The unmarried catholic has no business getting...

[KateKimmer]

not a corapi fan. Never was,,,,never will be.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by KateKimmer

not a corapi fan. Never was,,,,never will be.

ok kate, fine... it wasn't my intention to try to make ya one

[twoangels]

Originally Posted by Romulus

Celibacy is “abstinence from marriage”

Celibacy is the vow never to marry.

“Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite.”

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”

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.

[KateKimmer]

Originally Posted by Romulus

ok kate, fine... it wasn't my intention to try to make ya one

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is no longer active.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?

[itullian]

[quote=Romulus;9214858]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.

[itullian]

Originally Posted by KateKimmer

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is no longer active.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?

i think he's

[CaptFun]

Originally Posted by Vico

It is clearly expressed here in the Baltimore Catechism (1891):

59. 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.

382. Q. What is the ninth Commandment?
A. The ninth Commandment is: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.

383. 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.

384. 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.

385. 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.

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.

[VeritasLuxMea]

Originally Posted by CaptFun

And thanks for being relevant to THIS thread regarding Lust, Purity, etc.

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.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by CaptFun

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.

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.

[CaptFun]

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

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.

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!

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by KateKimmer

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?

I have no idea and I don't condone his decision to "jump ship"

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by VeritasLuxMea

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.

Gosh, how do we determine this? pure, impure? Is it the intent? thinking about it in a selfless way? or selfish way?

A married catholic can daydream about their spouse on how they gonna be one flesh tonight and get aroused...of course, in a selfless way, not objectifying. That is pure. correct?

But an unmarried catholic can't daydream about their future spouse on how they gonna be one flesh in the future, in a selfless way. impure? Seems like the unmarried catholic has no business even thinking about this, else impure, not avoiding the near occasion of sin. Must temporarily eradicate "sexual appetite". Get married, then it becomes "moderate" the sexual appetite...in the meantime, temporarily eradicate it. Wish there was some auto off switch gene somewhere in the DNA, then it turns on the second you really receive the sacrament of marriage? lol.

And if you can't temporarily "eradicate" it...I guess that is why Paul talks about, "if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with PASSION". 1 Cor 7:9.

Thoughts?

[Debora123]

Originally Posted by Romulus

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??

Nope and Nope.

Please read Mary Beth Bonacci, Christopher West, or (if you're a mature reader) The Theology of the Body.

[Bookcat]

Originally Posted by Debora123

Nope and Nope.

Please read Mary Beth Bonacci, Christopher West, or (if you're a mature reader) The Theology of the Body.

?

Something was misread there.

Those who are not married are not to be seeking to get aroused or consenting to sexual pleasure.

[Bookcat]

http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/dating.htm from a writer at EWTN

(One note though on this reading...I would note that when they say "as soon as he begins to enjoy.." under "pure intent"... it would mean before knowing consent...)