banner

Only the Chaste

How do we explain the sexual relations between a man and a woman in their most original meaning unsullied by cultural distortions and lustful imaginings? We might start with something that John Paul II once said: “Only the chaste man and the chaste woman are capable of true love.”

But given widespread ignorance – even among Catholics – about what it means to be chaste, we need a full definition: “Chastity is the virtue which excludes or moderates the indulgence of the sexual appetite.” (J. Melody)

To unpack this saying, we have to start from the fact that “the goal of [all of] creation is the covenant, the love story of God and man.” (J. Ratzinger) Every activity in creation is under the sovereignty of God either moving towards fulfilling the “love story between God and man” or polluting it. Furthermore, the covenant means that: “True surrender to God [consists] in the union of man and creation with God.”

There is a wide range of such “surrenders,” ranging from things as simple as honestly focusing on another person in a conversation to giving alms to sacrificing oneself for another person. And it is ultimately what sex is all about.

The surrender of the man to the woman, and vice versa, is a concrete instance of a created union – in accordance with created nature – that confirms God’s covenant with his people and the creation of the whole world in love. (And you thought that it was just about you and your spouse.)

This is not love as lust, but real love. As John Paul said to a World Youth Day crowd: “Yes, through that love which is born in you – and wishes to become a part of your whole plan of life – you must see God who is love.”

There is much relevant to the meaning of marriage here. True self-surrender between human beings involves a permanent union in love, otherwise it is not true. Further: “It means emerging from the state of separation, of apparent autonomy and existing only for oneself and in oneself.” (Ratzinger) In our society, this is almost entirely unnoticed – and unencouraged. We have so focused on individual happiness that emerging from oneself virtually makes no sense to many people, even though it involves several crucial kinds of development intrinsic to human nature, as one begins to master oneself.

Kids are only at the start of the road to chaste “self-mastery [which is] long and exacting work.” (CCC) One grows by learning what is true, developing a conscience, learning real, respectful intersubjectivity, and more, very much more. In a culture of self-absorption, the typical person will not allow himself to be guided into these paths of burgeoning humanity.

Marriage at Cana by Gerard David, c. 1500 [Musée du Louvre, Paris]
Marriage at Cana by Gerard David, c. 1500 [Musée du Louvre, Paris]

Sexuality is the human power that indicates that this man and this woman, who have souls, also belong to the world of material things. But this man and woman are not livestock – as much modern thinking, despite romantic pretensions to the contrary, would have them be. Beyond their instincts, they mate in the covenant.

Moreover, a life of chastity “blossoms in friendship.” Working at friendship “shows the disciple how to follow and imitate him who has chosen us as his friends.” (CCC) The “him” here is, of course, Jesus Christ. Modern liberalism is profoundly secular, so the “him” it usually follows is some promiscuous, self-indulgent political figure or movie star.

Sadly, few people learn how to be friends. Witness all the unhappy families, broken and violent, because people cannot relate in loving respectful ways. But their tragedy does not define the value of friendship down. Friendship is part of the covenant, much as the laws that Moses passed on from God: “Now, Israel, hear the statutes and decrees which I am teaching you to observe, that you may live, and may enter in and take possession of the land which the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 4:1) God knows how he designed our natures and how they best unfold.

Interestingly, Israel repeatedly forgot and had to re-learn from God, just as we do, to find out who we are so as to live in the full sense of that word. Such learning and re-learning does not start over at zero for each person (the anarchist view) – or at least should not. Authentic human living is already known to some extent; if not from the natural law or from revelation in our benighted age, then at least from mere common sense.

It’s strange that so many clergy and religious have themselves arbitrarily and sinfully recast the understanding of human sexuality and mores. Some clergy even play down the seriousness of sexual issues in the confessional. Why?

The chaste individual chooses a life moving towards union in the covenant either as a chaste individual (single life) or in a chaste married union with someone of the opposite sex. The Church and the extended community need chaste people. They have purer motives. They know how to love. They are part of something larger than themselves.

Since American culture no longer even understands chastity, the Church and Christian families have to do much more to show the significance of the chaste life for healthy individuals and a healthy society. (It says a great deal that most Catholic schools could not even begin to deal with this issue to save their lives.)

Pure people, or people really working at being pure can and ought to teach others, “make [it] known to your children and to your children’s children.” (Deuteronomy 4:9) Our existence literally depends on it.

Bevil Bramwell, OMI

Bevil Bramwell, OMI

Fr. Bevil Bramwell, OMI, PhD is the former Undergraduate Dean at Catholic Distance University. His books are: Laity: Beautiful, Good and True; The World of the Sacraments; and, most recently, Catholics Read the Scriptures: Commentary on Benedict XVI’s Verbum Domini.

The Catholic Thing welcomes comments relevant to columns that are civil, concise, and respectful of other contributors. We do not publish comments with links to other websites or other online material.
  • Stanley Anderson

    Fr. Bramwell writes, “Every activity in creation is under the sovereignty of God either moving towards fulfilling the “love story between God and man” or polluting it.”

    And a significant aspect of the polluting part is the pervasive notion of redirecting “every activity in creation”, a least in terms of human relations, to “moving towards” physical sex, period. Thus, virtually every instance of “male bonding” or “female confidences” in friendship arouses suspicion of “latent homosexual desire” and even friendships between a man and woman are imagined as fraught with sexual tension, as though friendship of any kind is “really” only ever the beginning stage of sexual desire and not an independent kind of human relationship.

    With this sort of assumption and orientation that the “direction” of relationships of any kind are always moving toward “physical sex” as the end goal (whether eventually “fulfilled” or not), it is no wonder that modern society wants to redefine the zenith for relationships of any kind as “marriage”. That redefinition merely redirects the pointing up to the “love story between God and man” to pointing back down to the ground, at the dust of creation that we were raised in life by God from in the first place.

    In a Facebook thread about sex and marriage elsewhere I wrote this:

    It (whether the pill, “free love”, gay or adulterous or abortion-dimmed) is the delicate, easily torn-to-shreds and offended, rice-paper thin image of the actual solid and substantial, life-producing body that sex is intended to be.

    I’ve often thought that our modern definition of “sex”, as the mere physical act, is but a faint shadow of its “fullness” and that the modern “sexually liberated” set are in fact the true “prudes” who can’t bear the intensity of the real thing and have to water it down into tiny sparks of electrical pleasure impulses in the brain to be drowned into oblivion lest it disturb our numbness.

    That sort of “sex” is the “Miss Haversham” of the modern world.

    • RainingAgain

      Well put, Stanley. This modern kind of sex is mere masturbation and, for many, traditional relationships aren’t considered stimulating enough to interest them. This latter trait says more about their blindness than it does about tradition. Please God, they will all eventually become bored from the over-exposure.