T
thewanderer
Guest
Thanks for the clarification!
I was just making sure, you’d be surprized what some people actually think about emotions and their place in life, even in marriage…
- Status
I was just making sure, you’d be surprized what some people actually think about emotions and their place in life, even in marriage…
D
davidv
Guest
No, I have not agreed to those definitions. They may be your definitions, but they don’t work when discussing the Church’s teaching on the appropriate use of our sexual faculties.
C
ChibiViolet
Guest
Unmarried people are not to seek it out or bask in it. I said that already.
B
Bookcat
Guest
ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN
(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…)
(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…)
R
Romulus
Guest
Good link Bookcat!
K
KateKimmer
Guest
well he would know.I recall Corapi once saying GREY is the devils favorite color
R
Romulus
Guest
and we should all know too.
C
CaptFun
Guest
(Quoted by Luna) Fr. Thomas Santa … on the Scrupulous Anonymous website: mission.liguori.org/newsletters/pdf_archive/SA_0412.pdf
***Sexuality and sexual feelings are gifts from God. They are not sinful. It is not a sin to routinely have a sexual thought. Sexuality and sexual feelings are very powerful, and at certain times they seem to be ever-present, even dominating. However, that being said, sexual feelings are normal for human beings. God intends for us to be attracted to other
people in a sexual manner.
As we grow through adolescence into adulthood, each of us learns who he or she is as a sexual person. We slowly learn that sexual expression includes activities that are primarily 1) procreative, 2) relational, and 3) recreational. Healthy sexuality and sexual expression integrate at least these three specific functions.
People who become entirely focused on just one aspect of their sexuality are understood by most mental-health professionals and caregivers to be immature and sometimes have the potential for deviant behavior.
All men and women—with or without scrupulosity—are invited by God to grow in maturity every day, including developing, celebrating, and integrating our sexuality.***
Thanks Luna.
I found the three activities part of Fr. Santa’s article intriguing.
It would seem one could sin during any stage - but that grace can lead one on to being fruitful in Holy Matrimony (a sacrament) in the end. That is - not only NOT sinning, but
being fruitful and multiplying (cooperating with God in bringing new life to new people).
I was thinking about the usual route of acquaintance > socializing > dating > committed dating > engagement > marriage > living the sacrament in mutual commitment. Again there could be sin through any of these stages too - including “invalid arousal”.
What would “invalid arousal” be? Or why did Pope John Paul II warn married people against lust in their relationship? I think I know. My non-Catholic ex-wife didn’t and called him " … your stupid Pope …" and our disagreement was part of a growing rift.
In MY mind the Pope just wanted spouses to always see each other as special gifts from God - and not as a thing to gratify oneself with. An example of such “lust in a marriage”?
A husband is not “turned on” by his wife. So he becomes mentally unfaithful to her via imagining someone else, or pornography or a sinful fantasy (let’s just say ‘killing her’ to show that fantasies can be sinful) in order to “be aroused” and have sex with her. THAT could be such lust. Not caring a whit about one’s partner but only oneself might be another.
Recreation does seem to be the first stage in the journey. Some unmarried jump right to the procreative and harm themselves. Recreational (dates) leading to Relational (committments, temporary to permanent) to Marriage might include “arousal” all along the way. “Getting” aroused could be sinful - or a necessary stage on the way to fruitful fulfillment in a holy marriage.
By their fruits you shall know them. “I really long for my spouse (sexually) right now …” could be the height of holiness and not lust at all. Ditto for “fiancees” - most engaged people who aren’t doing it already long for sexual union as part of the picture.
Getting aroused by imagining (say) an infidelity - even in a marriage and even to technically “perform better” - is probably at least a venial sin, and maybe more serious.
I am just examining these things - but these are my thoughts. Some came out quite firmly, and I think I will leave them that way for now. But I’m anxious for any more enlightenment I can get. Or correction. Or affirmation if I’ve gotten something right.
***Sexuality and sexual feelings are gifts from God. They are not sinful. It is not a sin to routinely have a sexual thought. Sexuality and sexual feelings are very powerful, and at certain times they seem to be ever-present, even dominating. However, that being said, sexual feelings are normal for human beings. God intends for us to be attracted to other
people in a sexual manner.
As we grow through adolescence into adulthood, each of us learns who he or she is as a sexual person. We slowly learn that sexual expression includes activities that are primarily 1) procreative, 2) relational, and 3) recreational. Healthy sexuality and sexual expression integrate at least these three specific functions.
People who become entirely focused on just one aspect of their sexuality are understood by most mental-health professionals and caregivers to be immature and sometimes have the potential for deviant behavior.
All men and women—with or without scrupulosity—are invited by God to grow in maturity every day, including developing, celebrating, and integrating our sexuality.***
Thanks Luna.
I found the three activities part of Fr. Santa’s article intriguing.
It would seem one could sin during any stage - but that grace can lead one on to being fruitful in Holy Matrimony (a sacrament) in the end. That is - not only NOT sinning, but
being fruitful and multiplying (cooperating with God in bringing new life to new people).
I was thinking about the usual route of acquaintance > socializing > dating > committed dating > engagement > marriage > living the sacrament in mutual commitment. Again there could be sin through any of these stages too - including “invalid arousal”.
What would “invalid arousal” be? Or why did Pope John Paul II warn married people against lust in their relationship? I think I know. My non-Catholic ex-wife didn’t and called him " … your stupid Pope …" and our disagreement was part of a growing rift.
In MY mind the Pope just wanted spouses to always see each other as special gifts from God - and not as a thing to gratify oneself with. An example of such “lust in a marriage”?
A husband is not “turned on” by his wife. So he becomes mentally unfaithful to her via imagining someone else, or pornography or a sinful fantasy (let’s just say ‘killing her’ to show that fantasies can be sinful) in order to “be aroused” and have sex with her. THAT could be such lust. Not caring a whit about one’s partner but only oneself might be another.
Recreation does seem to be the first stage in the journey. Some unmarried jump right to the procreative and harm themselves. Recreational (dates) leading to Relational (committments, temporary to permanent) to Marriage might include “arousal” all along the way. “Getting” aroused could be sinful - or a necessary stage on the way to fruitful fulfillment in a holy marriage.
By their fruits you shall know them. “I really long for my spouse (sexually) right now …” could be the height of holiness and not lust at all. Ditto for “fiancees” - most engaged people who aren’t doing it already long for sexual union as part of the picture.
Getting aroused by imagining (say) an infidelity - even in a marriage and even to technically “perform better” - is probably at least a venial sin, and maybe more serious.
I am just examining these things - but these are my thoughts. Some came out quite firmly, and I think I will leave them that way for now. But I’m anxious for any more enlightenment I can get. Or correction. Or affirmation if I’ve gotten something right.
T
twoangels
Guest
The sexual urge is not sinful and this would seem to imply that objectively speaking, sexual arousal is not sinful. Masturbation is sinful, and willfully engaging in sexual fantasies is also sinful. “Any man who looks at a woman with lust in his eye has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”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!
I would say though that arousal itself is merely something you have to be careful of. Chastity is not the repression of sexuality, but the integration of sexuality within the person. It involves self mastery. That said, in my experience, sexuality is more of surrender than willfully pursuing pleasure. As arousal progresses, in my experience, it is like certain parts of the brain turn off. If you surrender to this process in a specific set of situations, eventually your body adapts to those settings and will more automatically respond with arousal to those situations. Its like the whole dog salivating at the sound of a bell. The dog heard a bell whenever it was presented with meat and eventually the meat was no longer present. The dog would begin salivating at the sound of the bell. Sexual response is like that.
That said, its good to be able to be aroused by someone you’re discerning marriage with. If you marry, you will need that attraction. But recognize that arousal has an effect on your brain that can reduce your convictions to remain chaste. Its something to be cautious with. Its sort of its own drunkenness. Add drunkenness and/or tiredness and its not good news for staying in self control of yourself.
H
heart4home
Guest
Not sure what you were answering here. Obviously many people sin and have sex out of wedlock but the act itself is still SIN.
As to the OP. Certainly when one is with their future or soon to be spouse, there will likely be some arousal. It’s a normal reaction when attracted and if you are discerning a relationship with somebody than attraction is a good thing and it is bound/normal to happen. You shouldn’t act on it obviously. But I don’t believe it is a sin.
You should obviously not deliberately be seeking this state of arousal or dwelling on it, especially with somebody outside of a courting type relationship, but a natural hormonal/bodily reaction is not sin.
K
KateKimmer
Guest
I am not impressed by Father or should I say FORMER priest Corapi.and we should all know too.
R
Romulus
Guest
You’re entitled to your opinion. And regardless of what opinions ppl have of him, he did speak a lot of truth in the past.
R
Romulus
Guest
Great feedback so far everyone.
Here is a scenario:
“An unmarried catholic envisioned herself/himself married in the future . And in this vision the catholic was spooning their spouse in the wee morning hrs of the day; both naked. The catholic initiated the spooning in a selfless act to make their spouse feel desired, feel warmth, feel protected and most importantly, feel blissful. There was no sexual arousal between them, there was no seeking and basking in sexual pleasure. They did not treat themselves as objects of sexual pleasure. But they both were seeking and basking in the mutual feeling of togetherness and feeling grateful that God had brought them together so that they can be one flesh. Grateful to God of the gift they received, the gift of each other.”
The spouse envisioned by the unmarried catholic may or may not exist. For we cannot prove or disprove whether someone has been gifted a spouse, will be gifted a spouse or will never be gifted a spouse by God.
Case1:
If the envisioned spouse exist, but hasn’t been revealed or discerned, there is no way of knowing for sure about their physical traits I.e height, hair color, skin tone etc… So the vision of the spouse is clouded in mystery, they possibly could resemble a person known to the unmarried catholic, but is not the person. Has The unmarried catholic had a deliberate impure thought/vision? Or just had a pure innocent hopeful thought?
Case2:
If the envisioned spouse doesn’t exist, the unmarried catholic is not called to marriage, then the spouse envisioned is truly a fantasy and is fictitious. If so, wouldn’t this be “disordered”, spooning a fictitious person ? Has The unmarried catholic had a deliberate impure thought/vision, Therefore Sinned?
In either case, if the unmarried catholic has a history of losing self-control of this vision, this is an example of refusing to avoid the near occasion of sin; and this is a SIN itself?
Here is a scenario:
“An unmarried catholic envisioned herself/himself married in the future . And in this vision the catholic was spooning their spouse in the wee morning hrs of the day; both naked. The catholic initiated the spooning in a selfless act to make their spouse feel desired, feel warmth, feel protected and most importantly, feel blissful. There was no sexual arousal between them, there was no seeking and basking in sexual pleasure. They did not treat themselves as objects of sexual pleasure. But they both were seeking and basking in the mutual feeling of togetherness and feeling grateful that God had brought them together so that they can be one flesh. Grateful to God of the gift they received, the gift of each other.”
The spouse envisioned by the unmarried catholic may or may not exist. For we cannot prove or disprove whether someone has been gifted a spouse, will be gifted a spouse or will never be gifted a spouse by God.
Case1:
If the envisioned spouse exist, but hasn’t been revealed or discerned, there is no way of knowing for sure about their physical traits I.e height, hair color, skin tone etc… So the vision of the spouse is clouded in mystery, they possibly could resemble a person known to the unmarried catholic, but is not the person. Has The unmarried catholic had a deliberate impure thought/vision? Or just had a pure innocent hopeful thought?
Case2:
If the envisioned spouse doesn’t exist, the unmarried catholic is not called to marriage, then the spouse envisioned is truly a fantasy and is fictitious. If so, wouldn’t this be “disordered”, spooning a fictitious person ? Has The unmarried catholic had a deliberate impure thought/vision, Therefore Sinned?
In either case, if the unmarried catholic has a history of losing self-control of this vision, this is an example of refusing to avoid the near occasion of sin; and this is a SIN itself?
B
Baelor
Guest
Romulus, that is a topic for another thread on pure v. impure thoughts. This thread – created by you – is about sexual arousal. Your example was explicit about sexual arousal not being involved, so you should make a new thread if you want to discuss that hypothetical.
D
davidv
Guest
A few things:
Based on Church guidance on what is a moral action, what one’s future state may be has no bearing on the morality of an act. So, whether one is called to be married, or not, cannot be a factor.
Initial thoughts/visions are not usually voluntary. As such, they cannot be sinful, as an act must be deliberate to be a sin.
Since in neither case is the person married, both their thoughts/vision are fantasy. In both cases the initial thought is not sinful. If any of these thoughts contain that which is sinful, they only become sinful if the thought is entertained and assented to.
Spontaneous thoughts are not near occassion of sin and cannot be avoided.
As to how this is related to the OP. Unless ones arousal is deliberate, there is no sin, whether married or not, nor if one will be married or not.
R
Romulus
Guest
Good point Baelor
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
In the practical order, yes.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 word arousal itself is especially apt. Arousal can come from our own wilfulness (absolutely a sin); or, otherwise, from some form of seduction or suggestion, in which case it must be manfully resisted.
All Christians are called to holiness and a life of chastity. Even married couples are called to be chaste. Christian marriage does not violate chastity, temperance or modesty and moderation. Insomuch as arousal is necessary for procreation, it is permissible to that end.
It takes practise but in time anyone can learn to tame their imaginations and resist unwanted and dangerous urgers. Nipping it in the bud, as it were, is the best and most effective policy. It becomes easier, even habitual, with time. Maintaining custody of the eyes is also an enormous help.
Looking somewhere else and thinking about something else is the easiest way to avoid succumbing to urges or accepting them, which acceptance can result in falling into the brutish, irrational baseness of lust.
It is also prudent to observe one’s state, condition or surroundings: if, for example, you note you are presently idle, then the best thing to do might be to get up, go for a walk or accomplish some chore. Idleness can be dangerous for all sorts of things and the imagination often gets the best of us.
Further, it is dangerously easy to rationalise bad or imprudent behaviour; therefore, we should set for ourselves a strict policy and commit to chastity, purity and holiness. In time we develop a lifestyle, so to speak, and habits that remove the near occassion and thus living chastely becomes rather easy and natural; also, and in time, you will find others’ wantoness and self-abandonment not only distasteful but sometimes even outright disgusting. Such disgust is a good sign that you are practising the virtues and have a healthy contempt for what is abusive, unnatural and even dangerous (e.g., a lack of self-control).
Hope this helps.
R
Romulus
Guest
David,
What are the correct definitions that work with the Church’s teaching? Where in the CCC?
Thanks,
D
davidv
Guest
The Church’s definition of chasity I quoted in post #37.
As seen by these CCC articles continance = no sexual activity.
R
Romulus
Guest
Got it. ok here is my understanding:
Celibacy is “abstinence from marriage”
“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite.”
“Continence may be defined as abstinence from even the licit gratifications a.k.a lawful pleasures of marriage or Continence is refraining from sexual acts”
Not all Catholics fall under celibacy. All Catholics fall under continence, but continence are at different levels for different Catholics. All Catholics fall under Chastity, but the indulgence of the sexual appetite is either excluding or moderating.
The different Catholics groups are:
1.) Catholics called to celibacy (called to holy orders)—> continence and chastity is perpetual, in this case for chastity, exclude the indulgence of the sexual appetite.
2.) Catholics called to be unmarried a.k.a. celibacy (lay persons)–> same as 1.)
3.) Catholics that are unmarried, but will be married in the future —> continence is not perpetual, neither is it periodic. Chastity is excluding the indulgence of the sexual appetite.
4.) Catholics that are married → continence not perpetual, but is periodic. So there is periods of no continence. Chastity is moderating the indulgence of the sexual appetite.
Have I understood the Church’s teaching on what is celibacy, Chasity and continence how it pertains to Catholics??
- Status