love sees not, nor can it ever see, anything but truth itself, which, being by its nature communicable to all, can never be monopolized by any. Self-love, on the other hand, is in itself an obstacle to truth, and neither believes it nor beholds it, but rather, confiding in itself, holds truth as an enemy and an alien.’

‘Purity of conscience can endure nothing but God only; for He alone is spotless, simple, pure: of all things else, that is, of what is evil, it cannot endure even the smallest spark; this can neither be understood nor appreciated, if it be not felt.’

‘I see clearly with the interior eye, that the sweet God loves with a pure love the creature that He has created, and has a hatred for nothing but sin, which is more opposed to Him than can be thought or imagined.’

St. Catherine of Genoa
 
I’m not here for apologetics, I say that often enough, and I mean it… I don’t care for debates or whatnot, or point counter point… without an open heart this so often comes to nothing…

Mutual pursuit of the truth is what I love… and respecting and recognizing that in people… rather than defending points…

Let people say what they want… those who are interested in something deeper and fundamental will ask the unusual questions, pursue the rare and less taken paths, consider the ‘impossible’ possibilities. The natural law and the laws of grace are written in the heart. They are not so ‘impossible’ after all.
 
I’m not here for apologetics, I say that often enough, and I mean it… I don’t care for debates or whatnot, or point counter point… without an open heart this so often comes to nothing…

Mutual pursuit of the truth is what I love… and respecting and recognizing that in people… rather than defending points…

Let people say what they want… those who are interested in something deeper and fundamental will ask the unusual questions, pursue the rare and less taken paths, consider the ‘impossible’ possibilities. The natural law and the laws of grace are written in the heart. They are not so ‘impossible’ after all.
Shin, without resorting to a dozen quotes that are possibly taken out of context from the saints, can you tell me if you believe that the Tradition of the Church states that a non-celibate married couple who has normal relations can’t be pure and holy? You believe this is absolutely impossible so the only licit time in which a married couple can have relations in when they are trying to make a baby (which doesn’t always work) and any other time is a sin??? Are you in fact saying this? How is this in keeping with the official teachings of the Church? You have previous stated something similar to this in other threads that sex within marriage is dirty and sinful if it doesn’t result in making babies. You must know that the Church does NOT teach this and I don’t know why you continue to go on threads of this nature, put up a dozen quotes and pit consecrated virginity against marriage. It doesn’t make sense to me.
 
Some of the things that have been accused I have not said, and the quotes have not said.

People who want to understand them will seek to. It’s not necessarily my role to explain it to you directly, because, frankly, people who work for it, are open and seek, find it, people who don’t, don’t even listen to what they are told as the explanation.

If you want to understand, seek to. Pray and work. If you just want to hold a position you think is correct without exploring it further, who am I to try to change your interior state by force? This is impossible.
 
it is not stated in the catechism that married couples are living sinful lives if they seek sexual relations with each other that are licit and open to life. st. augustine may have made the statement of it being a venial sin but was it ever a church (magisterial) law? what seems to be the confusion here is the definition of lust of middle ages and today. it seems back then that spouses could only escape the sin of lust by desiring to have a child each and every time they had relations. if that was church teaching (not just one of the theologians speculation) then it should still be true and that would make nfp sinful also.
 
also if you read st. gregory’s statment about sin and body pleasure, it contradicts itself. it first states that the romans did ritual washings to cleanse themselves of intercourse but not saying that intercourse is sinful. and then goes on to say that body pleasure cannot be without sin:shrug: very confusing.
 
There are many possible solutions to what appears to be confusing.

For example, some statements might not be absolute statements but general rules, or practical statements. Or perhaps they are absolutes, and other statements are practical or pastoral… or perhaps in one strict sense, one thing is one way, but in other strict senses because of other factors, it is in fact not…

So in one direct way, one thing is wrong, and in another very direct, but not quite the same way, it is not – but since both ways apply, it is wrong, and so forth…
 
i think we shoud start a whole new thread of what the church taught back in the middle ages and what is taught today. it would definately clear up some confusion on married sexuality and it’s boundries.
 
i think we shoud start a whole new thread of what the church taught back in the middle ages and what is taught today. it would definately clear up some confusion on married sexuality and it’s boundries.
I think that’s a good idea.

There’s a little book by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler called ‘The Case for Clerical Celibacy’ that also is very helpful.
 
One should also keep in mind that not everything that was said or written by a saint is official Church teaching, or even correct. Saints were fallible human beings and so their theological opinions are not always without error. We are also not bound to believe personal revelations. I am most concerned with official Church teaching, which tells me that sex is both for bonding of spouses and procreation, and which does not tell me it is sinful to have sex with my husband provided we do not close the door on new life. Anyone who has ever read Song of Songs cannot possibly think that one is not supposed to feel attraction to their spouse. The writings and sayings of saints can be helpful to us, but they are not perfect and they do not hold the same importance as what the Holy Church itself teaches.
 
Maybe I missed it, but I never saw Shin say that sex was dirty or impure. How could it be since it was created by God along with our bodies. But what it was created for and the way we now practice it are two different things. We live after the Fall.

My priest gave me something from St. Augustine once where it said that Adam and Eve before the Fall would have been able to use sex properly, but now our wills are led by our bodies and the passions and so even in marriage our desire is usually not properly ordered, even if we are with our spouse.

How can it be an accident that the most perfect human being, Mary, lived her marriage to perfection, and this included not having sex with her husband. God thought it was so important that Mary maintain her purity that she did not even lose her virginity in giving birth.
Mary and Jesus had specific purposes to fulfill that virginity was a part of. Everyone’s vocation and purpose is different. Most people are called to marriage and called to have sex within that marriage. Certainly a person can lust after their spouse in a sinful way, in a way that turns the spouse into nothing more that means to an end so to speak. But one can also desire their spouse in a very loving, holy way, that promotes bonding and unity for the couple.
 
i think we shoud start a whole new thread of what the church taught back in the middle ages and what is taught today. it would definately clear up some confusion on married sexuality and it’s boundries.
You aren’t going to find a huge change of direction today from the past.
One should also keep in mind that not everything that was said or written by a saint is official Church teaching, or even correct. Saints were fallible human beings and so their theological opinions are not always without error. I am most concerned with official Church teaching, which tells me that sex is both for bonding of spouses and procreation, and which does not tell me it is sinful to have sex with my husband provided we do not close the door on new life. The writings and sayings of saints can be helpful to us, but they are not perfect and they do not hold the same importance as what the Holy Church itself teaches.
Even in Humanae Vitae, a modern statement by any definition, the Church remains extremely concerned that the married couple not let the desires of the body rule the will. It also recognizes how difficult such a thing is (having sex, without the desires of the body dominating the will) and encourages couples to make frequent use of confession.

Notice that one of the reasons the Church allows recourse to “infertile periods” (if there is some very serious reason that the couple is incapable of having children at that time, of course) is that it aids the couple in their attempts to discipline the body. The Church knows that just because someone is having sex with their spouse, it does not mean that they have mastered the passions. Augustine’s statement, quoted by Shin, is raising the same concerns raised by Humanae Vitae.

Reading Humanae Vitae this summer with my fiance and priest (getting ready for our wedding next summer) is what started me thinking and asking about this. Right reason, as opposed to the irrational desires, does not rule the will just because suddenly a couple is married. Marriage makes sex lawful, but it also brings us even nearer to the occasion of sin by giving us an excuse to indulge our bodies at the same time, rather than only making use of sex for procreation and as an expression of mutual affection.
 
Marriage is a Holy Vocation…and a way to Holiness.

And a sign of the love of Christ and the Church

1659 St. Paul said: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church. . . . This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the Church” (Eph 5:25, 32).

Let each person follow Christ in the way they are called…

For example some are called to Celibacy and some to Marriage…

All are called to Holiness. And in truth it is possible for a Married Woman to be “more Holy” than a particular Nun in a Convent…

All are called to Holiness!

Catechism:

1620 Both the sacrament of Matrimony and virginity for the Kingdom of God come from the Lord himself. It is he who gives them meaning and grants them the grace which is indispensable for living them out in conformity with his will.117 Esteem of virginity for the sake of the kingdom118 and the Christian understanding of marriage are inseparable, and they reinforce each other:
Code:
Whoever denigrates marriage also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be truly good. The most excellent good is something even better than what is admitted to be good.119
(Then go Read whole section particularly from: 1612-1620 CCC)
 
Some…

Very few it is granted…

Can be called to live “as Brother and Sister”…as part of their particular vocation in Marriage…

It is a rare vocation…

But yes it it can be a way to holiness…

Though again this does not mean they will “end up more holy” personally than a Married Couple who exercises their marital rights in a holy way…
 
Remember well what Paul said while writing on Marriage and Celibacy:

I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. (1 Cor. 7:7 RSV CE)

Only, let every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches. (I Cor 7:17 RSV CE)
 
Some of the things that have been accused I have not said, and the quotes have not said.
The problem is that the quotes you use can lead to A LOT of confusion on this subject. You have done this before on similar threads which is why I asked the question.
People who want to understand them will seek to. It’s not necessarily my role to explain it to you directly, because, frankly, people who work for it, are open and seek, find it, people who don’t, don’t even listen to what they are told as the explanation.
This doesn’t make any sense. Why bother posting quotes that are probably taken out of context that can lead some people to be confused on the subject of sex and marriage?
If you want to understand, seek to. Pray and work. If you just want to hold a position you think is correct without exploring it further, who am I to try to change your interior state by force? This is impossible.
What? Again, are you in fact saying that Church teaching is that sex within marriage, even when not trying to make a baby (but being open to life) is wrong? The quotes you have posted are confusing and I believe they are taken out of context. It would seem that you are stating that it is Church teaching that non-celibate married couples can’t be holy or pure. Again, you say that you haven’t said this and this is true but the quotes you posted and the cryptic stuff yyou have posted like this leads one to believe that this is what you believe Church teaching is and that you believe that those who have the opposite view must not be praying or working hard enough to get the correct position. That is what I have a problem with the posts.
 
Augustine’s statement, quoted by Shin, is raising the same concerns raised by Humanae Vitae.

Marriage makes sex lawful, but it also brings us even nearer to the occasion of sin by giving us an excuse to indulge our bodies at the same time, rather than only making use of sex for procreation and as an expression of mutual affection.
I don’t agree in that marriage brings people nearer to the occasion of sin. In that case marriage would be more of a temptation. If that were to be true, married people should committ more sexual sins while people who are not married and are virgins should be able to avoid irrational sexual desires per se very easily. That is not true in the real world. People with irrational desires are going to have the irrational desires independently if they are married or not. People who do live a life according to Jesus Christ do it within marriage or outside the marriage. It has to do with the person itself not with the marriage itself.

I think Bookcat’s answer is completly right. Marriage is a sacrament, a holy vocation and a way to holyness. St. Paul indicates that some are called to celibacy but others are not and the fact that you are not called to celibacy doesn’t make you less holy. Also, I don’t recall exactly the post but here in CAF in the Ask an Apologist section Fray Serpa, addresing a similar subject, mentioned a good number of Saints who were not living in celibacy and between those he mentioned Saints Joachim and Ana.

I think that Shin is confussing terms. I think St. Augustine is speaking about disorderly sexual conduct within marriage. Sex within marriage is not necessarily disorderly, there is a big difference there. It is like food or saying that eating brings you closer to sin because you can fall into gluttony. Eating is not a sin, disorderly eating is the sin. Same goes with sex in marriage and St. Francis of Sales explains the concepts very clearly. You have to be very careful understanding Saint Agustine, he has been heavily misquoted because many don’t understand the context that he is speaking (like with abortion).
 
With all due respect, we are beating the dead horse here.

Shin is correct insofar as he says celibacy has a superiority to marriage. That does not make marriage bad, but celibacy is better(St. Paul himself used that word in 1Corinthians 7 and so does the Council of Trent).

This was all discussed in length, and all the objections that are being raised here to the idea that “marriage is good, celibacy is better” were posted here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=456745

If you want to win an argument, continue to post here…

If you want to familiarize yourself with a good and thorough explanation of this position, read what I wrote in that post. You might be best to begin halfway through page 3. It is titled “Sex is not the End of All Existence”.

Once you read that you can go back to posting here …
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top