Amen, but reserved for married couples. Correct Chibi?
sorry, I don’t have statistics for you. Maybe some day you can come to a family reunion of mine. Seeing is believing.
Kate, seeing many kids out of wedlock at your family reunion is not gonna make me believe that Catholics have more children out of wedlock than any other set of people.
I already answered this. They are to practice chastity. They are to use their will and intellect and train themselves to make their passions subject to their reason. Your examples are not in accord with chastity.
The CCC says what I just said. Sexual arousal is not evil in itself. Being aroused in itself is NOT a sin. Acting on it is. We are ALL called to chastity, not just unmarried Catholics, so the principle applies to both married and non-married Catholics.
What part of the CCC is confusing to you? I feel that your questions have been answered directly.
Baelor,
The fact that someone is not married at a given moment has no bearing on whether they are called to marriage, the implication of the statement that I quoted.
Pilgrim, nice I like your post. We are to use our will and intellect and train ourselves to make our passions subject to our reason.:yup: So can we say, spouses need to be careful about being “passionately in love with their partner”, this can turn into idolatry since they are allowing their reason to be subject to their passion?
A couple of reasons why married Catholics practice chastity is to avoid having too many children, spacing out children and to make their reason subject to their passions. So this chastity is not indefinite for the married. They enjoy the “conjugal rights” as explained by Paul in 1 Cor 7:3…of course, not in a sense that a spouse is allowing their reason subject to their passions.
Just trying to learn here folks, and I sometimes post opposing viewpoints for the sake of learning.
Baelor, can you or me or anyone prove or disprove that someone is called to the vocation of marriage? Holy Orders? It is a leap of faith. Each has their own special gift from God.
Here’s one of the shortest, sanest pieces of writing about the Catholic view of human sexuality I’ve come across. The author is Fr. Thomas Santa, and I found it on the Scrupulous Anonymous website: mission.liguori.org/newsletters/pdf_archive/SA_0412.pdfok 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?
You implied that because someone was not married, they were not called to marriage. This is not true. That is all I am saying.Baelor, can you or me or anyone prove or disprove that someone is called to the vocation of marriage? Holy Orders? It is a leap of faith. Each has their own special gift from God.
So if someone is not married, it MAY BE an indication that they are called to marriage…because the Spirit will bring the couple together…but when the time is right in the future.
If someone is not married, it MAY BE an indication that they are not called to marriage.
And the end of the day, we can’t prove or disprove. What ya think?
LOL, I think you are making it too black and white. The answer is not so simple. Mainly because the most sins are personal and therefore the persons intent is important. Take your question for example. An erection is a physical act. However what cause the erection is also as important. Plus, what if the person had the intent, but did not have an erection? Questions like these are the reason why sin is not always so simple and why we are taught not to be judgmental and condemn people. We can be judgmental on sin however and say that action or intent is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Are you confusing “chasity” with “continence”? It sure seems so in this post.Pilgrim, nice I like your post. We are to use our will and intellect and train ourselves to make our passions subject to our reason.:yup: So can we say, spouses need to be careful about being “passionately in love with their partner”, this can turn into idolatry since they are allowing their reason to be subject to their passion?
A couple of reasons why married Catholics practice chastity is to avoid having too many children, spacing out children and to make their reason subject to their passions. So this chastity is not indefinite for the married. They enjoy the “conjugal rights” as explained by Paul in 1 Cor 7:3…of course, not in a sense that a spouse is allowing their reason subject to their passions.
Now, the unmarried catholic must be chaste as long as they are unmarried. And possibly, It could be indefinitely…as we all know, not everyone receives the gift of marriage. The unmarried shouldn’t voluntarily willingly act upon being sexually aroused in such a way that it makes their reason subject to their passions.
Great prompt feedback everyone! Thanks!
PS. Gonna start using smilies, it appears that some ppl are misinterpreting my post and me as a person trying to open up a “can of worms”
Having passions, and so being ‘passionately in love’ does not necessarily mean they are contrary to ones reason or even hold sway over ones reason. I would be very afraid of a spousal relationship that did not include emotional attachment of the spouses to each other.
Chastity is much more than refraining from sexual acts… All people, whether married single or consecrated are supposed to practice chastity at all times. Read John Paul II’s book ‘Love and Resoonsibility’. In this he talks about the full understanding o chastity as refusing to look on another as a mere object of use and the importance of this virtue in marriage.
except for the fact as mentioned above that chastity is meant to be practiced by all at all times, I agree wih this.
David you are correct. I will need to go back and review.
Again, Chastity is much more than simply refraining from sexual intercourse. I again suggest you read Blessed John Paul II’s book Love and Responsibility, in particular the chapter on the Person and Chastity. He explains it very well. Chastity has both a negative and a positivve connotation and is often only connected with the negative “thou shalt not have sex” whereas there is also a positive aspect of it that is intimitly connected with the very meaning itself of love and from which the “thou shalt not’s” of chastity flow. It is involved with a true love of others, and so in marriage specifically with a true love for your spouse that leaves no room for the disordered ‘love’ that is really only lust, the desire for the spouse as something for your own use as opposed to true love which is a complete gift of self to the spouse.
agreed, that is why I said, “this can turn into”…it is not definite…so yes, “does not necessarily mean”
“Chastity at all times”. Wanderer, what is the definition of “Chastity” in your post?
Thanks I’ll look into this book
Yes, Rico, I tend to make things BLACK and WHITE alotLOL, I think you are making it too black and white. The answer is not so simple. Mainly because the most sins are personal and therefore the persons intent is important. Take your question for example. An erection is a physical act. However what cause the erection is also as important. Plus, what if the person had the intent, but did not have an erection? Questions like these are the reason why sin is not always so simple and why we are taught not to be judgmental and condemn people. We can be judgmental on sin however and say that action or intent is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
I don’t like GREY, lol. I recall Corapi once saying GREY is the devils favorite color 