The unmarried catholic has no business getting

[Romulus]

No – erections can be involuntary.

i.e. Morning Wood or any other conditions or medications that cause it to be involuntary

 

[KateKimmer]

Are you saying this state of things is good and right and that the Church teaches that we should be having sex and babies out of wedlock?

no…I respect the teachings of the church.
BUT many , many catholics have kids out of wedlock.
that is all I am saying.

 

[garn9173]

.

Unmarried catholic men have no business voluntarily causing themselves to get erections, either caused by their own doing or allowing someone else.

Once again, I take it you are not a guy because any guy knows our junk as a mind all of it’s own, especially during teen years.

 

[Romulus]

Once again, I take it you are not a guy because any guy knows our junk as a mind all of it’s own, especially during teen years.

Garn, I’m a man. Yes, I KNOW that “involuntary” erections & emissions happen…lol No deliberate consent, therefore no mortal sin.

 

[Romulus]

no…I respect the teachings of the church.
BUT many , many catholics have kids out of wedlock.
that is all I am saying.

Kate, yes it is unfortunate that ppl have kids out of wedlock…we are all sinners. You say “many many”… Is there a study out there, that says Catholics beat everyone else in the world with kids out of wedlock?

I don’t have data…but I would imagine that all kinds of people, all over the world, of all kinds of faiths and walks of life have kids out of wedlock too. Now, do we Catholics beat them? I don’t know, hope not, lol.

 

[davidv]

aroused…else, SIN. The sexual organs for reserved for the married life…therefore, all catholic unmarried shouldn’t get sexually aroused at all. (period)

Is this true? Is this the Church’s teaching??

Thanks for the feedback everyone!

The Church defines sin as:

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121
1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

Involuntary actions, whether married, or not, are not sin.

Given this, what you state above about arousal, is not true in all cases.

 

[Bookcat]

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#II

Remember though that the CCC is not a dictionary or textbook of moral theology…

ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN …it will be of great help!

(One note though on this reading…I would note that when they say “as soon as he begins to enjoy…” under “pure intent”… it would mean before knowing consent…)

Note the second link.

 

[Baelor]

i.e. Morning Wood or any other conditions or medications that cause it to be involuntary

“Morning wood” is part of a larger category that would include involuntary erections at other points in the day that are not results of “conditions” or “medications.”

 

[Romulus]

The Church defines sin as:

Involuntary actions, whether married, or not, are not sin.

Given this, what you state above about arousal, is not true in all cases.

David,

How about the edit in post#15?

 

[CaptFun]

Yeah, it’s the deliberateness that’s the thing that might make it sinful.

What is muddier to me is - can an unmarried man be treated for Erectile Dysfunction - to determine if he is even able to consummate a marriage. Which must be done at least once (yes?). And to fill his fiancee or girlfriend in on this situation ASAP as part of full disclosure.

It’s a sort of counter-dilemma - does a man who can’t get aroused have any business in a potential marriage relationship - it might be put. I don’t know this answer - but I do think that the Church speaks (and remains silent on some questions) for a reason. And that God’s laws are for our benefit.

The danger in the initial question as I see it (AND this Q of mine perhaps) is that it is a
subtle perhaps hostile question to the Church.

God created sex and wanted it to be used (go forth and multiply) but has given us guidelines through COMMANDMENTS on how and when and when not to use these “powers”.

And we can all see how some people have wrecked their lives with excessive sex (as much as excessive alcohol - though God has allowed fermentation too).

I hope this question was sincere, and not just a hammer to make the Church look power mad and totally divorced from reality. Some could take it that way.

 

[davidv]

David,

How about the edit in post#15?

Your post #15 is to vague, and ignors the intentionality of sin.

 

[Romulus]

Your post #15 is to vague, and ignors the intentionality of sin.

david, edit post #15 so that it isn’t vague and doesn’t ignore the intentionality of sin. Please??

Thanks for the help

 

[Romulus]

Yeah, it’s the deliberateness that’s the thing that might make it sinful.

What is muddier to me is - can an unmarried man be treated for Erectile Dysfunction - to determine if he is even able to consummate a marriage. Which must be done at least once (yes?). And to fill his fiancee or girlfriend in on this situation ASAP as part of full disclosure.

It’s a sort of counter-dilemma - does a man who can’t get aroused have any business in a potential marriage relationship - it might be put. I don’t know this answer - but I do think that the Church speaks (and remains silent on some questions) for a reason. And that God’s laws are for our benefit.

The danger in the initial question as I see it (AND this Q of mine perhaps) is that it is a
subtle perhaps hostile question to the Church.

God created sex and wanted it to be used (go forth and multiply) but has given us guidelines through COMMANDMENTS on how and when and when not to use these “powers”.

And we can all see how some people have wrecked their lives with excessive sex (as much as excessive alcohol - though God has allowed fermentation too).

I hope this question was sincere, and not just a hammer to make the Church look power mad and totally divorced from reality. Some could take it that way.

Capt,

Interesting points. According to Paul, Husbands and Wives have “conjugal rights”…and if either can’t fulfill their right due to sexual organs not functioning and out of their control…then it is what it is…The Spirit joined a couple, but circumstances exclude the literal meaning of “being one flesh”…and excludes biological children. It’s possible, look at Joseph and Mary…happily married, no intercourse, no biological children of their own. If the couple has legit faith that the Spirit has brought them together into marriage with this situation…they should accept it. You know, marriage is a “leap of faith”.

 

[Irishgal49]

The Catholic teaching is that if someone willfully CAUSES themself to be aroused in a disordered way than this is of grave matter. If a person does this with full knowledge and complete consent than it’s a mortal sin. As to someone allowing themself to feel sexual pleasure they didn’t cause themself, this is of grave matter if they are BASKING in the pleasure. If they are allowing it for another reason, such as they don’t think they can make it stop, or because it’s giving them energy than it’s not a sin.

So pleasurable sexual arousal is wrong no matter what. Someone else said that it’s wrong to lust after your spouse. Well this solves a lot of problems for me. I am going to hook up with a robot since that’s the only thing I know that can remove that desire from the equation and heaven forbid if my husband got “turned on” by me. Wow is that a truly Catholic marriage? Really?

Sometimes sexual feelings sneak up on someone, I can attest that they can hit you from out of nowhere. I am responsible to handle them appropriately but I see nothing wrong with finding them enjoyable in and of themselves. I guess it would be best to then do something to distract yourself before you fall into something you shouldn’t.

I’m sick of confession twice a week for this so I’m totally enthralled in this discussion and how it’s unfolding (how ridiculous and Phariseee it all becomes) but I promise I won’t enjoy the discussion so I don’t sin.

 

[JackQ]

So pleasurable sexual arousal is wrong no matter what. Someone else said that it’s wrong to lust after your spouse. Well this solves a lot of problems for me. I am going to hook up with a robot since that’s the only thing I know that can remove that desire from the equation and heaven forbid if my husband got “turned on” by me. Wow is that a truly Catholic marriage? Really?

Sometimes sexual feelings sneak up on someone, I can attest that they can hit you from out of nowhere. I am responsible to handle them appropriately but I see nothing wrong with finding them enjoyable in and of themselves. I guess it would be best to then do something to distract yourself before you fall into something you shouldn’t.

I’m sick of confession twice a week for this so I’m totally enthralled in this discussion and how it’s unfolding (how ridiculous and Phariseee it all becomes) but I promise I won’t enjoy the discussion so I don’t sin.

Men, at least, wouldn’t be able to have sex without arousal, and for women it seems it would be fairly uncomfortable. So if arousal within marriage was wrong, then sex would be wrong. But that’s not right.

That’s why it seems to me that it is all about one’s intention or will. Is it your will to commit fornication? That’s wrong. Is it your will to have sex with your husband or wife? That’s fine. Feelings, arousal, erections, etc., have nothing to do with it, and I can tell you from personal experience that if they did no teenaged boy could be saved.

The problem with deliberately getting yourself aroused is that you’re creating a near occasion of sin, unless, of course, it’s for your spouse.

 

[Bookcat]

Sexual arousal in relation to your spouse does not per se = lust.

There are various aspects of martial morality of course.

Is it possible to sin via lusting for one spouse? Yes.

But having sexual arousal in relation to ones spouse need not be lustful…

Catechism:

2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#III

 

[davidv]

david, edit post #15 so that it isn’t vague and doesn’t ignore the intentionality of sin. Please??

Thanks for the help

The quote from the CCC might be an appropriate rewrite.

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift

2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.125

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 "Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end."127

 

[Blue_Horizon]

ok a little edit, uh more edit…haha

The unmarried catholic has no business allowing himself or herself to be sexually aroused…else, SIN. Is this what the Church teaches?

True or False?

Romulus
Can I ask why you have raised this thread and what result you are wanting from it?

I have looked at your previous posts and you appear intelligent, well educated and informed re things Catholic. For that reason I find it hard to believe you do not already appreciate the appropriate pastoral or theological responses.

Or have you simply raised this topic to assist others?

 

[ChibiViolet]

So pleasurable sexual arousal is wrong no matter what. Someone else said that it’s wrong to lust after your spouse. Well this solves a lot of problems for me. I am going to hook up with a robot since that’s the only thing I know that can remove that desire from the equation and heaven forbid if my husband got “turned on” by me. Wow is that a truly Catholic marriage? Really?

Sometimes sexual feelings sneak up on someone, I can attest that they can hit you from out of nowhere. I am responsible to handle them appropriately but I see nothing wrong with finding them enjoyable in and of themselves. I guess it would be best to then do something to distract yourself before you fall into something you shouldn’t.

I’m sick of confession twice a week for this so I’m totally enthralled in this discussion and how it’s unfolding (how ridiculous and Phariseee it all becomes) but I promise I won’t enjoy the discussion so I don’t sin.

No, sexual arousal in and of itself is not wrong. Also, it is not wrong for spouses to be “turned on” by each other. Lust and sexual pleasure are not one and the same. Sexual pleasure is a good natural thing. Lust gives this pleasure a distorted view. It’s just so hard to explain so that people understand…

 

[Romulus]

Romulus
Can I ask why you have raised this thread and what result you are wanting from it?

I have looked at your previous posts and you appear intelligent, well educated and informed re things Catholic. For that reason I find it hard to believe you do not already appreciate the appropriate pastoral or theological responses.

Or have you simply raised this topic to assist others?

Blue,

To learn more. I appreciate everyone’s responses. To also assist