Skip to main content

Some Frank Thoughts About Sex, Marriage, and Desire

I'm praying as I type this. I'm sure you are aware that this desire is the strongest natural one we have. And that is an unqualified good, insofar as it would prevent the extinction of the human race, among other things. But people often express this desire in all manner of destructive ways, and at the wrong times. You don't need the details, I'm sure.

And I'll just tell you, I've gone about as wrong as you can, while still not bringing lives to ruin. Often in the spiritual life, you learn more from failing than from succeeding. Which is not to say it is better to fail. I mean only that the special humility that shame often produces is good for those who would be proud.

I think the failure to distinguish concupiscence from sin has the undesirable effect of completely obliterating the distinction between temptation and sin in the sphere of sexuality in practical (Protestant) life. Aside from the dumb things I actually did, I felt bad for every desire I ever had, every thought.

Anyway, the cross of singleness is much different as a Catholic. I've had time to reflect on that cross some more. By God's grace, I can see that the generalized agitation I described as "longing for marriage" in those days--and even after--were the after-effects of having given expression to my disordered passions! As I'm thinking about it today, let me say it boldly: there is no such thing as a generalized sexual "frustration" that is good. If you feel this, (men, especially) it's probably a disordered passion.

I'm not saying there isn't a good way to long for marriage. But first, we have to see that our sexual desire when rightly expressed or realized is for one person. That desire says, "You, and only you." A person could express his or her sexual desire with lots of people, but it won't be a good thing, and it won't come to its full flowering in God's plan.

And you can't just say this. I could be blathering on pointlessly about purity and desiring to do God's will while knowing nothing of this self-possession that we're talking about here. But I understand, today, by experience that my sexual self is mine to give as a gift. It's extremely powerful. I have already known that. It's dangerous; it subsumes things (and people). If and when God chooses to make life suitable for me to give this gift, it will be a beautiful thing. I'm sure if it were recounted, those books would move the world. But there's too much sharing of that stuff, anyway.

I'm quite the appreciator of women. They are so fascinating, even were they not desirable to me in this way. God was really up to something in this case. [You're attracted to every woman.--ed.] Not true! Most of them, maybe. But the point I want to make is that we should look for signs of something more than just attraction to know that our time for marriage has arrived. That God is doing something, in other words. I do wonder what God's idea is, if marriage is in my future. Will I give the world a saint? A president? A world-class chemist? If the inevitably explosive love between my future spouse and me were just a footnote because my children brought glory to God and good to humanity, what more could I ask?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un