Realistic sexual values

mcteague · #1 Nov 26, '10, 3:53 pm

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

**Tantum ergo** · #2 Nov 26, '10, 4:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcteague

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

So what are you saying? What exactly is more 'flexible and modern?'

**edwest2** · #3 Nov 26, '10, 4:26 pm

Man has not changed in the last 2000 years. That's why we can watch a Greek play written 2000 years ago and understand it. The modern view of human sexuality is based on one simple, but wrong idea: We Cannot Control Our Own Sexuality. Ask yourself: who decides when I engage in sexual activity? The answer is you do.

I invite you to read the following:

http://www.catholiceducation.org/art...ty/se0002.html

Peace,
Ed

Rolltide · #4 Nov 26, '10, 4:28 pm

Man's laws are written, as much as possible, to create the minimum number of laws and the least intrusive laws as is possible without society collapsing. They are written with the intent of giving us a high degree of freedom. As such, they are written to the *lowest* possible standard. In other words, they tend to portray the bare minimum of acceptable behavior that we can get away with.

God's laws are entirely different. They are written with the purpose of illustrating what life would be like in utopia. In other words, in an utterly ideal world, how would people behave? As such, they are written to the *highest* possible standard. They are also, by definition, unachievable, but they give us a goal to strive for with our actions on earth.

In the world that we live in, virtually all people live somewhere BETWEEN these two sets of rules. Most of us behave far better than the bare minimum that society expects, but at the same time, we fall short of God's law.

Now... just because a teaching is tough or times have changed DOESN'T mean that I go out and change God's law, because it's original purpose never changes! For example, if you have an extremely high crime area in your town, the solution is NOT to change the law to legalize theft! Sure, technically, the crime would be gone, but what have you *really* achieved? The rules of the Catholic Church should NOT be changed, but the church realizes that people DO fail to live up to them. This is why we have sacraments in place to help us achieve forgiveness. An ideal world is impossible to achieve, but if you change the rules, it isn't really a model for an ideal world anymore, is it?

broconsul · #5 Nov 26, '10, 4:31 pm

I think you're suggesting, tell me if I'm wrong, that the Church adopt sexual teaching that is "of this world."

Right?

Dorothy · #6 Nov 26, '10, 4:39 pm

With God all things are possible. To want sexual matters to be more "realistic" I understand that you are saying that it is impossible to be chaste till one gets married. Difficult yes.....impossible no.

We need to hold up high standards for those who follow Jesus.They ARE possible if one cooperates with His grace. What God wants for us is happiness now, and forever. Following His commands can achieve that happiness.

Repentance and forgiveness is there for those who seek it.

jilly4ski · #7 Nov 26, '10, 5:06 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcteague

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

Go back and read the example again. Mary was 12 or 13, when she gave birth to Jesus. Of course as Christians we believe that Mary was a virgin at that time, and as Catholics that she remained a virgin throughout her life. And if you read more into the story, Joseph was not 12 or 13. He was older and established. This merely points to the fact the girls were often married off young, but does not point to the same fact with boys/men. In fact it was assumed that in order for a man to marry and thus have sexual relations, he would already be established and be able to care for a wife and children, therefore he would not be 12 or 13. So all we have really seen is a upward push in the age of females getting married not males.

seanflynn · #8 Nov 26, '10, 5:16 pm

Quote:

where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more).

Look at your own language: "We generally want . . ."

Moses didn't say from Mt. Sinai, "God generally wants . . . "

They are commandments from God, unchangeable, immutable, objectively good (even when we don't understand), and good for us.

If what we want is opposed to God's command, then our desire is what is disordered. I'm not saying it's a sin to go to college before getting married, only that God is more interested in our obedience than our education.

Many generations of people lived lives of labor without college or career. If they went to heaven, I'd rather live like them than the comfortable modern man, if that means going to hell.

I would consider this "a more flexible and modern approach" that doesn't violate God' teaching and doesn't delay sexuality as late:

Get married young (18-21) while continuing your education. Live in larger family communities than is currently normal, like multi-generational households, to save on the cost of living for all involved. When the young couple has graduated and secured a better income, they move out (with their presumably small children). The problem with this approach is that it requires the flexibility from us, not the Church.

Reuben J · #9 Nov 26, '10, 6:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcteague

Several people when responding to my question about the Vatican age of consent pointed out that Mary was 12 or 13 when she gave birth to Jesus. Following up on this I have to ask the following question.
In America, where I live, we generally want our children to go to college. Then to settle down in a family after they finish and have started their careers. This means they could be at least 24 (often more). Although it is not universal, many people here seem to think that people should not have intercourse, engage in any sexual contact, masturbate, and even should resist the slightest lustful urge until they are married. Considering that this is now asking people to surpress their quite human and natural urges for 12 or more years, can this really be a realistic view of sexual morality?
Now I am not suggesting that the underlying values expressed by those moral rules are not good. Or that they should be ignored. But it seems that a slightly more flexible and modern approach might be sensible considering how different the way we live today is from what it was 2000 years ago.

Hi. What do you expect to hear in a Christian forum? I can only argue about it from the point of my belief. What is realistic and what is not, do not figure in the law of God for God decides what it is. We only have to obey.

You have valid reason of course for you are dealing with reality. Human reality however does not often times squares with God's way.

mcteague · #10 Nov 26, '10, 7:39 pm

Yes it is possible to live by these rather strict interpretations. But it certainly would have been easier when marriage ages were commonly younger. I would also think that some of the extreme positions I have heard here; ie supporting the repressing of even sexual thoughts are probably psychologically aberrant. It is not something I think a normal person can, or should do.
By more modern and flexible I primarily mean this. Discussing the issue in the bifurcated way that the Heaven Hell paradigm does can cause us to ignore and avoid addressing moral issues as they exist in the real world. So instead of teaching young people what is appropriate or good behavior in a sexually orientated situation, we can avoid it because such interaction should not be taking place at all. But it is taking place. Very few people are actually devoid of previous sexual activity when they marry. This is true even on a site like.

It is also true that asking people to do something completely contrary to human nature, which I admit is difficult but not impossible, may push them away from the community that I would think you all would want them to be a part of.

I hardly feel qualified to speak for the Catholic Church, and only slightly more so for God. But I believe a proper moral philosophy should focus less on immutable distinctions of right and wrong, and more on a hierarchy of preferential behaviors, and the cultivation of better habits. Yes I admit it. To some degree I am a moral relativist. But I don't think that means what some people here think it does. And of course any moral system may have its limitations and abuses. I would not say to some one that its acceptable to cheat on your wife as long as you don't make a habit of it.

Heading back a little closer to point, I would rather that when your teenage sons are heading off to college that you have taught them to respect others, and that no means no rather then having those, in my opinion, more important moral issues being ignored because of an unrealistic belief that the issue should not or would not come up in the first place. I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live. You might still say to them that according to the religious teachings you follow that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But it might be equally or more important to teach them take responsibility for the actions they do take. That might mean supporting a child if that is the result of the act. But it also might mean engaging in that act in the most responsible way they can. And yes I mean even if the process of taking responsibility may be considered a sin.

davidv · #11 Nov 26, '10, 8:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcteague

Yes it is possible to live by these rather strict interpretations. But it certainly would have been easier when marriage ages were commonly younger.

Why? Was adultery or lust any less prevalent?

Quote:

I would also think that some of the extreme positions I have heard here; ie supporting the repressing of even sexual thoughts are probably psychologically aberrant. It is not something I think a normal person can, or should do.

Why do you think the Church teaching request "repressing"? It calls for self-control.

Quote:

By more modern and flexible I primarily mean this. Discussing the issue in the bifurcated way that the Heaven Hell paradigm does can cause us to ignore and avoid addressing moral issues as they exist in the real world.

Bifurcated, like you want to all the things that takes you away from God (hell), but you don't want to go there? How real is that?

Quote:

So instead of teaching young people what is appropriate or good behavior in a sexually orientated situation, we can avoid it because such interaction should not be taking place at all.

Based on this comment, I don't think you know what the Church teaches in these situations.

Quote:

But it is taking place. Very few people are actually devoid of previous sexual activity when they marry. This is true even on a site like.

Since when does popularity define what is true?

Quote:

It is also true that asking people to do something completely contrary to human nature, which I admit is difficult but not impossible, may push them away from the community that I would think you all would want them to be a part of.

Your basic error is assuming that purity is unnatural. Quite the contrary, it is the most natural way of humanity.

Quote:

I hardly feel qualified to speak for the Catholic Church, and only slightly more so for God. But I believe a proper moral philosophy should focus less on immutable distinctions of right and wrong, and more on a hierarchy of preferential behaviors, and the cultivation of better habits. Yes I admit it. To some degree I am a moral relativist. But I don't think that means what some people here think it does. And of course any moral system may have its limitations and abuses. I would not say to some one that its acceptable to cheat on your wife as long as you don't make a habit of it.

Heading back a little closer to point, I would rather that when your teenage sons are heading off to college that you have taught them to respect others, and that no means no rather then having those, in my opinion, more important moral issues being ignored because of an unrealistic belief that the issue should not or would not come up in the first place. I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live. You might still say to them that according to the religious teachings you follow that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But it might be equally or more important to teach them take responsibility for the actions they do take. That might mean supporting a child if that is the result of the act. But it also might mean engaging in that act in the most responsible way they can. And yes I mean even if the process of taking responsibility may be considered a sin.

It appears that you have an highly distorted view of human sexuality.

Reuben J · #12 Nov 26, '10, 9:45 pm

mcteague, honestly I don’t think you will get anywhere with your argument here. We have different values and our premises are different. For that reason topics about atheism are banned in this forum.

As you can see, what you say do not arise at all in Christianity. You say, “I think if you are going to attempt to teach moral behavior you have to teach it in the context of how people actually live”.

What is “the context of how people actually live”? The context of how Christians actually live is fine, thank you very much. We do not have a problem at all with morality or with our belief. It does not come into equation for us. You do have a problem with yours, I suppose, but that’s really for you to deal with.

Sure there are Christians who are lost, who don’t live their lives according to what they should and those who do not even know what they supposed to believe being not brought up in the environment and being Christians in name only.

joandarc2008 · #13 Nov 26, '10, 9:48 pm

If I can be chaste at 31 after having been through a divorce and knowing darn well what sex is like I could stayed chaste in my younger years with better teaching on chastity. I am disappointed in myself looking back. Thats all there is too it, education, discipline, and prayer.

Newbie2 · #14 Nov 27, '10, 7:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by seanflynn

Moses didn't say from Mt. Sinai, "God generally wants . . . "

Sorry, you had good points in your post, but this strikes me as funny.

"I, the Lord your God, generally want you not to kill"

mcteague · #15 Nov 27, '10, 8:09 am

Before closing this topic let me say a few things. This was never really an argument for or against chastity. And it has little to do with my sexual views. The real question is whether the moral system presented by many Catholics here incorrectly abandons people who may choose, or may be unable, to abide by these rather strict rules.

Is an absolutist moral philosophy really best? Forget for a moment that we are talking about sex. Stealing is wrong. If you could speak to a hungry person who was about to steal food. Would you simply repeat over and over again that they were sinning, or would you speak to them about doing the least possible harm?

One can certainly advocate for the values of love, or of Christianity if you prefer, in a non marital sexual encounter. It does not have to be base, selfish, or vulgar. If one does not engage in that conversation, and takes an exclusively black and white stance, are we contributing to the moral development of our societies to the degree we could.

This is especially true if one believes as I do that most people will ignore the more extreme argument. Shouldn't the moral teaching focus on the underlying values rather than the rather rigid dogmatic view of in marriage only.