Catholic Church needs a new plan to revive chastity and marriage

[LittleWaySoul]

On 9/13/2016 at 4:15 AM, Jack4 said:

I don't know if anyone else feels this way, but if someone says that I should get married soon to remain chaste, that person is actually saying that I think about s_x and only s_x all the time and will go any length for s_x. That is a rude, evil, judgemental insult to say (to put it lightly). 

lol you're allowed to say "sex," you know. It's not a dirty word.  

[CatherineM]

If your'e not old enough to say it, you aren't old enough to do it. 

[polskieserce]

On 10/9/2016 at 11:42 PM, Socrates said:

I don't claim to have the keys to a utopia, or the answers to all life's problems, but I will say that the poor and marginalized are much worse off in actual socialist societies than in free societies.  There's a reason poor and marginalized people have flocked to "oppressive Capitalist" America, rather than to some Marxist socialist "worker's paradise."

As many Popes have pointed out, we need a strengthening of the family and genuine community - solidarity and subsidiarity - rather than a massive, centralized, ever-growing bureaucratic leviathon state.

Socialists always promise heaven on earth, but deliver hell when actually put in power.

A strong economy with a robust job market is necessary for people to be able to better themselves materially, not putting more and more people on the government dole.  At best, welfare is a temporary safety net to help people through hard times, at worst it traps people in a vicious cycle of poverty and dependency.  Vastly expanding the welfare state isn't a long-term permanent path to prosperity.  Our entitlement programs are now all broke and going broke, we're almost 20 trillion dollars in debt, and trillions more in unfunded liabilities, and a bankrupt nation won't be able to help anybody.  (And no, this problem won't be easily solved simply by making cuts in military spending, which only makes up about 16% of the budget.)

 

First of all, people aren't exactly flocking to liberal protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, but such groups are losing members faster than the Catholic Church.

And the reason people are leaving the Church has very little to do with economic theories, but with the rampant materialism and hedonism in our society, combined with lukewarmness, corruption, and poor catechesis within the Church.

The Church is not a political party or an economic think-tank, but primarily has the spiritual mission of saving souls.  It also has a rich tradition of social teaching, even if it may not be to your personal liking.  The Church should be preaching the Truth, whether it happens to be popular or not, not telling people what they want to hear in order to fill pews.

Besides, your plan of trying to make the Church "relevant" by merging Catholicism with leftist politics is hardly new, original or innovative.  There have been plenty of leftist Catholics preaching socialist politics, and have been since long before you or I was born.  Their efforts have hardly led to a widespread renewal or growth of the Church.  In fact, overall, more traditional or "conservative" parishes and communities have been in a more healthy condition than those focusing on trendy lefty politics over spiritual truths of the Faith.

In countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, etc the poor are much better off than they would be in the US.  Plenty of migrants have also flocked to democratic socialist countries as well (although I agree that some of those countries are taking in far too many people).  Your problem is that you see economic policies as black and white (you're either uber capitalist or you think Stalin was the man).  That's simply not true.  My original point still stands: many people will not benefit from the ultra-capitalistic economic system you are describing.

Those who wanted to leave the Church for its political reasons have already left.  Hedonism plays a major part in the decline of the Catholic Church, but so does a lack of a game-plan.  I am not saying people should get married right at 18, but if people have to delay marriage until their late 20s/early 30s, then the Church will get very poor results.  I still stand by my statement that a lot of unchaste behavior could be averted if people were not involuntarily delaying marriage for so long.

People who are fighting just to keep their head above water aren't necessarily going to be terribly interested in Catholicism.  If anything, they will be pressured into thinking that abortion is a "necessary evil".  A bunch of people doing "Jesus Talk" is just going to be background noise for extremely marginalized individuals.

 

On 10/15/2016 at 3:29 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

Umm, why should I, a woman, keep my legs shut if I am stuck with someone else's leftovers? Your wording sounds a bit sexist.

It is easier to find a male virgin that it is a female virgin.  Even when people of both sexes decide to let themselves go and sleep around, women tend to have a much higher body count since they don't really have to do much to get laid.  Men, on the other hand, have to do all the pursuing in order to get laid.  I still stand by my original statement that women need to stop sleeping around so much.  At the end of the day, a virgin is exponentially more desirable than a non-virgin.  For men, there is very little incentive to get married.  It should be no surprise that you see less of a certain behavior if there is little incentive for it.

[LittleWaySoul]

4 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It is easier to find a male virgin that it is a female virgin.

[polskieserce]

19 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Highly unlikely that there will be any reliable academic sources on this subject.  People can be finicky with disclosing this type of information.  Secular and nominally religious guys won't want to admit they are virgins because that makes them look weak/socially incompetent.  Most girls may/may not be willing to address the issue, but will hide their number because they don't want to be seen as dumpster silly sallies.

The simple fact remains: guys have to do a lot more to get laid than girls.  As long as the girl isn't freakishly ugly and doesn't live in complete isolation, she will get offers for sex.  The bar is set much higher for guys.  It's common sense that most involuntary virgins will be male since there is a higher bar to clear.

It is difficult to find people who are willing to wait until marriage, regardless if they are male or female.  However, I heard plenty of stories about virgin Catholic guys marrying girls with checkered pasts.  Here and  especially on the other Catholic forum, people are always mentioning that Everett guy.  Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.  Not my cup of tea, but hey, if some guys are willing to settle for another dude's leftovers, then more power to them.

[LittleWaySoul]

2 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.

Or, y'know, she confessed her actions, did her penance, was forgiven by God, and became a new creation through His mercy. Then Evert fell in love, discerned God's will, and started a life with a woman who is free from her past sins. "Merciful like the Father," ring any bells? How can their story be anything but a witness to God's love and mercy?

[polskieserce]

3 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Or, y'know, she confessed her actions, did her penance, was forgiven by God, and became a new creation through His mercy. Then Evert fell in love, discerned God's will, and started a life with a woman who is free from her past sins. "Merciful like the Father," ring any bells? How can their story be anything but a witness to God's love and mercy?

She became a new creation in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.  If I started shooting heroin and contracted HIV, I could always repent at any time and become a new spiritual creation.  However, that wouldn't cure me of HIV or change the fact that virtually no woman would want to marry me.

God is a forgiving creator, but God's forgiveness doesn't undo the damage done by sin.  It's only natural that people won't want to put up with the temporal consequences of certain sins, whether it be HIV, lack of virginity, a criminal record, extreme ridicule from the outside world, etc.  A person's allegiance to Christ doesn't oblige that person to marry someone whom they have no interest in.

[CountrySteve21]

19 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

She became a new creation in the spiritual realm, not the physical realm.  If I started shooting heroin and contracted HIV, I could always repent at any time and become a new spiritual creation.  However, that wouldn't cure me of HIV or change the fact that virtually no woman would want to marry me.

God is a forgiving creator, but God's forgiveness doesn't undo the damage done by sin.  It's only natural that people won't want to put up with the temporal consequences of certain sins, whether it be HIV, lack of virginity, a criminal record, extreme ridicule from the outside world, etc.  A person's allegiance to Christ doesn't oblige that person to marry someone whom they have no interest in.

Nah bro, God's mercy does undo our damage (just takes some time and work on our part too.)

Have you ever read Love & Responsibility by St. John Paull II? Its changed by views on marriage drastically ( which at times can be a stumbling block to me)

Pax,

 

[Jack4]

On 10/16/2016 at 8:33 PM, LittleWaySoul said:

lol you're allowed to say "sex," you know. It's not a dirty word.  

I had a certain difficulty since I had not been part of the phamily for a day.  And I am young and most of you are, I suppose, (no offense) old. That, and my  culture.

Technically speaking, you make fair point.

On 10/16/2016 at 9:12 PM, CatherineM said:

If your'e not old enough to say it, you aren't old enough to do it. 

What about the converse?

-Me, born 2000, presumably unmarried.

[LittleWaySoul]

11 hours ago, Jack4 said:

I had a certain difficulty since I had not been part of the phamily for a day.  And I am young and most of you are, I suppose, (no offense) old. That, and my  culture.

Technically speaking, you make fair point.

What about the converse?

-Me, born 2000, presumably unmarried.

Oh my gosh. I was gonna say something about not being that much older than you (I'm only 22 after all) but I remember when I had friends with siblings getting born in 2000 and I was so impressed that some kids would have the millennial year as their birth year. I remember thinking they were so young. But you've gotta be 15-16, right? Wow, that's crazy. Time flies. 

[Anastasia13]

Highly unlikely that there will be any reliable academic sources on this subject.  People can be finicky with disclosing this type of information.  Secular and nominally religious guys won't want to admit they are virgins because that makes them look weak/socially incompetent.  Most girls may/may not be willing to address the issue, but will hide their number because they don't want to be seen as dumpster silly sallies.

The simple fact remains: guys have to do a lot more to get laid than girls.  As long as the girl isn't freakishly ugly and doesn't live in complete isolation, she will get offers for sex.  The bar is set much higher for guys.  It's common sense that most involuntary virgins will be male since there is a higher bar to clear.

It is difficult to find people who are willing to wait until marriage, regardless if they are male or female.  However, I heard plenty of stories about virgin Catholic guys marrying girls with checkered pasts.  Here and  especially on the other Catholic forum, people are always mentioning that Everett guy.  Personally, I think that guy is doing more harm than good to the Church.  He is basically telling secular society that in the Catholic Church, it's ok for a woman to get knocked up by a bunch of guys, cry about how she was young/dumb, and then get picked up by some Christian beta male who is too delusional to realize how badly he got screwed.  Not my cup of tea, but hey, if some guys are willing to settle for another dude's leftovers, then more power to them.

If there were 10 men, and only one had sex with 9 out of 10 women, if that 1 stopped trying to have sex with the 9 until he got married, then 0 guys would be having sex with women, which would mean that 0 of those women would be having sex with men. If either gender stopped fornicating, then there would be no heterosexual fornication. Also, that one man would have to learn to live with his pantaloons up around women. 

I've read different studies supporting both genders as the ones having fewer virgins, but regardless, you have already laid a framework for rejecting any scholarly studies opposing you and denying any responsibility to prove yourself in any scholarly way. Well play "I'm right, I don't have to prove it, and you have to accept me because nothing that would prove me wrong could possibly be valid."

Ergo it falls on logic, arguments can be made to support both sleeping around, but bottom line, unless you count masturbation, it takes two to fornicate. Ergo both genders need to keep their pantaloons on.

Edited October 20, 2016 by Anastasia (L&T)

[Jack4]

7 hours ago, LittleWaySoul said:

 I was gonna say something about not being that much older than you (I'm only 22 after all)

"We" consider that a slight adult. 

Quote

 but I remember when I had friends with siblings getting born in 2000 and I was so impressed that some kids would have the millennial year as their birth year.

Hehehe... I would be among the last births of the second millennium. 

Here's something else you might find interesting. I turned one in 2001, two in 2002 and so on, 15 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. IOW if I know the year I know my age. 

Quote

I remember thinking they were so young. But you've gotta be 15-16, right? Wow, that's crazy. Time flies. 

Yes, I'm 16. 

PS People who've seen you grow up just can't believe it. Not that I don't always like it. Sometimes it's fun.  

[LittleWaySoul]

4 hours ago, Jack4 said:

Here's something else you might find interesting. I turned one in 2001, two in 2002 and so on, 15 in 2015 and 16 in 2016. IOW if I know the year I know my age. 

Yeah, that occurred to me! So cool. I've got something somewhat similar where I always know what grade I finished depending on the year. For example, I finished 1st grade in 2001, 5th grade in 2005, 12th grade in 2012, etc. It's pretty handy!

[polskieserce]

On 10/20/2016 at 3:23 AM, Anastasia (L&T) said:

If there were 10 men, and only one had sex with 9 out of 10 women, if that 1 stopped trying to have sex with the 9 until he got married, then 0 guys would be having sex with women, which would mean that 0 of those women would be having sex with men. If either gender stopped fornicating, then there would be no heterosexual fornication. Also, that one man would have to learn to live with his pantaloons up around women. 

I've read different studies supporting both genders as the ones having fewer virgins, but regardless, you have already laid a framework for rejecting any scholarly studies opposing you and denying any responsibility to prove yourself in any scholarly way. Well play "I'm right, I don't have to prove it, and you have to accept me because nothing that would prove me wrong could possibly be valid."

Ergo it falls on logic, arguments can be made to support both sleeping around, but bottom line, unless you count masturbation, it takes two to fornicate. Ergo both genders need to keep their pantaloons on.

Yes it takes 2 to fornicate.  I agree that both sexes need to reform their views on sexuality.  But you are nevertheless dancing around the truth.  Even with the example you listed with 10 guys and 10 women, the women hold most of the blame (several women getting boned by one guy).  I still stand by my assessment that women tend to have uglier pasts than men because they don't have to do much to get laid.  You don't need academic research to see simple truths like this.  Keep in mind that any academic research on the topic probably won't be accurate due to the taboo nature of the subject.

 

On 10/18/2016 at 7:14 PM, CountrySteve21 said:

Nah bro, God's mercy does undo our damage (just takes some time and work on our part too.)

Have you ever read Love & Responsibility by St. John Paull II? Its changed by views on marriage drastically ( which at times can be a stumbling block to me)

Pax,

So god will cure ex-drug addicts of HIV if they repent?  Some of the damage can be undone but some of it cannot.

I never read Love and Responsibility by JPII but I will look into it and see what he had to say.

[Anastasia13]

4 hours ago, polskieserce said:

Keep in mind that any academic research on the topic probably won't be accurate due to the taboo nature of the subject.

Yes, yes. you are correct and no research that disagrees with you could possibly be right, therefore we should all believe you.

If fewer women are virgins than men are virgins, then those men who are not virgins have slept with more per-non-virgin male than have non-virgin females, and that seems uglier to me, and those men who do have sex without being married are more in need of keeping their pantaloons up. My experience has been the opposite of what you said, and I'm not trying to argue about who is right about exact percentages or anything like that as much as I am trying to say that we need to hold both gender's accountable (just like those non-virgins should have a reason to believe that men want more than just sex from them).