Is This Controversial? Do You Agree/disagree?

[cruciatacara]

I give compassion where I feel it is merited.  If my "nephew" is told not to stand on the back of the couch, then does so and falls I make sure he's ok, but I do not give him any compassion for being hurt, as I would do if he was trying to "help" wash dishes and fell off the stool.

 

I'm just glad that God gives compassion even where it isn't merited. I 'fall' more than 7 times a day and I am sure that it is because I don't always learn my lesson the first (or second or third etc) time. Jesus forgives 70 times 7 so I don't think it hurts us to emulate him a little in showing compassion to those who may not be able to help themselves due to their physical, mental, emotional, spiritual or just plain human condition.

 

If this woman feels that the teachings of her faith have had something to do with her problem, then there is no reason not to help her on all levels, psychological and spiritual - and to support her with compassion and as much understanding as possible. She isn't creating this problem on purpose - she needs help! And anyone who needs help deserves compassion.

[beatitude]

It's not a faith issue at all.  It's wholly psychological.  It's a form of body dysmorphia.

 

This is like someone writing an article about how Lent made them anorexic.  I wouldn't really care how much pain they were in, they don't have the right to blame the church.    A priest abused you, yes, then you can blame the church, but not becuase your brain can't handle our teachings.

 

The Church is strong enough to 'handle' some criticism from a hurting person, even if that person is mistaken.

 

The hurting person might not be strong enough to handle, "I wouldn't really care how much pain they were in..." from a fellow Catholic. That doesn't make them any more narcissistic than the next person. Every single one of us here is likely to think less clearly when we are badly hurt. Sometimes it takes a lot of strength offer compassion in that situation, especially if the person is blaming something or someone that you value - in that case it's easy to make it about your own hurt feelings and get defensive. But you should try to get beyond that defensive urge for the sake of other people, because there will be times when you will need other people to get beyond it for you.

 

I have a friend whose eating disorder was made a hundred times worse by fasting and religious practices, and it was fuelled by some bad counsel she got from priests and a zealous set of well-meaning young Catholics who honestly wanted to be orthodox and to lead a good life. They told her to do things that actively harmed her, and she trusted their knowledge and respected their authority. Her illness made her more susceptible to these ideas in the first place, but the fact remains that these people continued to encourage her down a dangerous path even when she was very sick, telling her that what she was doing was legitimate religious observance. Now we could say that those people were wrong and they weren't teaching Catholicism, and we'd be right - but the fact remains that she, like the vast majority of Catholics, absorbed her religious outlook from the people around her. Christianity doesn't come vacuum-packed. Community matters, and sometimes people in a community can be spectacularly unhelpful (to put it most kindly) in a way that is seriously detrimental to others' faith. Jesus warned us about causing the little ones to stumble for a reason: we do have a responsibility to watch out for each other's welfare.

 

In some cases it's easier than others. I know one former Catholic who misrepresents the Church often, and it used to infuriate me, because she doesn't seem to have any reason for her level of detestation. But I don't know her heart and I don't have any right to. God does. The best I can do is pray and continue to care for her. Jesus was often mocked and slandered. He didn't need Peter rushing to his defence with a sword, he needed Peter to go out and 'feed my sheep' - which included the lost ones.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I don't think this is a Prot vs Catholic thing at all. As Catholics we stress virginity before marriage, we even have a form of consecrated life dedicated to virginity (CVs). But I think that the whole purity thing 'can' become a problem for some people - of any faith, especially those who are scrupulous or perhaps a little obsessive/compulsive.

 

This woman is in a lot of pain. She does mention her husband and talks about how good he is, but she can't seem to let go of her need for 'purity' so her focus is on her needs and not his. I think the problem here is in not understanding the sacrament of marriage and how this sanctifies the physical act of intimacy between a husband and wife but I think it is also about fearing the loss of something that she won't be able to get back (a control issue).

 

So personally I don't think this is a faith issue completely, but also a psychological one. She needs help from her pastor/priest to understand the holiness of sex within marriage, but she needs some therapy to deal with her psychological block about it as well. Her husband needs support too, to help him help his wife deal with this. Otherwise... if they can't work this issue out, maybe they need an annulment?? That way she could stay a virgin and he could find a wife that wants to be a wife. Just saying.

 

 

You obviously haven't heard of the married saints whom took personal vows of chastity and succeeded till death, and if you don't know the true meaning of chastity than read your dictionary it can be also not having sex at all. Why does sex have to be the prime order of marriage, where not pagans you know. I suggest wait 72 hours before you have sex after your wedding day or night if your going to have it at all, it isn't compulsory. St paul recommends to all married couples many times of abstinence, i suggest start that discipline from the get go if you can, if not it is ok also start at some time though practising this self denial and wondeful celebration of Agape. God bless.

 

Onward christian souls.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

Edited February 13, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[cruciatacara]

You obviously haven't heard of the married saints whom took personal vows of chastity and succeeded till death, and if you don't know the true meaning of chastity than read your dictionary it can be also not having sex at all. Why does sex have to be the prime order of marriage, where not pagans you know. I suggest wait 72 hours before you have sex after your wedding day or night if your going to have it at all, it isn't compulsory. St paul recommends to all married couples many times of abstinence, i suggest start that discipline from the get go if you can, if not it is ok also start at some time though practising this self denial and wondeful celebration of Agape. God bless.

 

Onward christian souls.

 

Jesus iz LORD.

 

Those partners who enter into a marriage with the intention of not having sexual relations are different than this situation, where it sounds as if the husband is suffering as well as the wife because of her inability to consummate the marriage.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I'm just glad that God gives compassion even where it isn't merited. I 'fall' more than 7 times a day and I am sure that it is because I don't always learn my lesson the first (or second or third etc) time. Jesus forgives 70 times 7 so I don't think it hurts us to emulate him a little in showing compassion to those who may not be able to help themselves due to their physical, mental, emotional, spiritual or just plain human condition.

 

If this woman feels that the teachings of her faith have had something to do with her problem, then there is no reason not to help her on all levels, psychological and spiritual - and to support her with compassion and as much understanding as possible. She isn't creating this problem on purpose - she needs help! And anyone who needs help deserves compassion.

 

 

I agree with just about everything you have stated but i understand i am a human being and that yes in certain situations i am going to have less understanding, less compassion depending on circumstance, i'm sure blaze has some compassion for her disobedient nephew just not as much if he hurt himself while being obedient. And also we are not God, perhaps you keep falling 7 times a day because you or the enemy put so much pressure on you to be a holy God instead of a holy human.(no pun intended)  :) And justice is love also, Jesus may forgive even more than 70 times 7 times, 70 times 7 is a deliberate non infinite number given to man, we must also apply justice with love at times which is a different kind of compassion, God is also justice, love is also justice. Discipline and the cold shoulder is sometimes required to bring another back into the grace of mercy. 

Edited February 14, 2014 by Tab'le De'Bah-Rye

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

I did look at the source... Didn't realize it was anglican, but noticed it was a guy's blog and the post was by a girl, but without an intro like "look what my friend wrote." 

 

Can the OP explain how she ran across this blog?  And ditto whoever said this seemed like less of an anglican thing than a baptist or evangelical issue.

 

 

I don't think this is a Prot vs Catholic thing at all. As Catholics we stress virginity before marriage, we even have a form of consecrated life dedicated to virginity (CVs). But I think that the whole purity thing 'can' become a problem for some people - of any faith, especially those who are scrupulous or perhaps a little obsessive/compulsive.

 

This woman is in a lot of pain. She does mention her husband and talks about how good he is, but she can't seem to let go of her need for 'purity' so her focus is on her needs and not his. I think the problem here is in not understanding the sacrament of marriage and how this sanctifies the physical act of intimacy between a husband and wife but I think it is also about fearing the loss of something that she won't be able to get back (a control issue).

 

So personally I don't think this is a faith issue completely, but also a psychological one. She needs help from her pastor/priest to understand the holiness of sex within marriage, but she needs some therapy to deal with her psychological block about it as well. Her husband needs support too, to help him help his wife deal with this. Otherwise... if they can't work this issue out, maybe they need an annulment?? That way she could stay a virgin and he could find a wife that wants to be a wife. Just saying.

 

Even though the question wasn't addressed to me, I'm going to attempt to address the "Anglican" versus "Protestant" issue, although I think it is really more "Anglican" versus "Evangelical Protestant."

 

For better or worse, the mainstream Episcopalian church (in the U.S. at least) generally places less emphasis on the issue of virginity before marriage than either orthodox Catholics or Evangelical Protestants. Obviously this is a generalization, because among the members of all these groups, there is a wide variation in belief. But, I suspect that, whether the religious group this woman had contact with, it was more likely to be either Catholic or Evangelical Protestant than Anglican (Episcopalian). Obviously I don't know this for sure, just guessing.

 

When I was in college, I hung out with Evangelical Protestants. (In the end, I left, because I just couldn't believe everything the Evangelical Protestants teach--but I digress.) Among Evangelical Protestants there was a LOT of pressure--both from leaders of college youth groups and from peers to remain a virgin until marriage. I never experienced pressure as strong as it seems the woman in the blog did, but I can believe that, depending on the individual congregation, she could easily have received the type of pressure she described and was taught the things she described being taught. From my experience of Anglicans, especially the current Episcopal church in the U.S., I think it is less likely that she would have had the same experiences because most current Episcopalians are more liberal. (However, it is not impossible that her influences could have been Angllican, because some Anglicans, particularly Anglo-Catholics, and members of break-off Anglican congregations, tend to be more conservative, and some congregations are VERY conservative).

 

Since I do not have experience of what type of pressure young Catholics are put under to remain virgins until marriage, and what they are taught, I won't try to speak to the issue of whether this woman's experience was with the Catholic Church.  I do know that among either Catholics and Evangelical Protestants the type of experiences this woman had are possible. However, since this woman's experiences were unhealthy, I like to hope that her experiences are not the norm among either Catholics or Evangelical Protestants.

 

In the end, I agree with Cruci's comments above that, this woman's experiences are not really a Catholic versus Protestant issue. Obviously this woman received some unhealthy teaching and pressure, and the woman's reaction to this unhealthy teaching helped lead her to the problems she is facing today. However, I think it may be more common than people realize (or admit to) that a woman might have trouble, at least at first, making the transition from having to control her sexual desires in order to remain a virgin, to being able to "let go" and enjoy sexual intercourse with her husband. Also, I expect that almost certainly more women than men face this issue simply because of the biological differences between men and women. However, this woman's reaction, that after five months she still cannot have intercourse with her husband, is a much more extreme reaction than most women face. I am glad that this woman's husband is sympathetic, because, if the woman is open to getting help, she can probably be helped, particularly if both partners truly love each other and want to solve the problem. The problem IS treatable, and I am sorry that it has been five months, and the couple apparently has not sought professional help. Unfortunately, I also think there are a lot of women who are able to have intercourse with their husband, but never fully enjoy it. This could be for any number of reasons, including that they may have been taught that "this is how it is" and not realize that they might be able to enjoy intercourse more if they had more information or counseling.

 

Factoid: In the Orthodox Jewish "marriage contract," one provision is that one of the responsibilities of the husband is to do what he can to make sure that his wife is sexually satisfied. I've always liked that. It's a very practical provision, and it recognizes that, even if sexual intercourse is primarily for procreation, it also serves to help bond a couple, so that they are "one flesh" not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually.

 

BTW Cruci--I keep trying to "like" your post, but the system won't let me. Perhaps I am out of "likes." I will try again later or tomorrow.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Those partners who enter into a marriage with the intention of not having sexual relations are different than this situation, where it sounds as if the husband is suffering as well as the wife because of her inability to consummate the marriage.

 

Ok i will be honest i didn't read the whole O.P. :(

[SilentJoy]

I did look at the source... Didn't realize it was anglican, but noticed it was a guy's blog and the post was by a girl, but without an intro like "look what my friend wrote." 

 

Can the OP explain how she ran across this blog?  And ditto whoever said this seemed like less of an anglican thing than a baptist or evangelical issue.

All of the "purity" sources mentioned in the original post are some variation of evangelical Protestant.

 

Here's the "Beliefs" page from Eric and Leslie Ludy's church: http://ellerslie.com/statement-of-belief

 

Joshua Harris ("I Kissed Dating Goodbye") is the senior Pastor of Covenant Life Church: http://joshharris.com/

 

Jackie Kendall ("Lady in Waiting") is the President of Power to Grow Ministries. I'm not sure if this is a church or just a Christian organization, but the "bible studies" tab links to a few different Protestant version of scripture: http://www.jackiekendall.com/

 

I wasn't sure if the "I let God write my love story" quote in the original post was referring to Eric Ludy's "When God Writes Your Love Story" or Katie Garraway's "Let God Write Your Love Story." I mentioned the Ludys above; I couldn't find a bio right away on Katie, but her book is published by Faithful Life Publishers (http://www.flpublishers.net/) whose owner is a member of a Baptist church in Florida.

 

There's a lot more out there, too (I was formerly Reformed-ish Protestant and I listened to a lot of Moody Radio). Of course, Catholics probably have a bit of an unfair advantage when it comes to Virgin Saints... :smile3:

 

Christina Therese mentioned, "They have a tendency of setting virginity up on a pedestal to a point where it's unhealthy..." so I mentioned it being more Baptist-y than Anglican-y, not because Anglicans don't like chastity, but because the strong, popular emphasis on purity and 'saving yourself' seems to be coming largely from Baptist/evangelical Protestantism.

[Basilisa Marie]

Okay, so I'm back, and so I'm expanding my thoughts. 

 

I think the biggest crux of this woman's problem is that she's stuck in a false dichotomy. The way the Church's teaching on sexuality was presented to her set off some kind of chain reaction that ended up with her fearing sex. This isn't uncommon, and it's one of the problems I have with the way a lot of female chastity education* was done. In my experience, the popular way to do female chastity education in the 2000s was a kind of idolization of a woman's purity through virginity. It certainly wasn't meant that way, but that was one of the more unintended results of many methods used by popular chastity speakers. They promoted a kind of "holy fear" of doing anything physical, because you didn't want to be damaged goods hoping that some nice man will be willing to forgive you for misusing "your gift" to him. Many messages, including those from Catholic speakers, didn't have nearly enough emphasis on how wonderful physical relationships are, how in the appropriate context it's a true blessing and wonderful source of joy and intimacy in a marriage. Couple this with the over saturation of Evangelical kinds of chastity messages (like the ones others have mentioned), it's just a recipe for disaster. 

So this young woman probably thinks that the only way to seriously practice the Church's teachings on sexual ethics is by abiding by all of this fear mentality, because that's the only thing she's experienced.  On the other hand, the alternative she sees is from society, which embraces having as much sex as you want with whomever you want.  She's tried one side, and it's left her with tons of problems, so of course she's going to think the grass is greener on the other side. 

So I don't think she's actually critical of Church teaching. I think she's critical of the way it was delivered to her. The Church as a community of believers is SUCH an important part of how we understand Church, it was the first real understanding Christians had of it, and I don't think we should write it off so hastily.  

I really hope she gets some therapy. She's certainly blessed to have such an understanding husband. 

* I can't speak for men, but I know for a fact that the way men are taught about chastity is very different from the way women are taught about chastity. So I don't think this is necessary a biologically-driven difference of experience (there are plenty of ways men could have analogous physiological problems and fears of physical intimacy), but more of a socially-driven experience.  Men are assumed to have high sexual drives and often are expected to make mistakes. Women are taught to not ever "let" a guy do anything with you because then you've ruined your purity forever.  


Edit 2: Ah, she's Anglican? I didn't see that at first. 

Edited February 14, 2014 by Basilisa Marie

[BG45]

All of the "purity" sources mentioned in the original post are some variation of evangelical Protestant.

*snip*

 

Christina Therese mentioned, "They have a tendency of setting virginity up on a pedestal to a point where it's unhealthy..." so I mentioned it being more Baptist-y than Anglican-y, not because Anglicans don't like chastity, but because the strong, popular emphasis on purity and 'saving yourself' seems to be coming largely from Baptist/evangelical Protestantism.

 

I would prop this more if I could, but alas, I've only got one prop per post as well.  Coming from a Baptist background, I was thinking along the same lines as I read the original post, that it struck me as more Evangelical than standard Anglican thought (not that there can't be crossover).  And coming from that background, some of you on this board, who have talked with me during and since my conversion, know that I was raised in this sort of "emphasis on purity" culture that did drive some people I know toward being extremely nervous about even seeming to approach anything related to human sexuality.

 

Personally, I think prayer for our Anglican sister and her husband in the original post is a good thing to do, even as debates go back and forth.  Anyhow, will duck back out, but glad to see things have become a bit more focused on the original topic as the thread has continued.

[cruciatacara]

* I can't speak for men, but I know for a fact that the way men are taught about chastity is very different from the way women are taught about chastity. So I don't think this is necessary a biologically-driven difference of experience (there are plenty of ways men could have analogous physiological problems and fears of physical intimacy), but more of a socially-driven experience.  Men are assumed to have high sexual drives and often are expected to make mistakes. Women are taught to not ever "let" a guy do anything with you because then you've ruined your purity forever.  

 

To take things into a totally weird direction ... I went to a public school and had sex ed in the 60s, delivered by a very pregnant married woman of undisclosed religious persuasion (or perhaps even none). She told us that it was perfectly ok for us to masturbate while we were unmarried but after we got married we 'shouldn't need' to anymore so it wasn't ok to do then. There was no mention of chastity at all - just that we should be careful not to get a disease (although I don't recall her talking about condoms or telling us how to avoid this if we had sex). She seemed embarrassed to talk about the subject of sex during the whole semester and this made all of us feel weird too. I think a lot of the lectures were anatomical in nature and just tried to explain the human reproductive system. Talk about strange signals from the secular world???

[HisChildForever]

Speaking for myself--virginity is an important part of my identity. It's a symbol of my faith and core values. It's actually kind of strange to know the exact date I'll no longer be a virgin. But instead "losing my virginity" I like to think "giving my virginity." My virginity will not be gone, though, but transformed into a very intimate marital love. 

 

It's already been mentioned in this thread, but women and men approach sex very differently. A woman is literally inviting another person into her body. Complete vulnerability. A poor theological understanding of sex coupled with some kind of fear of sex (be it a physical or emotional fear) can absolutely do this to a person. By "this" I mean the author's reaction. I would encourage the woman to seek counseling, and perhaps have marital counseling as well for her husband's benefit.

[BG45]

If you all would like to continue the compassion debate, please see the split off topic here:

Compassion, Split off from Controversial

 

As it is, I would appreciate things stay on topic here. 

 

Edit:  (Also, sorry cruciatacara, your post happened just after I split the topic or I'd have sent it there too.  The negative of splitting an active thread I guess.)  Never mind, figured out how to move it!

[cruciatacara]

Just curious then - what is the topic of this thread supposed to be if we can't show compassion to the woman and her husband? The title is whether or not it's controversial. Obviously it is or it wouldn't have generated such a debate!!!!! :)

[BG45]

Just curious then - what is the topic of this thread supposed to be if we can't show compassion to the woman and her husband? The title is whether or not it's controversial. Obviously it is or it wouldn't have generated such a debate!!!!! :)

 

The topic, as far as I know, is partially that and partially what's going on in the blog reposted in the OP.  However we weren't discussing that, it was more "Let's all snipe at each other".