Virgin Regret (Part 4): Getting to the wedding

Earlier this week, I wrote a couple more parts to my series which exames the story of a girl named Samantha, who remained a virgin until her wedding night, but who now regrets this decision.

So far in this series, I have spoken about the distinction between chastity and abstinence and I have also presented the Catholic vision for sex and marriage, contrasting this to the woefully inadequate formation which Samantha appears to have received.

Today I would like to begin by looking at the reasons Samantha was taught for remaining a virgin until marriage and then look at what she wrote about the road to her wedding day.

Wedding

Read more

Virgin Regret (Part 3): Vision of Sex & Marriage

Last week I started a series in which I was commenting on an article written by a girl who regrets remaining a virgin until her wedding night. In my previous post I made some distinctions between abstinence and chastity which I think were lacking in her formation. In today’s post I would like to continue my discussion of Samantha’s article and look at the teaching she received concerning sex and marriage…

Wedding

Read more

Virgin Regret (Part 2): Abstinence or Chastity?

In my previous post I began to talk about a post which I saw on Facebook written by a girl named Samantha. She was raised a Christian and remained a virgin until her wedding night, but now regrets her decision and has since left the Faith. In this post I would like to comment upon something which I noticed as I read her story…

Wedding

Abstinence vs. Chastity

As I read Samantha’s article, I found the most striking feature of her narrative to be her repeated use, in some form or another, of the words “abstinence” and “virgin”.  Now, since the article was about her decision to save sex until marriage, one might say that this is hardly surprising. However, to Catholics who have been formed in “Theology Of The Body”, this kind of language sets off alarms bells. You see, in Catholicism we draw very clear distinctions between those words and another word which will appear many times in this series, “chastity”.

If a guy tells me he is “abstinent”, it doesn’t really tell me a lot. All I can say for sure is that he currently isn’t having sex. What it doesn’t tell me is why.  If he tells me he is a “virgin”, then I know that he has always been abstinent, but again it doesn’t tell me why… Maybe he has terrible breath? Maybe he’s a Star Trek nerd who serenades girls in Klingon on the first date? (This, by the way, is something I recommend saving exclusively for marriage)

So, the words “abstinence” and “virginity” really don’t tell us a whole lot. “Chastity”, on the other hand, tells us much more. Chastity is a virtue, in much the same way as honesty or courage. Chastity nurtures holiness and protects love from selfishness. If a man is pursuing the virtue of chastity, then he loves authentically, seeking the good of those whom he loves, even at the expense of his own convenience or immediate personal gratification.

Abstinence and virginity will tell me that a person doesn’t have sex, but it tells me very little else. For example, someone who is physically abstinent may, in fact, view women as objects of lust. Likewise, someone who is technically a virgin may have compromised himself by engaging in countless sexually arousing activities, even if it has never resulted in the full intercourse. This stands in stark contrast to chastity. Someone who is chaste does not view women as objects to be used, but rather as people to be loved. Someone who is chaste doesn’t seek for what he can get out of a relationship, but rather what he can give.

People often think that abstinence, virginity and chastity are the same thing. They are not. Not all virgins are chaste, and not all who are chaste are necessarily virgins. Both abstinence and virginity speak about the past, whereas chastity speaks about the present. For example, someone may have been involved in sexual relationships in high school, but has since decided to live a life of chastity. Not only that, even within marriage one is called to be chaste, to love husband or wife rightly. Abstinence may end with a wedding, but it is chastity which forges a strong marriage.

Samantha’s Formation

As I read through Samantha’s article, I got the impression that the distinctions described in the previous section were not present in this young girl’s formation. For example, here is how she spoke about her pledge:

“…I make a commitment…to be sexually abstinent from this day until the day I enter a biblical marriage relationship. As well as abstaining from sexual thoughts, sexual touching, pornography, and actions that are known to lead to sexual arousal.”

This is just a long list of “no”s. She promised to say “no” to this and “no” to that. Chastity isn’t a “no” to sex, but a “yes” to love, a seeking of authenticity in friendships, relationships and marriage.

Later in her article, Samantha outlined the twisted understanding of sexual purity which was presented to her:

“I learned that as a girl, I had a responsibility to my future husband to remain pure for him. It was entirely possible that my future husband wouldn’t remain pure for me, because he didn’t have that same responsibility, according to the Bible”

I consider myself pretty well-versed in various wacky beliefs held by different Christian groups, but I’ll admit I hadn’t heard this one before. Since when is purity just for girls?! Regardless, with this warped understanding of purity, Samantha described her dating life:

“I wondered where the line was because I was terrified to cross it. Was he allowed to touch my breasts? Could we look at each other naked? I didn’t know what was considered sexual enough to condemn my future marriage and send me straight to Hell”

As soon as one enters into this “How far can I go?” thinking, chastity has long since departed. When Samantha told her boyfriend that she was saving herself for marriage we are told that “he was fine with that because it was my body, my choice and he loved me”If bodily autonomy was his main reason for not engaging with her sexually, then that’s a far cry from the virtue of chastity. If his motivation was chastity, then it would have been real love compelling him to postpone sex until marriage, in order that he could seek what was truly best for her and her future husband.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Regretting remaining a virgin until marriage

Last month, a controversial blog post was doing the rounds on Facebook. It was written by a lady named Samantha Pugsley and was entitled “I Waited Until My Wedding Night To Lose My Virginity And I Wish I Hadn’t”. Samantha was raised in a Christian household and remained a virgin until marriage, but now regrets her decision and has since left the Christian Faith:

Screen Shot 2014-10-05 at 2.02.33 PM

To respond or not?

I was greatly troubled reading Samantha’s post. Her experience sounds horrific and her story truly tragic. I read through many of the reader comments at the bottom of the post and was dismayed to find that most of the exchanges between Christians and other readers were less-than-civil. For several days I debated internally as to whether or not I should write a reply. While I wanted to address various points raised in the article, I knew that it would be very easy for such a response to be seen as judgmental, condescending and “holier than thou”.

In the end, I decided that I should write a response. However, before you continue read my response, I would first invite you to read Samantha’s article in its entirety; it’s a sobering read.

My reply to her post is in no way a personal attack on Samantha. She is a child of God, made in His image and likeness and she is of countless worth. I did not have the same upbringing as this lady and I do not claim to have walked in her shoes. However, I have some thoughts I would like to share concerning her story.

Catechetical Warning

The main reason why I decided to write a response to Samantha’s post is that I think the issues raised in her article are too important to leave unaddressed. Not only that, I feel that this young lady’s story should serve as a warning to all Christian leaders and teachers. What we teach others about sex (or fail to teach) has significant consequences. Theology is important and when someone’s formation is either poor or incomplete, the results can be simply dire.

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness – James 3:1

During his pontificate, Pope St. John Paul II gave a series of teachings which later became known as the “Theology of the Body”. It is my contention that, if Samantha had received formation in this rich theological understanding of sex and marriage, her story could have turned out very differently. I say this because I think she was badly taught and was given a theology which could be described, at best, as “anaemic”. I believe that this woefully inadequate formation set her up for the heartache which she later experienced. In this series, I hope to show the practical difference that good Catholic theology could have made to her life.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Quick Apology: “No such thing thing as mortal sin”

I haven’t done one of these in a while…

In case you haven’t seen my Quick Apology articles before, these are extremely short posts in which describe how I might respond in thirty seconds or less to objections I often encounter. These might be objections to my pro-life view, or the fact that I believe in God, that I’m a Christian or specifically to my being Catholic.

FeaturedMortalSin

Objection

Today’s objection came from a friend:

“Catholics believe in mortal sin, but the Bible never talks about it. It never makes a distinction – sin is sin”

How might one respond to this objection?

Response

I’ve spoken before about the objection that something is “not in the Bible”, but the above statement is one which can actually very easily be answered from Scripture alone.

When this particular issue comes up, I ask whether or not that person has read chapter five of John’s first epistle:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.

– 1 John 5:16 (Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition)

So there we go, John seems pretty clear that there is such a thing as mortal sin.

Lost in translation?

However, is this just a translation issue? After all, in the above Scripture quotation, I’ve quoted from a Catholic translation.

Well, the standard Protestant translation is the King James Version, so let’s see how that translation renders the passage:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

– 1 John 5:16 (King James Version)

As we can see, the KJV renders “mortal sin” as “sin which is…unto death”. Even with this translation the same central meaning remains:

1. There are two kinds of sin

2. One kind of sin leads to “death”

3. Another kind of sin does not lead to “death”

However one chooses to interpret this passage, it’s very clear that Scripture is making a distinction between different kinds of sin and saying that one is more serious than the other.

Not only John

As a quick follow up, I typically point out that John is not the only person in Scripture to distinguish between different kinds of sin. Although it’s a little different, Jesus Himself speaks to this subject:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven – Matthew 12:31

Again, regardless of how one chooses to interpret this passage, it’s clear that not all sins are the same.

All sin is serious!

After pointing out these two passages, I would typically conclude the brief exchange by saying that, despite these distinctions, in a certain sense it is correct to say that “sin is sin”. It is true that all sin is an offense against God.

The Catholic distinction between different kinds of sin doesn’t mean that venial sin is “okay”. No, all sin is serious. We shouldn’t just try and avoid mortal sin, but all sin and strive for the holiness for which we were made!

Quick Apology: Making present again?

I’m going to take a break from my “Quick Apology” series concerning Mary and Saintly Intercession. Today’s “Quick Apology” will be a very brief and concern the Eucharistic liturgy…

Objection

The Catholic Church teaches that, in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of Calvary is made present again. In response to this, some Protestants object in this way:

“How can you say the sacrifice of calvary is made present again? The Epistle to the Hebrews says that His sacrifice was once for all. He’s no longer bleeding…”

Obviously, there is a lot that could be said in response to this, but how might we respond briefly?

Response

In reply to this objection, sometimes I challenge Evangelicals over the very language they use in talking about salvation. Don’t they often talk about “being washed in the blood”, upon accepting Christ as their personal Lord and saviour? However, given the objection they raised above, isn’t there a problem? Hasn’t Jesus stopped bleeding? Wasn’t His sacrifice 2,000 years ago?

When Evangelicals talk about “being washed in the blood”, they’re talking about the the grace of the cross being applied to their souls in time in a real, substantial way. Given this, is the idea of the Eucharist being a participation in Calvary really that alien?

The Passion

Quick Apology: Catholics think Mary is divine

This should be the last Marian “Quick Apology” I’ll be doing for a while. After all, I have other things I want to write about! However, before we leave the subject of Mary, I wanted to address the claim that Catholics think that Mary is divine…

Objection

On this blog I’ve received comments like the following:

 “Catholics basically think that Mary is divine. It’s like the Trinity has been replaced with a quartet – Father, Son, Spirit and Mary”

How might you respond?

Response

The simplest way to respond to an assertion like this is to ask for any official Church document which teaches this. Can the objector produce a reference in the Catechism, a Council or a Papal Encyclical? I can guarantee you they cannot.

When they are unable to provide the evidence you request, I would suggest that you then point them to the binding teaching of the Catechism:

488 “God sent forth his Son”, but to prepare a body for him, he wanted the free co-operation of a creature. For this, from all eternity God chose for the mother of his Son a daughter of Israel, a young Jewish woman of Nazareth in Galilee…

The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in the coming of death, so also should a woman contribute to the coming of life.*

[This is a beautiful teaching from the Early Church, where the Fathers referred to Mary as being a kind of “New Eve”]

489 Throughout the Old Covenant the mission of many holy women prepared for that of Mary…Eve…Sarah…Hannah…Deborah; Ruth; Judith and Esther….

Mary “stands out among the poor and humble of the Lord, who confidently hope for and receive salvation from him. After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion, and the new plan of salvation is established.”

Mary

1 2 3 4