No Love Without Chastity

"Only the chaste man and the chaste woman are capable of true love."
--Pope John Paul II

The girl in front of me was fidgeting and looked to be almost close to tears. She had looked that way since I started asking about her situation - her eyes moist with tears that never fall. It has almost been an hour since she came to see me, and within the first half hour she had received the most relieving news - she was not pregnant, contrary to her great fear and suspicion. She had calmed down a lot since, but her eyes were still misty, her expression far from peaceful.

After a lot of discussion, I couldn't help it. I had to ask this young, troubled, unmarried girl: "Why do you have sex?"

A sniffle. A deep breath. "Because I choose to."

My uncle took drugs because he chose to, I thought. But I kept my mouth shut and nodded instead.

"And... to show him how I feel. But now... now, I don't want to have sex anymore," she said, her voice almost breaking. She looked like she was about to cry again, but as before, the tears never left her eyes.

She went on to tell me that she wasn't even sure if she wants a future with her boyfriend, if she sees him as a husband, or a father of her kids. "And yet, I'm having sex with him which could get me pregnant," she said.

It is always puzzling to me how people engage in sexual activity with their current partners and then become surprised when they feel they might be pregnant. This disconnect between having sex and the possibility of pregnancy is not uncommon among young people today. There is often panic, because pregnancy means possibly having children. They usually say they aren't ready for these consequences. And for most of them, the thought that their sexual partner could be in their life forever was something they have never considered, whether it's someone they might have to marry, or someone who would be present in their lives to an extent as a part of the child's life. Often, the consequences of sleeping with a boyfriend or girlfriend, whether it's pregnancy or an STD or two, was something they never signed up for. And yet, they persist in behaviors that open the possibility for these undesired, long-term consequences. And for what reason? Choice? Evidently, the the possible outcomes of their actions was something they never chose. Nobody wakes up and thinks "I want to exercise my free choice today to have an STD" or "Today, I want to exercise my right to have a child that I'm so not ready for!" People choose sex - but not its consequences.

"Sex can make you pregnant??"

There is a great line in the film, Vanilla Sky, that goes "when you sleep with someone, your body makes a promise whether you do or not." This is what happens when people have sex. The act is not just something done for pleasure. By its very nature, it is the joining of two people who have given themselves to each other. It is an outward sign of an inner reality - and that is the union of hearts and souls. Additionally, the permanent nature of its natural consequence, that is, the conception of a child, tells us that it is not something that two people could do without the intention and the promise of being together permanently. This decision is sealed in marriage. This is why we are often told to wait until we get married (and those who aren't told, often feel cheated of a great truth). Contrary to the popular view, sex is a big deal. God did not give us sexuality just so we could all have a good time. There is a way to express our sexual natures in a true and honest way, without rejecting the natural consequences (possibility of procreation, as well as various physiological, emotional, even neurological changes that occur in the sexual act) and the meaning and great significance attached to it. How do we do this? One word. Chastity.

Chastity is so very inconvenient and perhaps, even offensive, to our modern, "liberated" sensibilities, that it is not at all surprising that it's widely rejected. But although chastity is very much a religious virtue, the benefits are not limited to the spiritual and psychological, but extend to other areas such as health and academics. Teens who abstain from sexual activity are less likely to be clinically depressed, more likely to do well academically, and are free of the many health issues associated with risky sexual behavior and with ingesting hormonal contraceptives such as STDs, cervical cancer from HPV, irreversible and adverse effects on fertility, fatal blood clots, and so on.  Not to mention those who saved themselves for their spouse have happier and more lasting marriages. And that's only naming a few of the documented benefits of living chastely. And where chastity is rejected or worse, assaulted, bad things happen. God's laws come first, science follows.

The Blessed Virgin and her most chaste spouse.

True love requires chastity. It is not simply a virtue of sexual abstinence, but one that also encompasses the mind, heart, and will. It is the knowledge and appreciation of the other as a whole person and not just a body that gives pleasure. It is the acknowledgment that one is first, a brother/sister in Christ before anything, as we read in the Song of Songs: "A garden locked is my sister, my bride, a garden closed, a fountain sealed." Blessed John Paul II reflected that the order ('my sister' came before 'my bride') was no accident, and that the former term of address is the lover acknowledging his and his beloved's common humanity and dignity in Christ. This way, one treats the beloved with the utmost, almost trembling respect, as God's very own image and likeness that one dares not corrupt or debase. Disinterested love develops, which is love that seeks the good of the beloved no matter what the cost to the lover. It is called 'disinterested' in that the lover ceases to be an 'interested party', and pursues only the best interests of the object of love. It is the first act of giving of oneself that happens before marriage, as one begins to live to serve another instead of the self. It is inherently self-less. It is done out of love for the Lord which extends to His son/daughter. It is the start of desiring the salvation of another; of loving a person more than the gratification of one's desires or achieving personal happiness.

This is why people who are protective of their own happiness often fail to love. For when loving feelings dissipate, they feel they owe it to themselves to be happy again, and so they move on, forget the promises they made, and seek their own personal happiness at the expense of the person they left behind. This is also why people who are used to seeking the gratification of the senses have no room to love truly. Engaging in sensual pleasures focus our attentions inward - that is, to the self. The same is true for pain, which is also sensory. When our sensations are strong, we tend to forget everything outside of it. If you have a huge, gaping wound, it is difficult to pay attention to anything else. This is also true for strong sensual pleasures. If we are used to giving in, we are inadvertently building the destructive habit of attending only to ourselves. And when we do that, we are not leaving room for true love. For true love, as we just discussed, is inherently selfless.

Does this mean we ought to denounce all sorts of physical pleasures, especially sexual intimacy? Not at all! This is the grave mistake of going the other way and taking it to the extreme. For as we know, the one-flesh union is undeniably necessary within a marital relationship. Chastity is not hatred or total rejection of sex. The virtue involves abstaining from sex as a main component, but as we've established, abstinence is not all the virtue is about. Because if that were so, then the marital sexual union would be wrong, too. And we know that this is not the case. A common misconception is that chastity is a virtue for single people only. This is incorrect - the call to chastity does not end on the wedding day. People often forget that married couples are also called to chastity.

The marriage license is not a carte blanche for gratifying all sexual and carnal desire. Married couples are just as called to disinterested love as everybody else. Sexual intimacy must always be an expression of love and unity which involves the respect of one another as persons. It should always be the outward expression of a perfect unity that already exists - that is, the union of two hearts, minds, and souls, whom God have joined and who have vowed to remain as such. Without those things, as... preconditions, if you may, the sexual act is empty and becomes merely a mixing of two bodies for physical pleasure. Married couples are not immune to sins against chastity, i.e. lust. They are also capable of using each other as objects of pleasure if they do not abide by God and lose sight of the meaning of true love. One might even say that it is even worse to lust after one's spouse for it is an offense against love, and thus an offense against marital vows made before God.

As with many things, virtue is about balance. It is not giving our carnal appetites free rein (even within marriage), nor is it rejecting sexual desire. Food, for example, is to satisfy hunger and appetite. We control our intake of food as necessary. First, we do not give solid food to infants, even if babies like to grab the food and try to eat it. We keep them from eating adult food until they are ready. As adults, we also avoid unhealthy foods as much as possible, and we do not overfeed ourselves to obesity. We are aware of the growing threat of obesity with the ubiquity of unhealthy, fatty foods and with the decline in discipline among many. But the fact that obesity happens does not make us reject our appetite for food; it doesn't make us reject eating altogether. It is similar with the sexual appetite. Just because sexuality can be misused and abused does not mean we ought to do away with it completely. Chastity is about the proper expression of sexual desire, not rejection of sexual desire. It is about knowing the right time to express it (within marriage); when the right time comes, it's about ensuring the right conditions are met (i.e. free from lust). Sexual desire is in us for a reason - because the desire for union with the person we love is a reflection of our soul's desire for union with God. This is why the sacrament of matrimony is so important, so central to our faith and to society. It is the expression of God's truth - of that much-awaited union of Christ and His Church. And when the Bridegroom comes, the Bride must be perfect. The Bride must be pure. We must be pure.

The next time you complain how unreasonable a demand
chastity is, look at this image.

Our over-sexualized culture makes it difficult to practise chastity. But it is possible if we are willing to take the necessary effort. In fact, we must make the necessary effort, if we wish to follow Christ. I am reminded of the words of St. Josemaria Escriva:

"To defend his purity, Saint Francis of Assisi rolled in the snow, Saint Benedict threw himself into a thornbush, Saint Bernard plunged into an icy pond . . . You . . . what have you done?"

Singles, be prepared.

In my experience, entrusting your life and vocation to God and waiting for the right person can be a long and arduous process, and you might be single for a good long time. This is marked by periods of loneliness and occasional feelings of hopelessness all of which constitute a real test of faith. It is also a test of patience, as you deal with many questions and comments (many of which will be stupid)  on why you are still single.

Dan Pearce, of the blog Single Dad Laughing has a very funny post on how to deal with such situations. An excerpt:

There are plenty of fish in the sea.
Thank you for rubbing my nose in my inability to get any of them.

You're just too picky.
So, you're saying I should settle?

Are you kidding? I wish I was single and in your shoes.
Poor baby.

You're so attractive! What seems to be the problem?
How do I answer this without making you or me look like a jerk?

Maybe you're not trying hard enough.
Oooooh. That must be it. I think what you're really saying is that I'm not easy enough.

Read more.

The point? Remember that this is something you'll look back on and laugh. I am not particularly endorsing fighting rudeness with rudeness - this post is all in good humor. But oh, how tempting.

Who understands love best?

I found this gem while reading the Catechism a while back:

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us.... I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. (§ 2365 CCC)

 We turn to people with extensive experience in a given field for great knowledge and expertise. Not so with love. It is not the people who have had lots of experience with relationships, nor is it necessarily people who have kept long-term relationships who know best about true love. The problem with the former is that the number of romantic relationships you've been in only shows the number of failures you've had with romance. The problem with the latter is that longevity does not necessarily make a healthy and happy relationship. We know couples who have been married for decades whose relationships are dysfunctional or are just plain unhappy.

Rather, it is those closest to God, the source of love, who truly understand true love. And whether they are married or not is of no relevance. Want a happy, lasting relationship? Work on knowing and loving God. Only He gives couples the grace they need to make love last. Only He can continually inspire love in our hearts when our emotions fail us. Love God, and loving others will follow. It is only when we abide by Him who is love, can we love truly and completely. To fail in this is to cut off oneself from the one source of love. That would make it extremely difficult to love fully. Because we cannot give what we cannot have.

Those who have God, have love. And they are the only ones who can give it.

On Being In Love

More than once, people have come to me about a newfound love, with those oh-so-familiar starry eyes and the giddiness of a schoolgirl. And almost unfailingly, each person would say excitedly, "this is it."

It gets difficult to believe after the fifth or so time. And it's almost puzzling how, after years of failed relationships with each ex-boyfriend or girlfriend believed to be 'the one', people never waver in their confidence that they've found the right one 'this time'.

There are some who have taken a more 'realistic' approach, and avoid speaking of their current relationship as if it would last forever. "Sure, we like each other, but we'll see how it goes." This approach is only useful for cushioning the self more or less effectively when it results in failure. Sure, it failed, but hey, they knew it all along right? But often, the failure happens because they never valued it all along.  You can almost hear the sound of the baby crying for being thrown out in the cold with the bathwater.

The problem with the "realistic approach" is that it denies the natural desires of romantic love, which is the desire, the intense passion and feeling that gives rise to the conviction that it's going to last forever. It attempts to build relationships without a key element of romance. And in doing so, fails. The problem with the 100th-this-is-it people, is that their only understanding of romantic love is the intense feelings. So that when these feelings start to cool down naturally overtime, they begin to lose their motivation, and all that's left is this person who demands so much of their time and annoys them sometimes. And then, failure.

So what's the proper approach? First, let's look at the nature of romantic love. For this, I must turn to the ever wise, ever eloquent C.S. Lewis:

It is part of the nature of a strong erotic passion [romantic love] — as distinct from a transient fit of appetite — that it makes more towering promises than any other emotion. . . To be in love involves the almost irresistible conviction that one will go on being in love until one dies. . .

The first thing is to recognize the nature of falling in love. We cannot deny the feelings that come with it without distorting it. We must accept that part of these strong emotions is the claim of eternity.

But Lewis goes on to say,

Unfortunately these promises are found often to be quite untrue.

We know this from experience, as all of us know at least one person who has told us that such-and-such was "the one" but is no longer with that partner. But note that Lewis did not say 'always found to be untrue', but 'often'. Which means such promises do not have to be untrue. In fact, there are cases when they have been made true. The operative word there is 'made'. Falling in love impels us to promise eternity. But it is not the feelings of being in love that keep it. It is up to us - not our emotions or our moods, but our efforts, guided by a strong will, dedication, and commitment.

It is also important that we do not forget the role of reason which guides us towards who to make and keep such promises to. We will feel a variation of "this is it" multiple times, but not all objects of such desires are worthy of our promise of eternity. And it is when the emotion is especially strong that we should be extra cautious, and really take reason up to task. For that has the greater ability to deceive us. Choosing my beloved is not something that falling in love drove me to do. Don't get me wrong, I had (and have) every intense desire to be with him. But it is 'falling in love' that fueled it, and my will that accomplished it. I knew he was the right person because it was the first time that my heart and my head were in complete agreement. I felt and knew he was the one. So that years from now I would never look back and wonder, as many couples do, "why on earth did I choose this person?" There is usually a second part to that question that is unspoken which is, "...and not somebody else?" And it is a good question to ask before choosing a boyfriend/girlfriend who will ultimately be your spouse. "Why this person and not someone else? What makes him/her special?" I know I'll never ask that question years from now because I knew the answer before I decided to be with my man. Because before I even met him, I knew what I wanted in a husband. And as I got to know him through a long friendship (five or so years), I discovered that he fit the profile. So I will never forget why I'm with him because I chose him for who he is, not just because of what I felt at the time.

Lewis provides us a good picture of a good, blissful, and lasting relationship:

When two people achieve lasting happiness, this is not solely because they are great lovers but because they are also — I must put it crudely — good people; controlled, loyal, fair-minded, mutually adaptable people. [emphasis mine]

It is not the strength of our emotions that give happiness and permanence to romantic relationships. It is the strength of will of those involved. While the wonderful, giddy, passionate emotions are inherent in romantic love, they should always be tempered by a clear mind and a strong will. And best of all, by the goodness and grace of God that abide in us, as long as we abide by Him.

See marriage in your future? Consider this.

Often, people tie the knot without truly preparing themselves. Anthony Buono of 6 Stone Jars (a great blog on Christian dating and relationships) tells us to consider the following when contemplating marriage:

Circumstances and disappointments are the cornerstone of any relationship. If you want to be in a great relationship of love and happiness, you have to accept that things are not going to go like you want them to. It will be filled with lots of unexpected things.

And it comes with advice that to some hopefuls might appear unpalatable:

People who cannot handle the unexpected might consider not pursuing marriage. A relationship of love is a mutual exchange of persons. If you cannot handle who that person is, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not the right person. It might actually be the best person for you to benefit your changing for the better.

Of course, for those singles who have problems dealing with change, all hope is not lost. There is plenty of time to develop this ability and overall outlook. Remember that marriage preparation does not begin only after slipping that gorgeous, sparkly rock on your finger. In fact, if possible, it ought to start while you're still single. First, with prayers, and then with making the necessary changes in you. Ask yourself, "will I make a good wife/husband? What do I have to offer?"

Years ago, when I started developing feelings for my significant other and co-author, Peregrinus, my mother took note of the change in my behavior, and I was told that she said to my sister about me, in almost disbelief: "she ...cleans the bathroom now. We went out to the store and she wanted to get all these cleaning supplies."

Of course, that wasn't the only change I made, but it was one of the first things that occured to me. I've done different kinds of cleaning around the house before, but have purposely avoided the bathroom. So at the time, I couldn't help but think, "how could I honestly say that I would make a good wife if I couldn't even keep a house clean?"

This process of changing oneself is not easy. Heck, even the idea of changing the self for another person is difficult to accept in our "me first!" culture. But when I speak of such a change, I mean self-improvement. It includes looking honestly at and inside ourselves and discovering real flaws that we could (and should!) work on. This is something that we should be doing anyway, marriage hopeful or otherwise. But it is especially important if we wish to get married. For if we marry, it ceases to be about ourselves, but about the person we love. Selfishness has no place in marriage. We know we are thinking right about marriage and love when we focus on what we have to offer and not what the other person can give us. Marital union is a gift of self, not a gift we give to ourselves.

Of course, this does not mean we can be lax in our standards and foolishly think that as long as we have the right perspective, marriage will work out. It is important that your chosen spouse shares the same outlook. Marriage is a two-way street. It does not work if all the efforts to improve are only seen on one end. It is a good match when a man and a woman honestly say to each other, "I wish to be better for you."

On Education, Or Lack Thereof

Jennifer Fulwiler at National Catholic Register ponders the question, "do housewives waste their educations?" Her answer surprised her, which was 'yes'. But for her, it wasn't because there was anything wrong or lacking in the vocation of being a stay-at-home mom

[...] when I considered whether I ever use the knowledge I gained in my four (okay, four and a half) years in college, I realized that the answer was no. But the problem isn’t with my vocation; it’s with my education.

Fulwiler describes her education as a quest for purely practical knowledge - arming the self with skills and information that will help us navigate the competitive career world. This was partly due to her former atheism, she goes on to say, as she had avoided philosophy classes that would have introduced her to the bigger questions on finding truth, wisdom, existence, and meaning.

While it is true that the absence of philosophical courses makes for a severely lacking education, my experience and observation of others tell me that the presence of them does not necessarily make one a lot better at navigating the world of abstract ideas and in using critical thinking to evaluate their validity. I can only count with one hand the courses that I have taken wherein the important subjects dealing with philosophy, religion, and politics were taught without bias and contempt for anything traditional/conservative. Even professors that don't deal with such subjects would often pepper their lessons with anti-conservative or anti-christian sentiments. My professor in cognitive psychology, in teaching the history of the field, dismissed any theories that included God by saying that they were unconvincing. He did not even bother telling the class about any of them so that the students could decide for themselves. Not to mention my developmental psychology professor, who, going on a political tangent, told the class that skeptics of global warming 'are ignoring scientific evidence' just to conform to a party platform. And then there's the same professor's lamenting over the embryonic stem cell controversy and its lack of advances in the US because of the "A-word" and then going on to cite the example and sing the praises of some Scandinavian countries that have made progress in their research.

One of my few good professors in his refusal to answer a student's question on who he was voting for in the 2008 elections, said that he knows many of his colleagues talk about their political views in class, but he refuses to do the same. "I think it's very unprofessional," he says, shaking his head. "If you really want to hear my views on that, see me after class." The other three or four unbiased professors I've had have said something similar - that while the norm is a professor bringing his politics and own personal views in his teaching, what they want is to teach us "how to think" as opposed to "what to think", and let us make our own conclusions and decide for ourselves what to believe. There is a shortage of such professors. And talking with friends who graduated from different schools revealed that it wasn't just at my alma mater.

This is probably why we have intellectual giants such as Chesterton with the following words about education:

"No man who worships education has got the best out of education... Without a gentle contempt for education, no man's education is complete."

To help us understand this, perhaps Mark Twain's distinction between formal education (schooling) and education would help:

"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education."

Not to mention Einstein's:

These days, taking school too seriously could very well lead to a closing of the mind. Political correctness is the order of the day. New biases are formed, new and progressive ideas are preferred over time-honoured (and tested!) ones, with the latter being rejected just because they are 'old', without a fair and balanced examination of why they were there to begin with. Challenging the progressive ideas, taking a conservative-leaning position, is automatically hate-filled, fascist, racist, sexist, or religious fundamentalist, and should be dismissed if not driven out of public discourse.

Formal education, despite the inclusion of liberal studies such as philosophy, literature, political science, and so on, does not necessarily provide a broadened view or the skills to help us know and understand our world, our lives, and our purpose in our limited existence. This is worrying because discovering such truths enables us to address the pressing issues of the day such as raising our children and what values to instill to the next generation, what kind of society we wish to build, what kind of society is best, and so on and so forth  

If I had taken too seriously my public university education which included those important subjects, I would've been a flaming liberal. I would've had nothing but contempt for the honourable vocation of being a full-time mother and housewife. I would have ceased to be Catholic or even Christian. I would have been of the belief that it is best to raise genderless kids without taking any account of the differences between male and female and the strengths inherent in each sex. That is assuming I wouldn't have been completely against having children to begin with. I would have insisted to decide what womanhood meant for me, which could very well be anti-woman (see radical feminism) not to mention out of step with even basic biology. I would have rejected real femininity and real masculinity. I wouldn't have been a romantic.