The unmarried catholic has no business getting

  • Thread starter Thread starter Romulus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Romulus said:
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!
Click to expand...
It is clearly expressed here in the Baltimore Catechism (1891):
  1. Q. Which are the chief sources of sin?
    A. The chief sources of sin are seven: Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth; and they are commonly called capital sins.
Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?
A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

Q. 300. What is lust?
A. Lust is an excessive desire for the sinful pleasures forbidden by the Sixth Commandment.

Q. 301. What effect has lust on our souls?
A. Lust begets in our souls a distaste for holy things, a perverted conscience, a hatred for God, and it very frequently leads to a complete loss of faith.
  1. Q. What is the ninth Commandment?
    A. The ninth Commandment is: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
  2. Q. What are we commanded by the ninth Commandment?
    A. We are commanded by the ninth Commandment to keep ourselves pure in thought and desire.
  3. Q. What is forbidden by the ninth Commandment?
    A. The ninth Commandment forbids unchaste thoughts, desires of anothers wife or husband, and all other unlawful impure thoughts and desires.
  4. Q. Are impure thoughts and desires always sins?
    A. Impure thoughts and desires are always sins, unless they displease us and we try to banish them.
 
Romulus said:
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?
Click to expand...
Daydreaming about spooning just before I went to bed was probably my one biggest struggle when i was single. First off, I don’t see how imagining this is not sexually erotic and pleasurable. Second off, the mind cannot tell the difference between a fantasy about the future and reality. In my experience, even if you dream of doing something “once you’re married”, it is much harder to refrain from doing it prior to marriage. You are in a sense expressing something you want now and coveting after it thinking “I’ll finally get this satisfaction once I’m married” all while there is a possibility you could die tomorrow and never marry.

Eventually through prayer I realized it is best just not to have any sort of fantasy about the future. I personally think that this leads to discontentment with how your life is now. Granted, maybe that was just being overscruplous, or maybe discontentment was just a personal struggle I had. What I can say though is that when I longed for intimacy and would be tempted to daydream about cuddling with some fictitious person, I would work on turning my direction to God and focus in on an intimacy with Him, resting within His presense and dwelling on His love for me. I would ultimately focus more on meditating on the reality of God’s love for me, rather than satisfying my longing to be loved by expressing the desire to be loved by fantasizing about any sort of physical expression of love between a husband and a wife.
 
Romulus said:
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??
Click to expand...
As for chastity, that depends on what you mean by ‘moderating the indulgence of the sexual appetite’. If by that you simply mean not having sex too often then that is not at all what chastity in marriage is about. Chastity in marriage is not about moderating the sexual acts numerically, rather qualitatively. It is also something that extends beyond the act itself into an attitutde towards the spouse in keeping with their dignity. It all comes down to a matter of loving your spouse and not using them for some selfish end. Having real selfless love as opposed to lust. And this needs to play out in all facets of your life.
 
thewanderer said:
As for chastity, that depends on what you mean by ‘moderating the indulgence of the sexual appetite’. If by that you simply mean not having sex too often then that is not at all what chastity in marriage is about. Chastity in marriage is not about moderating the sexual acts numerically, rather qualitatively. It is also something that extends beyond the act itself into an attitutde towards the spouse in keeping with their dignity. It all comes down to a matter of loving your spouse and not using them for some selfish end. Having real selfless love as opposed to lust. And this needs to play out in all facets of your life.
Click to expand...
wanderer,

yes, I agree, “moderating” meaning careful to not make your spouse an object to satisfy a selfish desire.
 
Romulus said:
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?
Click to expand...
False.

Sexual arousal is morally neutral. Its what we do with that arousal that determines whether we have sinned.

If you find yourself aroused just because, hormones or whatever, if you went and masturbated or fornicated or committed adultery, that is the sin.

If you find yourself aroused and simply went and played video games or went to the gym or prayed the rosary, and the arousal went away, then there is no sin.

The Church teaches that we must be mindful of our behaviour and what we seek. For example, if we went and watched a movie or tv show that had sexual activity in it, and we became aroused by it, and we acted on that arousal, then we have sinned, and that we have recognised a trigger - if we intentionally seek out that trigger again then we are skating on thin ice.

The Church does not teach that a natural bodily reaction is not sinful, it is what we do with that reaction.
 
1AugustSon7 said:
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.
**
Click to expand...
The word ‘permissible’ here is a big hang-up for me. It has certain connotations… like, “begrudgingly accepted.” For example, when you get a syllabus at a college/university, it might say “it is permissible to have up to two (2) unexcused absences.”

In other words, the professor is saying “you can, but I would really prefer you didn’t.”

Your use of the word permissible may be correct, but certainly the connotation that I (and perhaps others) take from it is most definitely not correct, insofar as a sexual relationship also has the unitive purpose which bonds spouses.

Sexual pleasure is indeed a very positive thing which spouses ought have no shame about indulging in, as it serves the unitive and procreative purposes of the marital embrace. It encourages even the holiest of husbands and wives to engage in the activity more often. I mean if God wanted spouses to have only the “minimal” amount of sexual pleasure, He surely could have made it so that a man can ejaculate without any. So who are we to question His design? 🙂
 
The enjoyment is not disordered when it is the natural result of morally ordered behavior. So it is not selfish behavior when it is just and moral behavior.
 
Romulus said:
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.
Click to expand...
yep…he sure talked the talked, but failed to walk the walk.
 
KateKimmer said:
yep…he sure talked the talked, but failed to walk the walk.
Click to expand...
lol, yep its unfortunate, hope that Corapi reconciles…and I’m pretty sure all of us, including saints, popes etc at some point…failed to “walk the walk” too…classic biblical example, St. Peter.

Praying that we can all continue to not fail from “walkin da walk” , and if we do fail, praying that we can get back on track and continue “walkin da walk” :signofcross:
 
Romulus said:
Celibacy is “abstinence from marriage”
Click to expand...
Celibacy is the vow never to marry.
“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite.”
Click to expand...
Chastity is the virtue in which our sexuality is successfully integrated into us. Our bodies are through which our souls find expression and communicate truths. Lust motivates us to pursue sexual pleasure exclusively and thus violates the sexual language of our body forcing us to speak a lie. As such, its not that there is too much pleasure, but that we can obsessively focus on the pleasure and objectify others.
“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”
Click to expand...
Well the CCC calls engaged couples to a life of continence. It doesn’t mean engaged couples can lawfully engage in sex. As such, continence would be abstinance.
 
Romulus said:
ok kate, fine… it wasn’t my intention to try to make ya one 😛
Click to expand...
it seemed like you were. Interesting how u don’t mention his website (black sheep dog) LOL

is no longer active. So where is he?
 
Romulus said:
tullian,

Yes, I seem to get that from the CC too. If a man willfully gets an erection, excluding “morning wood”, then he failed to control his thoughts, failed to self-mastery…therefore, SIN. I would imagine any man who gets an erection, achieved it by allowing certain THOUGHTS to enter his mind.

Bologna, erections come no matter what you’re thinking. it’s auto.
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
It is clearly expressed here in the Baltimore Catechism (1891):
  1. Q. Which are the chief sources of sin?
    A. The chief sources of sin are seven: Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, and Sloth; and they are commonly called capital sins.
Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?
A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

Q. 300. What is lust?
A. Lust is an excessive desire for the sinful pleasures forbidden by the Sixth Commandment.

Q. 301. What effect has lust on our souls?
A. Lust begets in our souls a distaste for holy things, a perverted conscience, a hatred for God, and it very frequently leads to a complete loss of faith.
  1. Q. What is the ninth Commandment?
    A. The ninth Commandment is: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.
  2. Q. What are we commanded by the ninth Commandment?
    A. We are commanded by the ninth Commandment to keep ourselves pure in thought and desire.
  3. Q. What is forbidden by the ninth Commandment?
    A. The ninth Commandment forbids unchaste thoughts, desires of anothers wife or husband, and all other unlawful impure thoughts and desires.
  4. Q. Are impure thoughts and desires always sins?
    A. Impure thoughts and desires are always sins, unless they displease us and we try to banish them.
Click to expand...
The BALTIMORE CATECHISM! May it make a comeback before the Orioles do!

By third grade I had a sound basis for our faith do to this book.

I remember later hearing people sneer (yes, sneers can be heard in a voice IMO) “… the Baltimore Catechism …” as if it were spiritual source of all that was WRONG with the Catholic Church. I wondered what the heck their problem was - but they were already in such an internal dither I didn’t want to kick the beehive.

Later, working with college age Catholic “young adults” I ran across well disposed people who were woefully ignorant of the faith. Even the most essential questions - like those covered in the FIRST Qs and As of my SECOND GRADE Baltimore Catechism.

Who made me? God made me. Why did God make me? To know, love and serve Him in THIS life and be happy with Him forever in the NEXT!

So at age 7 I was innoculated against the “meaninglessness of life” philosophies of the atheists and many other things. THANK you Baltimore Catechism!

And thanks for being relevant to THIS thread regarding Lust, Purity, etc.
 
CaptFun said:
And thanks for being relevant to THIS thread regarding Lust, Purity, etc.
Click to expand...
That’s great. There’s just the matter of determining which thoughts are pure and which are not, which can get a bit dicey in the sense that not all arousing thoughts are sinful.
 
CaptFun said:
The BALTIMORE CATECHISM! May it make a comeback before the Orioles do!

By third grade I had a sound basis for our faith do to this book.

I remember later hearing people sneer (yes, sneers can be heard in a voice IMO) “… the Baltimore Catechism …” as if it were spiritual source of all that was WRONG with the Catholic Church. I wondered what the heck their problem was - but they were already in such an internal dither I didn’t want to kick the beehive.

Later, working with college age Catholic “young adults” I ran across well disposed people who were woefully ignorant of the faith. Even the most essential questions - like those covered in the FIRST Qs and As of my SECOND GRADE Baltimore Catechism.

Who made me? God made me. Why did God make me? To know, love and serve Him in THIS life and be happy with Him forever in the NEXT!

So at age 7 I was innoculated against the “meaninglessness of life” philosophies of the atheists and many other things. THANK you Baltimore Catechism!

And thanks for being relevant to THIS thread regarding Lust, Purity, etc.
Click to expand...
It is very direct isn’t it. Another good resource is also from that era: The Faith Explained by Leo J. Trese. (I also read that.)

Since I am older, there was no RCIA or RCIC program when I received the sacraments of Christian initiation, and my catechesis was Baltimore. (RCIA was made mandatory in the USA in 1988.)

No. 00 for Prayer classes.
No. 0 for Confession classes and certain adults. First communion grades 1-2.
No. 1 for First Communion classes. Grades 4-7 (3-5).
No. 2 for Confirmation classes. Grades 6-9 (6-8).
No. 4 for Teachers and Teachers’ Training classes. Teaching resource for 1 & 2.
No. 3 for two years’ course for Post-Confirmation classes. Grades 10-12 (age 16) post confirmation.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
That’s great. There’s just the matter of determining which thoughts are pure and which are not, which can get a bit dicey in the sense that not all arousing thoughts are sinful.
Click to expand...
That’s true. One CAN drive themselves crazy with that or be TOO scrupulous. I think the opposite problem is more common these days though.

I remember hearing the actor Daniel Travanti (Captain Furillo character of the old “Hill Street Blues” program - also Grey’s Anatomy and Criminal Minds) recall why he left the Church. To paraphrase him, he wanted to do what was right and good … but when it came down to “EVEN THOUGHTS” of lust he gave up.

I felt bad for him. Felt he took things too far. Mistaking temptations (however bad or numerous) for sin perhaps. His attitude didn’t strike me as being one of rebellion or wanting to be “nasty as I wanna be”. He wanted to be … good. He heroically conquered alcoholism (though AA folks always remind themselves I’m an alcoholic to prevent backsliding) as I remember it. And I hope this remains the case.

If this somehow gets back to Daniel … c’mon BACK! If you haven’t already. Loved your work on that program - although some of the steamy stuff might have given some folks mental temptations!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top