Solution:
Stop reading C. S. Lewis and go get your ashes hauled.
Thanks all. I’ve read all the responses, but I dont have time to respond yet. It’s my girlfriend’s birthday today, and I was/am busy. We just finished watching ‘The Princess Bride.’ My 10th-plus, her first! To blave!
Funny you should say that, considering that on the day of baptism (which for most of us was long before we were of an age to make our own decisions), our parents and god parents made an oath to God that they would raise (indoctrine) us in the ways of Christianity, and that most of us would never be exposed to other religions so that we might make up our own mind.
It might not have been a gun, but I most certainly was forced into a Christian life for my first 17 years. I thank whatever god that might exist that I was able to break free from it.
I skimmed the replies, so I apologize if I say something similiar to anyone’s opinions or thoughts.
Basically, you have to decide what is more important to you in the long run.
I went back and forth for a long time over which position was more important to me. I could try to fool myself and believe that I didn’t really care about my faith anymore and just wanted to live like my friends, but in the end I decided that what I really believed were the doctrines of my faith including that one. That doesn’t make it easier to resist (and not that I have 100%) but I don’t believe you can just toss the rules out on a case by case basis.
So I believe you will need to sit yourself down and decide whether you really belive the teachings of the Catholic faith, if you believe something else or if the whole thing is bunk. 'Cause I agree with the people above that you will drive yourself crazy if you keep going the way you are going.
If you decide to stop having sex, it won’t be easy (it will be very very hard 
). But make it an active choice, not just something you do because it’s the rules.
Now, it’s a much [del]t[/del]hornier problem once you meet “the one” and get engaged - 'cause then it becomes a time equation not an uncertainity principle.
Wish that cutie a very happy birthday from me. And good for you! You deserve each other, and I mean that in the absolute best way.
Have a great sushi night tomorrow. I’m pretty certain that I won’t be able to attend. 
We’ll hook up in January.
The Church most definitely teaches that the sex urge is good. She also teaches that control of our appetites is necessary, or we cannot fully exercise our free will.
Appetite for sex: Good.
Inability to make the choices you want because your appetite for sex controls you: Bad.
I think it’s difficult to use primacy of conscience to justify this. Primacy of conscience applies when the individual feels the Church is compelling him to do something that he find morally abhorrent, or when the Church is compelling him not to do something that he finds morally necessary. It’s a bit of a stretch to apply this to the Church counseling restraint and the individual wanting to have a bit of fun.
No, I don’t accept that. There is no instruction to find out what you want or to do what you want and remain in the good graces of God and Church. (If I’m wrong about that, please cite, and I’ll convert to Catholocism tomorrow.) The injunction is to do what they tell you to, period.
Appetite for sex: Good.
Inability to make the choices the Church tells you you must because your appetite for sex controls you: Bad.
Conclusion: the Church is run by morons.
No I feel that Catholicism was incompatible with a healthy life FOR ME, and left it - and it took years to shake my upbringing and stop being “emotionally Catholic” - since I was fighting severe clinical depression at the time, and part of that had to do with the emotional Catholicism - yes, it was toxic for me.
(The beliefs and behaviors of the Catholic church were incompatible with what I developed as a values system as an adult - and I could no longer be Catholic and remain content with myself as a person. That does not mean that the values system of the Catholic church are bad, just that they are bad FOR ME.)
I think we’re talking about different things. I’ll give some examples of what I’m trying to describe:
A coworker that you find attractive makes advances at you. You feel an urge to have sex with him, but you know that doing so would be imprudent (for whatever reason) and you know that you would regret it.
Due to serious health reasons, you can’t eat some sort of food. Suddenly said food (which is your favorite) falls out of the sky and lands on your lap.
These aren’t moral examples, but merely examples of doing what you know to be in your own best interests.
If your urges control you, you do not control yourself. The Church teaches that difficulty in controlling our natural urges is a consequence of the Fall.
In this post, I’m very specifically addressing only Autolycus’s question of whether sexual urges are natural or good, and how they are related to the Fall of Man.
I don’t know if this will help you–it seemed to help my children as they dealt with reconciling their sexuality and their Christianity. To set the scene and avoid certain side issues, all this discussion is within the context of this basic assumption: God created sexuality. It’s good. It’s powerful. It should be enjoyed. Pleasure is from God. God loves us and wants us to experience his love and forgiveness, not guilt.
Ok, here’s the simplistic analogy. It is rather preachy and for this I apologize–but I was, in fact, preaching, if only to an audience of one at a time. 
The physical universe operates according to certain principles or laws. For example, there is gravity. Gravity works in certain ways–there are (if you will) “laws of gravity.” If you ignore these laws or principles, there are risks. If you dance at the edge of a cliff, you may fall and injure yourself and it could have life-long consequences. You may not fall and hurt yourself every time, or ever. But you might. You need to weigh the risks and benefits, within the context of the information available to you. Not every decision is wise and sometimes we fall. Falling hurts. Falling is not a punishment, it’s just a physical laws of the universe.
Likewise with our moral choices and actions. God’s laws (sex with a single partner in a stable relationshp, forgive, love your neighbor). These laws are not there to prevent you from enjoying good things, but to protect you from the adverse consequences of certain risky actions. Engaging in premarital sex is a choice with some risks. Sexual intimacy can lead to great joy and closeness and bonding–the excitement of dancing at the edge of the cliff. It can also lead to emotional devastation if the relationship is insufficiently stable or if both partners are not equally committed–if you fall off the cliff.
We do not always choose to abide by God’s principles. Everyday we make choices that can be called “sin”–whether of thought or deed. Often, from our perspective, the desire for the joy and intimacy is worth the risk. When (not if) you make such a choice, do it with gratitude to God for creating the pleasure and the understanding that you may experience hurt because God’s laws (whether of gravity or morality) do work. Take what action you can to minimize the risks of dancing on the cliff–choose a loving partner, be honest with each other, commit to each other as much as you can, take action to avoid pregnancy.
In our culture, sex seems to be the big issue around which we make judgements of a person’s commitment to God. We lay this judgement both on ourselves and on others. Yet Jesus spoke more harshly of those who created rigid laws than he did of those who were sexually active outside of those laws. Remember this when guilt threatens to rob you of joy or closeness to God or your parnter. If you have chosen to take a risk, then guilt is only “the devil’s last chance to rob you of pleasure and push you away from God.” Stay close to God because at his hand are pleasures forever more.
I don’t know enough about the Catholic church to get into the whole Catholic teachings etc, but these statements here are very true. Substitute anything else for sex in that sentence and it still rings true.
Appetite for FOOD: Good.
Inability to make the choice you want because your appetite for FOOD controls you: Bad.
Alcohol, risk taking, hanging out with friends, hygiene, driving, household chores, work–whatever it is, you can have too much of anything.
IMO, man (and woman) is much more than just a collection of his appetites. I am not here to argue whether those appetites are naturally selected or God given–to me it doesn’t matter. What matters (to me) is that no one appetite should control me-not sex, not food, not whatever. IOW, an individual needs to make the best choices for their overall character, NOT just what feels good at the time. This is an unpopular POV at present. It echoes of Victorian principles: Duty, Honor and Faith (not necc. religious faith, more like keep faith with yourself). Maybe I’m a throwback.
How about “inability to choose to only eat once a month: bad?” If you set the standard high enough, any failure to live up to it can be made to look like you are being controlled by your desires. I don’t think, necessarily, having sex with someone you care about outside of marriage equals being controlled by your desires.
Our appetites are a part of us, no matter whether they define us. Just because it feels good to eat a good meal, doesn’t mean that meal is bad for us. Some things that feel good are genuinely good for us. What feels good and what is good for us are not mutually exclusive. Whether it feels good or not is immaterial to whether it is good for us.
That is not what the statement says. It says sex/food/risk taking creates an inability to makes choices because sex/food/risk taking controls you. “inability to choose to eat once a month” doesn’t make any sense–even anorexics eat more than that.
I didn’t say (and I don’t agree) that sex outside of marriage is bad; and I like good meals, as does everyone else.
It’s a matter of degree. The Greeks were right: everything in moderation. I don’t want any ONE thing to control me, ever. Not my enjoyment of or desire for sex, ditto food, ditto everything. I also don’t want greed, anger, envy, spite etc to control me either. None of these things are bad or sinful–it’s the choices you make when faced with the appetites you have–that’s the difference. Am I advocating a life of the ascetic? No. Surely there is a happy medium to be found? Or are we to fulfill every appetite that comes along? Indulge every whim? How is that better for anyone?
That is each individual’s decision. I find I admire those who can and do control their appetites more than those who eat anything they want, do what they like, regardless of others, take sex when they can get it, no matter the circumstances etc. YMMV.
Sorry, missed the edit window. I wanted to add that I agree that our appetites are a part of us–should they define and/or control us? I don’t think so. Again, YMMV.
I’m not going to diss the Catholic faith, but I’ll introduce you to some things that might improve your perspective. Many Catholics struggle with the differences between the prescribed way and real life on earth. Even your priest, and even some of the saints, have struggled with their faith. They haven’t always kept up with ideal behavior. Many Catholics, maybe even most Catholics, make carefully considered choices about just how closely they’ll follow the rules. In time, you’ll make your own choices.
Catholics, like all other Christians, accept that they are sinners, and that they’ll be forgiven. If that weren’t so, why would there be a confessional booth?
I’ve been thinking about this one. It seems almost that you’re trying to use this premise to gauge whether or not premarital sex is a sin? It’s not like having premarital sex is going to suddenly turn you into a pickpocket. But assuming the premise is true:
If premarital sex is not a sin, then you will see no change.
If premarital sex is a sin, then we should see some indication that you are turning in the direction of more sin. For example, you might post to a forum looking for ways to justify more premarital sex.
That said, I think the idea that sin begets more sin is more of an observation than a premise. Bank robbery, for example, is very unlikely to be the first crime that an individual ever commits. People starting out with minor crimes (or sins) and moving to greater ones is pretty common.
Sure, but you’re essentially saying, then, that anyone who engages in premarital, or extra-marital sex is being controlled by their urges, and that’s just not true. There’s only one acceptable option to The Church (and you, apparently) for every person, and that’s sex within marriage. Anything else is evidence, I guess, of moral weakness or letting ones appetites reign. That’s the part I think is bullshit. One can have sacred, universe moving, soul uniting sex without marriage. I know you think we can’t, but take it from someone who’s had it instead of someone who hasn’t. It can happen.
Think of it this way: would you ask a blind man what a rainbow looks like? He’s likely to tell you they don’t exist, because he’s never experienced it. I don’t expect you to know first hand that something you’ve not experienced exists. But I’m here to say it does: I’ve seen the rainbow. I’ve experienced true soul uniting sex without being married to my partner. So now what?
I simply don’t accept the precept. I don’t accept that one cannot, with full thought and heart and soul, *choose *to engage in sex and remain master of their self.
Is everyone who ever eats a slice of chocolate cake dietarially bankrupt and giving in to their sinful food urges? Or can a slice of chocolate cake be a carefully considered and weighed choice in a healthy diet? What’s different about sex?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that it’s a matter of degree and that degree will differ from person to person. I said quite clearly that this was my POV, that other’s MMV etc. I do not try to proscribe what I am comfortable with and believe to be right onto others. I also stated explicitly that I don’t know enough about the Catholic church to speak to its doctrines. CHRIST-I NEVER SAID THAT ONE COULD NOT HAVE “SOUL UNITING” SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE. Sorry for the caps, but this is aggravating. You and I will never see eye to eye on the extra-marital sex. I do NOT condemn you for your practices. I do not approve of them for me, in my life, or for others in my life (like my husband).
Where are you getting this? Are you conflating posts? I was NOT a virgin when I got married. I do NOT believe in waiting until marriage to find out something that huge(sexual compatibility) about your supposed life partner. I don’t want to know about your soul uniting sex–it’s none of my business. I don’t care to share my sexual experiences on this bb-do I really have to say that I’ve seen that rainbow, too? I don’t know where you have misunderstood me so badly, but you have misread my posts here.
Again, did you ignore my reference to the Greeks–everything in moderation? Alcohol, food, sex, risks, work–whatever–are best done in moderation, in a balance with one another. IF you find you’re skipping salad to ONLY eat chocolate cake–your appetite for chocolate has started to control you. People do this every day; I am not stating some weird new thing.
IF you find that you are more into porn or want to pick up strangers in bars and have one nights stands rather than work on a relationship, that is a choice–but if you find that you prefer that to a relationship, then I say you are letting your sexual appetites control you. Others may be perfectly happy only eating cake (as they balloon in weight and suffer from poor nutrition) or hooking up with strangers (as they increase their risks of STDs and frankly, loneliness) or porn (which leaves one pretty isolated, when it’s you, the Kleenex and the computer). This is healthy? This is good? This is something to strive for?
Autolycus has said he wants to strive for something more. He is thinking through his commitment to his faith and trying to figure out how he can reconcile his “animal” desires with his “spiritual” desires. Posting that moderation is a good path to take is hardly a black and white position.
IMO, one should enter into sex thoughtfully, fully aware of the consequences of one’s actions to one’s partner, oneself and one’s future. How this is anything but sensible baffles me. Autolycus is struggling with this right now–I don’t have the “right” answer for him. Neither do you. Hopefully the posts here will give him food for thought.
On preview, please reread my previous post, #55. I honestly cannot see how you arrived at the conclusions you did unless you missed that post… 