My interpretation about chastity: Am I wrong? (Looking for serious discussion)

Catholic Living
1

I know this is a long post, but I would genuinely appreciate thoughtful responses. I am not looking for simple answers like “this is wrong because the Church says so.” I want to understand why, and I am open to changing my mind if I find stronger arguments.

This is an important topic for me, as it was one of the reasons I ended a relationship. So I’m not asking out of curiosity, but because I want to align my views with truth.

To be clear: I am Catholic, and I do not reject the importance of chastity. I agree that sex belongs within marriage, that it is serious, unitive, and not something to be trivialized. I am not trying to justify casual behavior.

However, my question is about where exactly the moral boundary should be placed, and whether some interpretations might be extending it further than necessary.

I start from the idea that God is love, and that moral teachings are not arbitrary rules, but are ordered toward our good and toward authentic love. Because of that, I struggle with the idea that all forms of physical intimacy before marriage are necessarily wrong, regardless of context.

I fully accept that sexual intercourse belongs to marriage. But I question whether every form of physical intimacy that expresses desire or affection must fall under the same prohibition.

For example, some would classify all forms of “foreplay” as sinful outside marriage. But I’m not convinced that all such acts are morally equivalent. It seems to me that there is a meaningful difference between:

  • disordered lust (e.g., pornography, objectification, or purely self-centered pleasure), and

  • expressions of affection and desire within a committed, loving relationship that is genuinely ordered toward marriage. (but obviously, without the intend of sexual intercourse, so it isn’t really “rofeplay”, just some things related to it)

In other areas of morality, intention, context, and the nature of the act all matter. So my question is: what is the principle that makes all these acts intrinsically disordered, regardless of context or intention?

Another point I struggle with is the idea that the moral boundary is strictly tied to the sacramental moment. I understand the importance of the sacrament. But at the same time, the Church acknowledges that a marriage can be declared null if it lacked validity from the beginning—meaning that what appeared to be a marriage was never truly one.

This raises a question for me: if a sacramental form can exist outwardly without a real union, is it possible that, in some cases, a real union (in terms of love, commitment, and intention) exists before the formal sacrament?

I am not claiming that this replaces the sacrament. Rather, I am questioning whether moral evaluation should consider not only the formal state, but also the reality of the relationship.

Additionally, I find it difficult to ignore the fact that human sexuality is not only reproductive, but also relational and has a biological heath dimension (as noted by Pope Leo XIV and Pope Francis, and also supported by health professionals). Desire naturally arises within a loving relationship. It seems to me that there is a real distinction between:

  • cultivating desire in a way that is selfish and disconnected from love, and

  • experiencing and expressing desire that is directed toward a specific person within a committed relationship.

I am not arguing that “anything goes.” Clearly, boundaries are necessary. But I am questioning whether the current line is drawn too rigidly, without sufficient distinction between fundamentally different situations. Also considering that many of the actions I mentioned are not only beneficial for relationship health, but also for physical health.

So my position, at least for now, is this:
There may be forms of physical intimacy that, while serious and not to be taken lightly, are not inherently sinful when they occur within a loving, committed relationship that is genuinely oriented toward marriage.

I have talked to some friends about it, some agree, some disagree.
I am fully open to being wrong about this. But if I am, I would like to understand the reasoning in a deeper way. Why must all such acts be considered intrinsically disordered, even in the context I described? I have developed this opinion over a long period of observation, study, and experience, but I want to be 100% certain of it, or change my mind if necessary.

If you disagree, I would really appreciate a response that engages with these distinctions, rather than simply restating the rule.

And thank you for taking the time to read.

2

I’m not completely sure what you’re asking.

Are you asking if foreplay or sexual acts that are not penetrative sexual intercourse but result in orgasm (e.g. oral sex, manual manipulation, etc) in a committed relationship with the intention of eventual marriage is sinful? In the Catholic faith ANY sexual acts with the purposeful intent of NOT leading to or ending in intercourse is sinful even in a marriage. Foreplay as a means to an end (ie without leading to coitus) is sinful regardless of who the person is or their marital status according to the Catholic faith. Many would argue that forms of non-coital sexual acts are forms of sexuality that are absolutely normal and natural to being human and as such, from an objective view, the Catholic belief of coitus being the sole source and lone summit of acceptable sexuality is unnatural.

It’s worth noting that in most non-Catholic secular relationships, sexual intimacy includes/incorporates the practice of non-coital sexual intimacy (e.g. manual sexual touch, oral) as natural forms of intimacy; part of the couple’s overall repertoire. In non-Catholic relationships it’s largely a complete non-issue. Meaning, in secular committed relationships, people aren’t fretting as to whether their shared non-coital intimacy is morally wrong.

Maybe a more succinct way to say it is that non-coital sexual intimacy to its own end is only a moral issue in the Catholic faith and therefore, atypical in comparison to the norm.

Also in comparison to the norm, Catholic teaching regarding human sexuality is a prudent ideal (ie monogamy, chastity unless within the confines of a marriage between a man and a woman, etc), but I believe it creates problems, even psychological problems, that are rarely if ever addressed. And it’s unfortunate. If you attend talks or teachings on Catholic sexuality (e.g. classes intended for teenagers, pre-marriage courses, NFP classes), abstinence before marriage is the only option, with eternal Hell as a potential punishment for not practicing abstinence. But then in contrast, you’re taught that one of the gifts in/of a Catholic marriage is the ability to engage in as much sex and as often as the couple desires. Going from a lifetime of zero sex and virginity to essentially unlimited sex in the marriage in one day (ie the wedding day). Sounds straightforward. However, I don’t believe most people raised Catholic are able to switch off a lifetime of fear, guilt and shame related to sex to literally zero fear, guilt and shame in an instant on the wedding day. That’s not reality for most people raised as a traditional Catholic. A lot of people in that situation carry the latent and persistent feelings of fear, guilt and shame into their sexual intimacy in marriage. For some people, those feelings they were taught all of their childhood, adolescence and even into adulthood, never go away. I find situations like that very sad and damaging.

3

Hey Pax, thanks for answering.

I understand your argument, but I strongly disagree that sexual acts with the purposeful intent of not leading to or ending in intercourse are sinful. I know that there are several people, even important ones, who have said that. However, I have seen more acceptance in more progressive views, and even if it is not universally agreed upon, I think that with time this needs, and will be rethought.

What I’ve learned is that the perspective of non-coital sexual activity being wrong is because it does not conceive a child, and sexual activities are only for that purpose. Once the Church believed that, but today things have changed. The previous popes and the Vatican have said that sexual intercourse is not only for reproduction.

“The Vatican […] argues that sex unites couples and should not be seen as something to do only to have children.” Link for this citation

As the Church’s perspective on this has changed, it would make sense to begin to accept these other sexual activities, as the original reason that forbids them has changed. I’m not saying that it is always right, but I think that it is not always sinful, as you stated.

In my interpretation, God is love. Things that are sins aren’t sins without a reason, and the reason why sexual activities may be sinful is doing them without true meaning and love. But once you really understand it and live it in the right way, it is not sinful. Our Lord and Savior wants us to be happy and love each other, not to sacrifice ourselves and avoid natural things without a reason.

I don’t think this will convince you, but it is pretty solid evidence for me, and I think it would be difficult to change my mind about this point. But I’m always open to discussion. Again, thanks for answering. Bless you.

4

@lgbazano

For clarification in relation to Catholic teaching on sexuality being an “ideal”, I meant in theory if it was realistically achievable to most people rather than it being crushingly difficult for many people. My response was as a “devil’s advocate” in relation to Catholic teaching and my modicum of knowledge on the subject.

While The Church is becoming more progressive in different dioceses and parishes and I’m no expert on all things Catholic, I doubt that acts of sodomy are now regarded as acceptable in relation to marital sexual intimacy. If the acts were considered acceptable as a means to an end, there would be less credible argument to continue to consider homosexual acts as “gravely disordered”.

1 Like
5

I think that your questions are reasonable and clearly stated. I did not find the answer in the Catholic Catechism. “Theology of the Body” by John Paul II might have an answer, but it is long and fairly abstract.

Pax, can you cite a source for this statement? I understand you to say that any form of sexual touching between a husband and wife is forbidden unless it leads to intercourse.

6

@Literalman , Are you saying you believe that The Church allows a married couple to engage in oral sex (as an example) if their intent is to go no further towards sexual intercourse? Oral sex for the sake of oral sex and nothing more?

I’m not referring to sexual intimacy considered to be “foreplay” (ie precedes sexual intercourse). I’m referring to sexual acts that a couple may engage in that result in orgasm and which are not related to or intended to be related to ending with copulation. Unless someone can show otherwise, I believe such sexual acts as means to an end, apart from copulation are considered sinful according to Catholic teaching.

7

No, I’m not saying what I believe. I’m saying what I understood you to say (which is different from what is in your reply) and asking whether you had a source for it. So what you mean by “sexual acts” is more than just touching? Do you mean acts substituting for intercourse?

8

Precisely. Sexual acts as a means to and end (ie orgasm), deliberately separate from a goal of sexual intercourse are forbidden in any relationship, including a Catholic marriage according to Catholic teaching.

9

You speak very well (better tan myself : )

However, my question is about where exactly the moral boundary should be placed, and whether some interpretations might be extending it further than necessary.

When I was a teenager, a very popular book within Christian circles was, “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” by Joshua Harris. In it, he talks about the difference between dating and courting (the latter is oriented towards Marriage). He talks about saving his first kiss for his future bride. What ultimately happened was, he and his Wife got divorced and he has deconstructed (lost faith). But, he didn’t only lose his Wife and lose his faith, but became an apologist for his unbelief. Where he used to lead souls to Christ, he now leads souls away from having Faith and regrets ever writing these books (I have a copy of the sequel to “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” on my bookshelf as well, titles, “Boy Meets Girl.”

He has basically replaced one religion for another after his Marriage failed. He had built up this persona and identity around this idea that courting and saving your first kiss for Marriage would protect your Marriage from hardships (my words, not his).

I do not know how young or old you are, but I do know that one of the number one questions that young people ask, when Jason Evert comes speaks to them at an event, is How far is too far? But, you are not asking how, but why, if I’m understanding you correctly.

Regardless of context or intention? That makes this question hard to answer. In sports, you see coaches slap players on the butt, which to me is weird, even within the context. If that same coach slapped a young female player on the backside, in any context, it would be seen as inappropriate, even within the intention.

But, what about two individuals in a relationship (dating or courting, I’m not going to draw a distinction) do the same? Are you asking if this behavior is morally acceptable? Or is it always inappropriate no matter the context or intention? Am I understanding your question correctly?

I think context does matter and I also think that intention matters even less. What most matters is, are you falling into near occasions of sin?

So, do I think that Joshua Harris not kissing his girl prior to Marriage caused his Divorce? I do not. I think he had an unrealistic view of Marriage. I also do not know what happened within the Marriage (if someone was unfaithful, selfish, or gave up on trying. or whatever else might have contributed), I do not have that book on my bookshelf ; )

Do I think that when couples engage in certain actions prior to Marriage it could cloud good judgement? Sometimes. Can it also lead couples to fall into sin? Yes.

Do Marriages where couples cross the line fail, because they crossed the line prior to Marriage? Nope. Nor does it fortify their Marriage by engaging in these acts.

Couples need to have a real understanding of what the Covenant of Marriage is. All the love and lust in the world will not make a Marriage last without faith, sacrifice, humility, honesty, forgiveness, perseverance, to name a few. These are the behaviors that will last.

Lust is temporary; butterflies come & go. And if you encounter someone else who gives you more butterflies, it could lead to infidelity if you are not careful. Do not mistake attention for love.

I see what you are getting at. If Marriage doesn’t always mean that you are Married (validly speaking), then maybe Marriage is not what makes a Marriage. The truth is that it is both/and; not either/or.

If someone is Baptized, but does not have faith, then he does not have a Covenantal relationship with God.

This raises a question for me: if a sacramental form can exist outwardly without a real union, is it possible that, in some cases, a real union (in terms of love, commitment, and intention) exists before the formal sacrament?

I am not claiming that this replaces the sacrament. Rather, I am questioning whether moral evaluation should consider not only the formal state, but also the reality of the relationship. And someone who has a relationship with Jesus, but is not Baptized, is not in a Covenantal relationship.

Likewise, if someone is “playing house” or living as though they are Married, but are not Married, then they are not in a Covenantal Marriage. And if a couple is Married, but are not living in covenant (all of the actions I described above that make a real Marriage), then it is not a Covenantal Marriage.

I would caution you here. Pope Francis and Pope Leo likely did not write these things. It was most likely Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, who also wrote a book in the 70’s titled, “Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing”!! I will leave it at that.

Fernández was the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith under Pope Francis and is currently the Prefect under Pope Leo. When Pope John Paul II was Pope, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict. Under Pope Benedict, Cardinal William Joseph Levada and Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller served as Prefect.

Just because something has health benefits, does not mean that it has spiritual benefits and just because something claims to have spiritual benefits, does not mean that it has physical health benefits.

Some studies have claimed that men who do not pleasure themselves have a higher risk of prostate cancer, but this is not a justification to sin. Many Catholic women consume “the pill” to treat acne. This was true of a friend of ours and her Marriage failed, not because she contracepted, but because her Husband chose to chase butterflies! They had five children. I know a Catholic youth Pastor who cheated on his Wife (who did not contracept) with a former youth who was giving him more attention! They too had five children. So, I am not making the claim that contraception within Marriage causes nor prevents a failed Marriage.

If the couple is not Married, then there is not true commitment. I’m not denying that there cannot be commitment in a non-Covenantal relationship, and it is true that there can be a lack of commitment within a Marriage, but as I said earlier, this is not living in Covenant.

Let’s take it a step further. You have heard someone say to someone they love, “I would kill for you.” Let’s say that someone literally killed for someone they loved or lusted after. I listen to a lot of true crime and this happens. A Pastor at Hollywood Baptist Church in Rome, Georgia was murdered by the Youth Pastor after the Youth Pastor and the lead Pastor’s Wife were having an affair! He literally killed for her, so that they could be together, but the desire they had for one another faded after he went to Prison for this act of love.

This sounds familiar of when the serpent talked Eve and Adam to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’ (Genesis 3:1)?” The serpent had convinced them that if God created something so good, why would he keep it from them?

Is it genuinely oriented toward Marriage or are you being deceived by lust?

I first want to say, that I think it is great that you are open to changing your mind. The truth is that I cannot compete with lust. Anything I say will not convince you. For Eve and Adam were convinced by the serpent over God (and I am not God).

One can argue that maybe had God given them the why, instead of simply saying, don’t do this, maybe they would not have been deceived by their desires to be like gods. God does want us to be more like Him, after all, He made us in His image and likeness, which means that He gave us the ability to love, create, sacrifice, and all of these good, true, and beautiful things.

If you want to order your relationship to true Marriage, it isn’t really about kissing vs. not kissing. It isn’t really about how far is too far? It is about living in such a way that honors God and covenant (love, sacrifice, honesty, forgiveness, and faithfulness). Having a sense of humor helps too : )

10

IDK. Do you have sources or arguments to explain why you believe that? Something I don’t really appreciate is when people say, “do this because the Church said so.” The plan of God is perfect, and all His rules have a deep meaning and reasoning. I’m not saying that the Church says that sodomy is good, but I’m raising the debate: why is it that bad? Is there a limit of “this is bad and this is not”? Because it really doesn’t make sense to me that having pleasure is bad. It may be, if done in the wrong way, but there are correct ways of doing it. The Church is changing; maybe I’m a little advanced and progressive, but I think this needs to at least be rethought.

Also, about homosexual relationships, I don’t see them as that bad. I know it is not the intended way, but even Pope Francis said that everyone can love, and that the sin of that is “minor” compared to others. But that isn’t the discussion now. Yes, I believe that there are some sexual acts that are always bad, but not everything that leads to orgasm. They can all be bad in certain situations, but there are others where it stops being sinful.

Now, at the end of the day, you live with your conscience and I live with mine. I like to discuss these types of things so I can get my opinion closer to what is “correct.” For example, I once believed that sex outside marriage was ok, and I changed my mind because of arguments that were logical to me. But some opinions based on “the Church says so,” or with reasoning that is already changing, don’t make sense to me. But it’s like the 6 or 9 meme: there are a lot of points of view. If you seek the truth, you’ll find God. I believe that if you are really faithful and base your opinions on faith and logic, you’re right (but you need to be open to different opinions; maybe you’ll change yours, as has already happened to me).
thanks for staying in the discussion.

11

Playing the speculative Devil’s advocate and from a theologically philosophical perspective, I would think a pro-Church argument could be a separation from God. I’d include masturbation in this as well. In the act of marital sex, God is necessary and thought to be actively involved in sparking the creation of life. God isn’t “needed” or actively involved in acts traditionally considered sodomy or in masturbation. Conversely, the people who take part in such activities don’t “need” God to do so.

12

Hey Cade_One,
thanks for answering (It was the best anwer someone made up to now, appreciate it). Wow, big text, I like to see the enthusiasm! (the big text came with a big answer)

So let’s go part by part.

This is an example of something that is really sad. People feel limited by the Church, and when they have a negative experience, they break and totally lose faith in what they once believed. For me, this is an example of two things:

  1. Overimposing rules does more harm than good: it is right to follow chastity, but not even kissing his girlfriend while waiting for marriage was an exaggeration, which didn’t work and led to the feeling that all he had done and waited for was meaningless and a waste of time.
  2. The physical part of the relationship is important: you date someone to get to know them, and maybe marry. You need to know how physical aspects work (or don’t) between the couple. This may lead to unhappiness or divorce, and this isn’t limited to sex, but to all other physical aspects, even small things like kisses and cuddling. (I lost one relationship, and one of the reasons was this, but it is better than marrying and then realizing you don’t work together.)

I’m actually asking both. Because I am really rational about these types of things, and the only way I agree or disagree and build an opinion is with arguments that justify it. I once believed that sex before marriage was ok; now I don’t, but I think that other things may be ok. I’m here either to change my mind or to strengthen my belief.

For me, it is important to know “why” in order to accept the limits. For me, evaluating arguments logically is the best way to get closer to being right, if I’m really open to learning, listening, and maybe changing my opinion. But each person has different points of view and ways of interpreting things, kind of like the 9 x 6 meme. It is ok to have different opinions, as long as you are really thinking about it and not being arrogant by trying to “be right and not change.”

My point is exactly that. It is difficult to evaluate without context; that’s why context is important when evaluating this stuff, and not just saying “it is always wrong.” I’m questioning why you guys are putting a limit without evaluating the context. Maybe it is logical, but if not, let’s reevaluate each case. As I stated, for me, several acts may be acceptable if done with love, in the right way.

You got my question, but it isn’t just to receive an answer. I’m trying to understand if it is morally acceptable and make people really think about it, and not just give an answer based on “I have heard that it is wrong.”

I agree. Some acts are good, but they may accidentally lead to sin. Couples would need to be really responsible with limits. I think one of the reasons why people say it is wrong is because it may lead to sin, but the bad part is the sin, not the previous part. It can be done correctly; being difficult is not the point here.

And I completely agree with what you’ve said about what sustains a relationship, and that lust is temporary. But I think it is important to acknowledge (thank God the Church is starting to do it) that simple physical activities, sex (and even other sexual activities), are also important for relationships when it is not just lust, but a way of expressing true love. The hard part is differentiating between lust and love in some moments; that’s where faith and the Holy Spirit come in to guide you.

I wonder the same thing. I’m almost certain that there are texts that talk about this and defend that the relationship with God is more important than formalities (although they are important). It is almost the same way I see marriage. It is important, but the start of love isn’t in the ceremony, and it shouldn’t be. Love is built with time and companionship, and some activities also, so when you know you love and are compatible with someone (because you can love someone you are incompatible with), you marry them.

That’s why I believe that certain acts may be accepted before marriage. But it is important to define these new limits. I’ve seen people being in favor of anything (including sex), and I’ve seen people saying you can’t even kiss. I think you can do most things without sexual intercourse (there is more to it, but to simplify, that’s it).

The example of living together, as you said—for me, it isn’t ideal, but there is nothing wrong with it, as long as you maintain chastity. You can have roommates, so why not let that person be the one you love? Just don’t go beyond the limits.

Yea, I know. But I think health is more important, at least in the second case. The first one is controversial; if it is something that is good but not a problem to avoid, ok, follow faith. But if it is something important and you can’t substitute it with something else, I don’t think you are necessarily committing a sin. Just like not going to church is a sin, but not going because you are truly sick is ok. I also believe that in some cases it wasn’t a sin in the first place (again, under certain conditions).

What I find bad about the pill is the way it works (which is not preventing conception, but preventing the fetus from attaching properly to the uterus). That’s wrong, but other ways of contraception, such as using condoms, are completely ok (human life starts at conception according to the Church, so anything after that is wrong, but before it isn’t wrong). You said it wasn’t the popes who said what I mentioned. I really thought it was, but anyway, officials of the Vatican said it (one example, although I’ve seen more, some in my native language, which isn’t English). Therefore, having sex (when married) without wanting children isn’t wrong. It is worse to have an unwanted child or to have one when you’re not prepared than to use protection and have one at the right time. (Again, not the point of the discussion, but I like to extrapolate the point and talk about more themes.)

The example you gave about killing for love, I agree it is wrong, but I don’t think it has to do with other acts between two people. But I understand your argument, and I’m going to think about that. You said, “If the couple is not married, then there is not true commitment.” At first I disagreed, but there is some sense in that. It is something I will evaluate (arguments that really make me wonder and rethink my beliefs, I love it). But for now, what I think is that, yes, the best and final true commitment is marriage, but it doesn’t mean you are not committed before it. You just need to make sure they are the person you need to place all this commitment in, and test if it will work, and if they also have this commitment. (Dating is the process of getting to know the other person, seeing if you two work together, and if there is commitment from both sides.) Marriage comes not when commitment starts, but when it is validated and proven.

Interesting point, although I think it has some differences. The point here is the “exploits” (not using it as something bad). Like, in that case, Eve and Adam had all the other trees to eat from (in this case, sex is forbidden, but does that include other activities, or are they other trees?). Also, it is a different set of circumstances when one was always prohibited, while sex after marriage is fine.

So, in a figurative way, it’s like: wait to eat the fruits of that tree, but can we already eat fruits of the same type from other trees? I think you would need to wait for it too, but a different amount of time, in this case addressing the love requirements I mentioned that exist before marriage.

That’s a great question, and I admit that sometimes I fall into lust, but “let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone at her.” I think I’ve had moments of lust, but I was really oriented toward marriage; sometimes lust came with it, though. It is something we all need to go through and overcome; it happens with or without sexual, or even non-sexual, physical activities.

I’m really going to rethink some of my beliefs based on some things you’ve said. I genuinely believe that everyone should discuss everything and be open to changing opinions; otherwise, discussions become meaningless.

I said I really appreciated your answer because it was the first that gave arguments that really made me think. Arguments that weren’t shallow and really had the intent of making me understand rather than just teaching without explanation. Thanks. Whether I will change my opinion or not, I don’t know, but it was really good to talk to you about it.

Totally agree. Now, people may have different beliefs about what “honors God.” The important thing is that we should always be seeking to be closer to what God has planned for us. Whoever seeks the truth finds God, so I believe evaluating things logically is important, but I can’t do that on my own, as I would only come up with arguments that support what I want. That’s why it is important to have discussions such as this. Logic may fail, as in the Adam and Eve example you gave, but it is better than nothing.

And finally, yeah, humor always helps. There’s a quote from a Brazilian comedian that I like that says, “Humor alleviates pain, whatever it may be.” He also defends that humor can make people think about problems and lead them to solve things they never thought about. In almost all ways possible, I see humor as something really, really great. Totally agree with you on this. Again, thanks for seriously answering. Bless you.

13

Great argument, but in sex you also don’t necessarily need God with you. Sex may be done in a bad way as well (even inside marriage in some sad cases). And I think that when truly celebrating love with some acts (not all, there are some that are bad), when certain sexual acts are done to demonstrate and celebrate love for one another, there is space for God there, even if it doesn’t have to do with reproduction.

Even the Church nowadays believes sex is not only about reproduction, and I think even when it is not reproductive (even inside marriage, and done for love), God is still there, not because of reproduction, but because of the celebration of love. I don’t know if I could express the idea, it’s kind of complex, but in general, God is always with us and can support things even if they are not intended for reproduction.

14

I understand what you’re saying here. It’s not a current Catholic view, but outside of a Catholic view, in a secular view, I agree with you that with certain non-reproductive sexual acts, they absolutely can and I would say most often do come from a place of love. In fact some people would say that certain non-reproductive sexual acts are more selfless than intercourse.

I’ve lived both sides. Those selfless non-reproductive sexual acts are far and away a norm among most non-Catholic or secular couples. They’re not even considered from a moral perspective or even a “right from wrong”. They’re part of Sex between two people in a committed relationship (ie within the context of this thread). They’re considered positive and most often affirm and reinforce the bond of love in the relationship.

1 Like
15

That was a thorough, thoughtful answer, Cade. Concerning “why” vs. “don’t”: for a few years I worked at the National Guard Bureau, mainly with Army and Air Force people. The Air Force had a tradition (I think I’m explaining this fairly) that if the reason for something is explained, an order isn’t necessary (although the Air Force still gives plenty of orders). The Army practice seemed to be giving orders and not explaining why (although there are exceptions, I’m sure).

16

The army is different, as the people in charge may give orders without reasoning; they don’t love their subordinates like God loves all of us. Also, the dynamics are different, because in the army, orders need to be executed immediately, so there is no time to explain them. In religion, which is something that affects our entire life, we have time to think and evaluate meanings and reasons.
I think evaluating the “why” is a key factor in staying strong in faith; otherwise, even if you remain in the faith, it would be a shallow obedience relationship, not the loving relationship God wants us to have with Him.

17

Agreed. I was just recalling my experience, prompted by Cade’s comment, not suggesting that God should join the Air Force. :wink:

18

I am having flashbacks of a popular kid in art class in High School. He said, “You have to test-drive the car before you buy it.” Though, I think he was just being funny and trying to get a laugh, the reality is that women are not objects. His comment bothered me, which is why I probably haven’t forgotten it after all these years.

I have not kept up with his life, but I would not be surprised if he has had a few failed Marriages. He was raised by his single Dad, who was a bit of a womanizer himself.

I’m not saying that you are like them, but your comment made me think of the comment.

I one hundred percent get this. I too think the why’s are important. And when you understand the why’s, then [y]our Faith becomes even more beautiful.

Most things are universally true, in spite of what we might believe about them (with the exception of food allergies and that kind of thing ; )

Indeed, with the caveat that I am not sure what acts you are referring to. Some acts are indeed sinful or disordered, because they are not Married. I’m being cautious here, because I once listened to an episode of The Lila Rose Show and she was talking to two single Catholic Christian men and there really is a spectrum when talking about this topic.

I can tell you my experience. My Wife and I dated for five years before I proposed and we made it a point to wait until Marriage. I could have easily proposed to her right after meeting her, but we were young and I was pretty immature (still am really ; )

I can tell you that setting boundaries and being on the same page is so important! We will be celebrating twenty years of Marriage coming up here and what a blessing it has been so far! We put God first. And we try to love one another as Christ loves the church. What does this look like? All the things I mentioned, “love, sacrifice, forgiveness, trust, and all of these things.”

We like to watch Married at First Sight together (I would never recommend a Catholic Christian go on one of these dating shows), and so often these couples make it so much harder than it needs to be. They either over-think it or they talk more about communication, than the do actually communicate! Some couples move way too fast and sabotage the relationship.

One of the girls on this show was actually in one of our Friend’s Wedding (small world)! We didn’t connect the dots until after we watched the final episode and the fun couple on the show decided to remain Married (usually within six months the couples reveal in the follow-up episode that they are no longer together, but this was not the case with this couple. And they are still happily Married to this day).

At our Friend’s Wedding (of which this girl was in the bridal Party), I heard one of the best pieces of advice in the Sermon. The Pastor said, “from this day forward, the word ‘Divorce’ should not be in your vocabulary. You should not joke about Divorce nor throw it around as a meaningless threat when you are having a disagreement.” Obviously there are real reasons to get out of an absolutely abusive Marriage, but that is not what he was referring to. He was referring to Marriage. Marriage is sometimes hard. And there will be moments of disagreement and hurt. But, many couples give up too easily. And we live in a disposable culture. A world that has conditioned you to swipe left or swipe right. And if you don’t want to put in the effort in your Marriage, there is always another swipe right waiting around the corner.

Going back to eh comment my classmate made so many years ago. There is another car on the lot if you destroy this one.

One thing that Natural Family Planning (NFP) has taught me is that part of love is patience and honoring my Wife even in times of sacrifice.

Your comments here remind me of so many couples who’s Marriages fail, and the excuse they give is, “My needs were not being met.” When people fall away from their Catholic Faith, you will hear something similar. And my though is always the same. What were you dong to meet the needs of others? If all one does is focus on the physical aspect of their relationship, they will usually make it all about themselves and that is the opposite of sacrificial love.

[quote]
The hard part is differentiating between lust and love in some moments; that’s where faith and the Holy Spirit come in to guide you.
[/qoute]

The culture has perverted what love is. The hashtage LoveisLove was trending a few years back, and it was being pushed by the LGBTQA.i.+ movement. And it was brilliant. How can you argue against love? But, it is really a perversion of love.

But, don’t think for a minute that this is the only and first perversion of love. Mankind has been doing a pretty good job of this since the fall of man.

For sure. As I pointed out, my Wife and I dated for five years before I asked her to be my Bride. And people can and do have a personal relationship with Jesus before getting Baptized. And Holy Matrimony and Baptism are a deeper realty of love. Two, honorably, become one flesh and vows are made that should not be made flippantly.

That is another thing that the culture, and I noticed is quite popular on Married at First Sight, where couples are now writing their own vows. And though it appears more personal, I’ve noticed that some very important things that are found in the traditional vows (you know, the ones from when Divorce was very rare). It becomes more about feels than it does about commitment, sacrifice, and honor.

One might say, There is no way that I can live up to these vows! Apart from God’s grace, they are completely right. And we will sometimes fall short of this bar. Lowering the bar to make it more humanly attainable may seem like a better way, but it isn’t, because it is simply presenting a loophole.

This just came to me, but a Wedding ring is a complete loop. And a loop hole is broken from the start.

Statistics show that your chances of Divorce goes up if you live together prior to Marriage. If you are serious about Marriage, then you may want to take this into account. Also, it goes back to sacrificial love. If one gives into every desire and every want, then the chances of them to sacrifice within the Marriage will be harder.

When you use barriers within the Marital Act, you are no truly becoming one. A book I would recommend to you is, “Sex au Naturel: What It Is and Why It’s Good for Your Marriage” by Patrick Coffin.

It would be like Christ giving us the Holy Eucharist, but not giving us the life-giving grace that flows from His gift on the Cross (John 6:53 & 56).

Untrue. We see an example in Genesis 38:8-10 of a man who spills his seed, as not to to “keep from providing offspring” and “what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord.”

Depends. Depends on the means, which do not justify the ends and the ends, do not justify the means.

If you want to read some Papal writings relating to this topic, I recommend John Paul II’s Theology of the Body and Veritatis Splendor.

Again, the ends do not justify the means.

I might have veered off there : )

It kind of relates to my Wedding ring analogy. If you are not Married, you not only have a loop hole, you have no loop at all : )

You can have moments of commitment, sure, but unMarriage is not an act of Commitment. Does that make sense?

It is very important to discern this. I would say about only half of the couples in our Precana (Marriage preparation) should be getting Married. It would be neat to do a follow-up to see where all these couples are today. Kind of like they do on Married at First Sight : ) I do know the other couple that was at our table are still Married. He is a County Judge and she works in a Pharmacy. We see them at Church, which means they are probably celebrating their 20th this year as well : )

I agree : )

I too admit that sometimes I fall into lust. There is a form of chastity within Marriage as well.

:100:% agree! I am not the same person I am today as I was in my early twenties. If I read some of my tweets from ten or even five years ago, I would probably pushback on some of the things I had though and said back then.

Conversion is a process and often we do not see the changes until we look back and see how far we have come.

I appreciate your kind words. I too like to know the why’s and not just he what’s.

Very well said!

Christ’s peace!

19

It wasn’t the image I was thinking of. I wasn’t referring to women as objects. What I meant is that you try to find the best in a relationship, and the same thing I said could apply to women looking for a man. You date to get to know someone and spend time with them. It’s kind of like a “test drive” of a marriage from one perspective, but it isn’t only from a man’s view; it is from both.

Objectifying women is something horrible; it would definitely make this guy’s relationships shallow and susceptible to failure. I was thinking about the opposite. Not that you need to be very rigorous, no one is perfect, but you can’t marry on impulse, because the chance of it not working is huge.

Really good point that I had never thought about. Also, the ring and loophole analogy was interesting. In fact, the perspective changes between dating and marriage, as one has an “escape (break up)” and the other is till death. I still think that while dating there is still real meaning, but this helped me to establish the importance and beauty of marriage. (Not that I didn’t know about it, but it helps to strengthen the idea.)

In fact, having “unachievable” vows may force you to try to achieve them, while the philosophy of “this is unachievable” may make errors become usual, and that is wrong.

For me, love is a very delicate matter, as each person has their own way of loving and expressing love, and this is combined with all the other beliefs each one has. Even two people who share the same faith can still have differences. So what is important is being open to listening to different opinions, actively considering and evaluating them, and trying to improve every time, whether that means maintaining your point or changing your mind.

I may not have answered everything you said, just so this text isn’t too long and we can focus on the main discussion, but I liked everything you said, even if it isn’t exactly my point of view.

Thanks again for answering. I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it: I really enjoyed talking to you about this; you truly made me think about it in a healthy discussion. I wish the best for you and your wife. I want to one day find someone for me and live in the best way possible, close to God.

Christ’s peace!

20

Agree one hundred percent. Going back to “Married at First Sight” for a moment. Some people have this vision of a perfect Marriage and then they hit their first bump and the wheels fall off, they get worried, and want to bail. That is not Marriage. Marriage is riding through the bumps together and then brushing yourself off and then getting back on the road together. Smoother roads may not be in sight, but there will be if you put your faith and trust in Christ (together).

Ha-ha! Very true, but don’t get any ideas of plotting the death of your spouse (I watch/listen to way too much true-crime. : )

I have not read it, but I have been told by a few people that “The Five Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts” is a great book.

I agree. One could be a head person and another a heart person and we need both : )

I think we are doing a pretty good job of thinning out our responses. I appreciate the conversation : )

1 Like