We are all called to chasitity

[2perfection]

Responding to Buffalos idea of two men on an island…here is a what if.

I often read that we are all called to chastity, but what would happen if that call was heeded by everyone.

Everyone was called to chasity, for life.

Wouldnt that lead to the extinction of the human race as quickly as everyone turning gay? I mean no sex=infertile.

(mods, is this OK?)

 

[vluvski]

chastity is not the same as abstinence or more accurately continence, both of which involve no sex.

Chastity within marriage is demonstrated by using the sexual act in the manner that glorifies God, which may or may not include periodic continence based on your situation.

 

[Joan_M]

2perfection:

Responding to Buffalos idea of two men on an island…here is a what if.

I often read that we are all called to chastity, but what would happen if that call was heeded by everyone.

Everyone was called to chasity, for life.

Wouldnt that lead to the extinction of the human race as quickly as everyone turning gay? I mean no sex=infertile.

(mods, is this OK?)

Everyone is called to chastity! For those who are not married, that means no sex. For those who are married, that means, among other things, sex only with your spouse. The other things include only using oral sex as foreplay, etc.

So, if everyone follows the call to chastity what it would mean is the continuation of the human race and the extinction of STDs!

 

[LovedOne]

2perfection:

Responding to Buffalos idea of two men on an island…here is a what if.

I often read that we are all called to chastity, but what would happen if that call was heeded by everyone.

Everyone was called to chasity, for life.

Wouldnt that lead to the extinction of the human race as quickly as everyone turning gay? I mean no sex=infertile.

(mods, is this OK?)

You are confusing “chastity” with “celibacy.”
All unmarried people are called to celibacy.
All people are called to chastity. That is, living their lives chastely and within the beautiful and ordered way that God designed. Married and unmarried alike.
It is when one goes outside of that ordered design that we wreak the havoc that sexual sin always eventually brings us. Individually and in society as a whole.

Have you read “Theology of the Body?” If not, I highly recommend you do! Only then can you TRULY understand the full meaning of life and how and why God designed “male and female” and what the sexual union really means.
It is a beautiful work and theology that is not anything “new” but the constant teaching since Adam and Eve.
Also, read Christopher West’s “Good News About Sex and Marriage” which is based on Theology of the Body in an everyday and very enlightening way.

 

[2perfection]

LovedOne:

You are confusing “chastity” with “celibacy.”
All unmarried people are called to celibacy.

No I am not. I was aware from school (Catholic, natch) that chastity gets redefined on marriage…I just thought I would ask.

On another note, (listen in mods) on an island two devout heterosexuals are stranded, one of each sex. They are single (no distant spouses), and eventually fall genuinely in love.

Without the presence of a priest can they marry themselves?

 

[felra]

2perfection:

Responding to Buffalos idea of two men on an island…here is a what if.

I often read that we are all called to chastity, but what would happen if that call was heeded by everyone.

Everyone was called to chasity, for life.

Wouldnt that lead to the extinction of the human race as quickly as everyone turning gay? I mean no sex=infertile.

Why include the reference to “gay”. “Gay” does not equal infertile. Homosexual desire/orientation is simply a disordered desire. Having sexual intercourse/expression outside the confines (sacrament) of marriage is sin (fornication, adultery, masturbation, …for the sake of decency I spare the litany of possible sin options).

God calls all His people to holiness of life, which includes purity of sexuality, which means to strive to live chastely in the state of life that one is called to or currently finds them self in. It is really that simple, and but by the grace of God possible.

 

[2perfection]

felra:

Why include the reference to “gay”. “Gay” does not equal infertile. Homosexual desire/orientation is simply a disordered desire.

Buffalo, inspired me…

buffalo:

two males or a bunch on an island - what will happen in 1 generation?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76791 post 24.

If they are good catholics, they wont have kids because they are not married. I am wondering if a couple can marry themselves and the marriage be valid in the eyes of the church if and when they return to civilisation (or on death, which ever comes first).

If not then what is the difference between a two mixed gender or a bunch of catholics (without a priest) on an island, and an all male community? Both result in no people.

It simply seems to me that under certain circumstances strict adherance to Catholic doctrine leads to no people in just the same way that all male or all female groups would.

 

[vluvski]

I believe there is a stipulation that after a certain period of time where no priest or witness is available, the couple may licitly choose to consider themselves married.
There are probably some formalities, but who would study up on that thinking they might someday be stranded with one other person on a deserted island?
What do you think Adam and Eve did to initially populate the planet? Obviously some of their offspring had to have been in-bred… The church allows for such situations because the perpetuation of the human race to the glory of God is more important than the rules, which are only there to guide us to the Truth. Similarly, a person can be free of their obligation to attend Sunday Mass (note, that is not the same as being relieved of the Sunday obligation) if there is no reasonable means to do so. The key here is that this is only acceptable when the sacraments are simply unavailable, so don’t misconstrue that as permission for one to do as he or she pleases just because it may be inconvenient (not impossible) to follow church teaching.

 

[2perfection]

vluvski:

I believe there is a stipulation that after a certain period of time where no priest or witness is available, the couple may licitly choose to consider themselves married.

That’s what i figured.

vluvski:

There are probably some formalities, but who would study up on that thinking they might someday be stranded with one other person on a deserted island?

Well, I would if I were a catholic. But then i have that book that tells you how to deliver babies, fight crocodiles and land planes, so…

vluvski:

What do you think Adam and Eve did to initially populate the planet? Obviously some of their offspring had to have been in-bred…

Technically all their kids. But werent there supposed to be people in the land of Nod already who they interbred with?

The church allows for such situations because the perpetuation of the human race to the glory of God is more important than the rules, which are only there to guide us to the Truth. The key here is that the sacraments are simply unavailable, so don’t misconstrue that as permission for one to do as he or she pleases just because it may be inconvenient (not impossible) to follow church teaching.

You have anticipated my next question about the unfortinate airoplane crash where the survivors on the islands were only priests and nuns…

 

[Maranatha]

The Code of Cannon Law stipulates that:

Can. 1057 §1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.

A valid marriage does not require a priest. In the event a priest is not available, I believe the CC recommends a marriage be blessed by a priest as soon as possible.

 

[vluvski]

2perfection:

You have anticipated my next question about the unfortinate airoplane crash where the survivors on the islands were only priests and nuns:

I do not find plane crashes side splittingly funny. This situation is different. Consecrated celibates (ie nuns, priests, monks, brothers) have already made a vow before God. They have already discerned their vocation not to be in marriage, and therefore would not feel the need to marry in order to reproduce because of their geographical isolation. In other words, the fact that they crashed is irrelevant to fulfilling their vocation.
Similarly, a male/female pair in which one or both parties was/were already married, or in which the couple did not fall in love need not feel obligated to marry themselves simply because they are alone on the island together.

 

[Viajero]

Maranatha:

A valid marriage does not require a priest. In the event a priest is not available, I believe the CC recommends a marriage be blessed by a priest as soon as possible.

Thanks, Maranatha. I think I overheard my priest say how the Sacrament of Marriage was the only Sacrament where the priest wasn’t the main person executing the Sacrament (or something like that). It made me do a double-take, but I chose not to question him further.

As for what would happen if everybody heeded the call to chastity? I think we would have a world with:

• Happier and healthier marriages and families
• More children who were well-adjusted
• Less chances of having children who self-identify as gay
• No AIDS
• No STDs
• No abortions
• No adultery

Gosh, what a wonderful world it would be if everyone heeded the call to chastity.

 

[2perfection]

vluvski:

I do not find plane crashes side splittingly funny.

It was the neat anticipation of my next question that was funny. But apparently not to everyone.

vluvski:

This situation is different. Consecrated celibates (ie nuns, priests, monks, brothers) have already made a vow before God. They have already discerned their vocation not to be in marriage, and therefore would not feel the need to marry in order to reproduce because of their geographical isolation. In other words, the fact that they crashed is irrelevant to fulfilling their vocation.

so,while the criticism of homosexuality is that it does not renew life…the same can clearly be said of consecrated celibates, despite their vocation leading to the same outcome, extinction?

vluvski:

Similarly, a male/female pair in which one or both parties was/were already married, or in which the couple did not fall in love need not feel obligated to marry themselves simply because they are alone on the island together.

At no point was ‘obligation’ suggested, my example specifically said ‘love’.

it seems clear to me that under certain circumstances catholic doctrine can lead to a reproductive dead end. Rationalisations aside as to why its OK in these circumstances…this is one of the reasons I consider catholicism to be part and parcel of the culture of death, and not its opponent.

 

[2perfection]

Viajero:

• Less chances of having children who self-identify as gay

this is so out of place.

 

[felra]

so,while the criticism of homosexuality is that it does not renew life…the same can clearly be said of consecrated celibates, despite their vocation leading to the same outcome, extinction?

There is not comparison here. One is of the light, the other is of darkness.

Consecrated religious bear the fruit of spiritual offspring
and guide, form, point, and lead the way to ultimate fulfilment and eternal life for their spiritual offspring.

Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle bear the fruit of disease, mental illness, fragmental psychosexual identities, a whole list of mental/emotional/physical comorbidity factors, and guide, form, point, and lead the way to destruction and left unconverted/unrepentant then to ultimate death and eternal despair for their progeny

it seems clear to me that under certain circumstances catholic doctrine can lead to a reproductive dead end

. Rationalisations aside as to why its OK in these circumstances**…this is one of the reasons I **consider catholicism to be part and parcel of the culture of death, and not its opponent.

The goal in the Christian life is become son’s and daughter’s of God the Father through His Son Jesus Christ and to attain life eternal. There is no “reproductive dead end” as you attempt to frame. To exercise responsible fertility in accord with one’s vocation and state in life does not qualify “catholicism to be part and parcel of the culture of death”. This defies reason or any construct of logic.

To apply reductionist logic to “under certain circumstances catholic doctrine can lead to a reproductive dead end” is a misnomer and fails to appreciate the encompass of the human and divine of man’s eternal enfleshed spirit.

 

[puzzleannie]

2perfection:

Responding to Buffalos idea of two men on an island…here is a what if.

I often read that we are all called to chastity, but what would happen if that call was heeded by everyone.

Everyone was called to chasity, for life.

Wouldnt that lead to the extinction of the human race as quickly as everyone turning gay? I mean no sex=infertile.

(mods, is this OK?)

no it would mean sex would be reserved for marriage as the Creator intended, for strengthening the bond between one man and one woman, for the procreation of children and for strong families in which to raise them. Chastity means proper use of the sexual gifts according to one’s state in life. That means continence (or abstinence) for all those not married, no matter what their sexual orientation, and use of sexual intercourse as the great gift it is for married couples.

 

[Brendan]

2perfection:

On another note, (listen in mods) on an island two devout heterosexuals are stranded, one of each sex. They are single (no distant spouses), and eventually fall genuinely in love.

Without the presence of a priest can they marry themselves?

The Ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage are the couple themselves. The priest or deacon is simply the official witness of the Church.

So yes, these two people can, in fact Marry each other.

Canon 1116 allows for such a Marriage if the parties cannot reasonably expect to have clergy present for an extended period of time. Case law for Canon law generally defines this as 30 days.

If possible, the marriage must be witnessed, but the Validity is not affected if witnesses are not available.

Canon 1116 is often refered to as the “Desert Island Canon”

 

[Brendan]

2perfection:

No I am not. I was aware from school (Catholic, natch) that chastity gets redefined on marriage…I just thought I would ask.

Chastity does NOT get redefined in marriage. Here is Websters on Chastity

Main Entry: chaste
Pronunciation: 'chAst
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): chast·er; chast·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin castus pure
1 : innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse
2 : CELIBATE
3 : pure in thought and act : MODEST
4 a : severely simple in design or execution : AUSTERE b : CLEAN, SPOTLESS

Chastity (the state of being Chaste) is not engaging in UNLAWFUL sexual intercourse.

For an unmarried person, this means NO sex. For the married person, Chastity means, sex only with one’s spouse, no adultery.

But the definition remains the same.

 

[2perfection]

felra:

There is not comparison here. One is of the light, the other is of darkness.

Consecrated religious bear the fruit of spiritual offspring and guide, form, point, and lead the way to ultimate fulfilment and eternal life for their spiritual offspring.

Bottom line. No kids. No people. No continuation.

Hypothetical ‘spritual offspring’ are interesting, but homosexuals have ‘spritual offspring’ too, in the form of the culture they develop, such as Macheakl Angelos David.

felra:

Those engaged in the homosexual lifestyle bear the fruit of disease, mental illness, fragmental psychosexual identities, a whole list of mental/emotional/physical comorbidity factors, and guide, form, point, and lead the way to destruction and left unconverted/unrepentant then to ultimate death and eternal despair for their progeny

felra:

And heterosexuals never go made, get diseased innocently, and so on?

Oh, and the flow of causality goes from homophobia to anomie and discontection to these illnesses. That is, people like you make it happen and want it to happen so you can moralise…all the while ignoring the loonies in your own camp.

it’s called projection.

felra:

There is no “reproductive dead end” as you attempt to frame. To exercise responsible fertility in accord with one’s vocation and state in life does not qualify “catholicism to be part and parcel of the culture of death”. This defies reason or any construct of logic.

All rationalisations: bottom line. No kids. No contin uation, except for “spiritual offspring”. At least David is stil around

felra:

To apply reductionist logic to “under certain circumstances catholic doctrine can lead to a reproductive dead end” is a misnomer and fails to appreciate the encompass of the human and divine of man’s eternal enfleshed spirit.

You’ll need to talk to Buffalo about that. he’s the one who came up with the ‘two guys on an island’ scenario. I’m just dropping people on it to see what happens.

So far, bottom line, if we use Buffalos Island, we get two extinction scenarios. One is all male, so no chance, the other mixed gender…but still no chance, just extinction.

Rationalisations dont matter on buffalo island, just kids.

 

[2perfection]

Brendan:

Chastity does NOT get redefined in marriage. Here is Websters on Chastity

Chastity (the state of being Chaste) is not engaging in UNLAWFUL sexual intercourse.

For an unmarried person, this means NO sex. For the married person, Chastity means, sex only with one’s spouse, no adultery.

But the definition remains the same.

Are you claiming that all the definitions of a word appeared complete, whole and intact?

It’s simply a redefinition that has been codified.