Beyond the Sexual Urge

In our first reflection on John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility, we considered the personalist principle, which says that we should not treat other persons merely as a means to an end. In particular, we saw how utilitarianism weakens our relationships by getting us to value people primarily in terms of some pleasure or benefit we receive from our relationships with them.

Yet the sophisticated utilitarian may argue that there is nothing wrong with two people “using” each other as long as they mutually consent and mutually receive some advantage from the relationship. In fact, some might say such a relationship, which brings together the egoism (self-interest) of the man and the egoism of the woman in a mutually beneficial way, actually is a relationship of love.

For example, what is wrong with Bill and Sally having sex outside of marriage if each person consents and each person derives some pleasure from it? In the sexual act, Bill’s desire for pleasure harmonizes with Sally’s desire for pleasure so the act does not appear to be selfish. They each give pleasure to each other and don’t just seek it for themselves.

John Paul II points out one serious problem with such a relationship: “The moment they cease to match and to be of advantage to each other, nothing at all is left of the harmony. Love will be no more, in either of the persons or between them” (39).

Since this kind of relationship is still dependent on what I get out of others, it prevents me from truly being in communion with them and being committed to them as persons. I’m “committed” to the person only insofar as—and as long as—I receive pleasure or advantage from the relationship. In fact, John Paul II likens such relationships of mutual use to prostitution.

Like Prostitution

Consider a businessman who has a relationship with a prostitute on a certain night every week. The man desires the sexual pleasure she can give him, and the woman desires the money he can give her. They each have self-serving aims that come together in the sexual act and benefit the other person. They each get what they want, and in the process, they meet the other person’s desires.

The moment they cease to be mutually advantageous to one another, however, what will happen to this relationship? If a richer man can pay the prostitute more on that particular night of the week, she likely will leave the first businessman for the wealthier one. On the other hand, if the businessman no longer finds the prostitute pleasurable and meets a younger, more attractive prostitute, he likely will leave the first for the younger one.

This may seem like an extreme example, but how many male-female relationships today are not much better than this? How many relationships are based more on a mutual use than on a committed love and a true communion of persons? For example, how many young women have sex with a man for the emotional security of having a boyfriend or for fear that if they don’t do this, the man may break up with them? How often does a man just want a good-looking woman to sleep with for the physical pleasure he may derive from the relationship? These are not relationships of authentic love that bring persons in communion with one another. These are simply more socially acceptable forms of mutual use—but still similar to prostitution.

Insecurity, Not Love

John Paul II notes how utilitarian relationships breed fear and insecurity in one or both of the persons. A warning sign that one might be in a utilitarian relationship is when one person is afraid to bring up difficult topics or is afraid to address problems in the relationship.

One reason many dating, engaged, or married couples never confront one another with difficulties is that deep down they know there is not much foundation for the relationship to stand on, just the mutual pleasure or benefit. One fears that if the relationship becomes challenging, demanding, or difficult for the other person, that person may leave. “I never brought up any problems in the relationship, anything that might cause tension, because if I did, I knew it would get hard, and then it would be over,” one young adult admitted. In utilitarian relationships, the only way the relationship can survive is to cover up problems and pretend things aren’t as bad as they really are.

Therefore, love so understood is self-evidently merely a pretense which has to be carefully cultivated to keep the underlying reality hidden: the reality of egoism, and the greediest kind of egoism at that, exploiting another person to obtain for itself its own “maximum pleasure.” (39)

Letting Yourself Be Used

The pope then shows how people in these kinds of relationships sometimes even allow themselves to be used by the other person in order to get what they want out of the relationship: “…each of the persons is mainly concerned with gratifying his or her own egoism, but at the same time consents to serve someone else’s egoism, because this can provide the opportunity for such gratification—and just as long as it does so” (39).

In this case, the person willingly lowers himself to be used as a tool for the other person’s selfish intentions. For example, a man may do or say things that he might not ordinarily do or say in order to flatter a woman so that he can get something from her. He might buy her flowers or take her out to dinner, but he does this more for the emotional or sexual pleasure he hopes to receive from her than for a pure, selfless desire to honor her.

Similarly, a woman may do things with a man sexually that she ordinarily wouldn’t do in order to get something out of the man, whether it be a sense of intimacy, a feeling of being loved, or the security she finds in having a boyfriend. “If I start by giving him what he wants,” one woman said, “then maybe he’ll eventually love me as a person.”

Another young woman described her relationship with her boyfriend this way: “I knew he was just using me, and I let him. I thought that if I [were to] go along with this for a while, then he would eventually change and come to love me.” But these desperate approaches never lead to authentic love. They are just other forms of manipulation and using the other person. She gives him sexual pleasure so she can have the feeling of being loved.

As John Paul II explains, “…if I treat someone else as a means and a tool in relation to myself I cannot help regarding myself in the same light. We have here something like the opposite of the commandment to love” (39).

The Sexual Urge

Sexuality is one of the main areas where we can fall into using other people. John Paul II thus spends time reflecting on the nature of the sexual urge.

First, he discusses how the sexual urge manifests itself in the tendency for human persons to seek the opposite sex. He says the sexual urge orients a man toward the physical and psychological characteristics of a woman—her body, her femininity—which are the very attributes that are most complementary to the man. And the woman, in turn, is oriented toward the physical and psychological attributes of a man—his body, his masculinity—as the properties that are naturally complementary to the woman. Hence, the sexual urge itself is experienced as a bodily (physical) and emotional (psychological) attraction to a person of the other sex.

Nevertheless, the sexual urge is not an attraction to the physical or psychological qualities of the opposite sex in the abstract. John Paul II emphasizes that these attributes only exist in a concrete human person. For example, no man is attracted to blonde or brunette in the abstract. He is attracted to a woman—a particular person—who may have blonde or brunette hair. A woman is not primarily attracted to masculinity as a theoretical concept, but she may be very attracted to a particular man who exhibits certain traditionally masculine traits, such as courage, decisiveness, strength, and chivalry.

The reason John Paul II emphasizes this point is that he wants to show how the sexual urge ultimately is directed toward a human person. Therefore, the sexual urge is not bad in itself. In fact, since it is meant to orient us toward another person, the sexual urge can provide a framework for authentic love to develop.

This is not to say that the sexual urge is to be equated with love itself. Love involves a lot more than the spontaneous, sensual, or emotional reactions that are produced by the sexual urge; authentic love requires acts of the will directed toward the good of the other person. Still, the pope says that the sexual urge can provide the raw material from which acts of love may arise—if it is guided by a great sense of responsibility for the other person.

More Than Animal Instinct

It is important to note that the sexual urge in human persons is not the same as the sexual instinct found in animals. Animals act according to their instincts and appetites. Human persons, however, are not enslaved to their passions and desires. With intellect and free will, persons can choose a course of action based on self-reflection no matter what desires may be stirring within them. For example, a very hungry man may desire to eat a ham sandwich that is offered to him, but he can choose not to follow his desire because he generously wants someone else to have the sandwich or because he has committed to fast on that particular day. A person can rise above appetites for the sake of a higher goal.

A dog, however, cannot do that. What happens when you put a steak in front of a normal, hungry dog? Is the dog going to take a pass on that steak to let the other hungry canines in the neighborhood have a chance to eat it? Will the dog say to himself, “I better not eat that. It’s a Friday in Lent”? Of course not. A hungry dog will devour the piece of meat that sits before him!

Similarly, John Paul II explains that in animals, the sexual instinct is a reflex mode of action, not dependent on conscious thought. A female cat in heat does not reflect on what is the best time, place, or circumstance for her to mate, and she does not ponder which male cat in the neighborhood would make the ideal partner. Cats simply act reflexively, according to their instincts.

Human persons, however, are not called to live like the animals. They do not have to be enslaved to what is stirring within them in the sexual sphere. In the end, the person is in control of the sexual urge—not the other way around. The person can choose how he or she wants to use it (50).

A man, for example, may experience a sexual attraction to a woman. He may sometimes even experience this attraction as something happening to him—something that begins to take place in his sensual or emotional life without any initiative on his part. That attraction, however, can and should be subordinated to his intellect and will. While a person may not always be responsible for what spontaneously happens to him in the arena of sexual attraction, he is responsible for what he decides to do in response to those interior stirrings (46–47).

Loving or Enjoying?

Remember, the sexual urge draws us to the physical and psychological attributes of a person of the opposite sex. But ultimately, it is meant to orient us toward another person who possesses those attributes—not just the attributes themselves. Manifestations of the sexual urge thus present us with a choice between loving the person and using them for their attributes.

Let’s say Jim meets Mary at work and is quickly attracted to her good looks and charming personality. Jim can choose to rise above this initial sexual reaction and see in her more than just her body or her femininity. By looking beyond the physical and psychological qualities that give him pleasure, he has the possibility of seeing her as a person and responding to her with selfless acts of love.

On the other hand, Jim may experience sexual attraction and choose to dwell on the physical and psychological qualities that give him pleasure. By focusing on her good looks and her feminine charm—and the pleasure he derives from them—he is distracted from seeing Mary as she is and remains incapable of truly loving her as a person. He may be kind to her, but he is doing this, at least to some significant degree, so he may receive some sensual or emotional pleasure from his association with her. In the end, therefore, Jim is using her as a source of pleasure for himself.

John Paul II says that if the interaction between a man and a woman remains at the level of these initial reactions produced by the sexual urge, the relationship is not able to grow into a true communion of persons. “Inevitably, then, the sexual urge in a human being is always in the natural course of things directed towards another human being—this is the normal form which it takes. If it is directed towards the sexual attributes as such this must be recognized as an impoverishment or even a perversion of the urge” (49).

This is an important point for our daily encounters with persons of the opposite sex. Following the personalist principle, John Paul II reminds us how careful we must be in order to avoid treating others as potential objects to enjoy for our own sensual or emotional pleasure. Along these lines, we must ask ourselves a crucial question: What will we do when we experience the stirring of sexual attraction to a particular person of the opposite sex? What will a man choose to do when he notices the physical beauty of a woman? What will a woman choose to do when she finds herself attracted to a man?

In these pivotal moments, we can choose to focus on the pleasure we receive from another person’s body or from their masculinity or femininity. In so doing, we would be viewing the person as an object to enjoy and thus fall into utilitarianism. Or we can seek to cultivate authentic love for this man or woman, directing our attention to the whole person. By looking beyond the physical and psychological attributes and seeing the actual person, we open the door at least to the possibility of willing the good of the other, as in the virtuous friendship, and of performing truly selfless acts of kindness that are not dependent on the pleasure we receive from the relationship.

With these insights, John Paul II reminds us that our delicate interactions with persons of the opposite sex demand great responsibility. “For this very reason manifestations of the sexual urge in man must be evaluated on the plane of love, and any act which originates from it forms a link in the chain of responsibility, responsibility for love” (50). In the next few chapters, we will explore the pope’s insights on how practically we can direct our attention to the person, not just their sexual attributes, in order to embrace authentic love and responsibility for those around us.

For Further Reading

Love and Responsibility, pp. 45–69

For Discussion and Reflection

1. John Paul II notes that some relationships are based more on mutual use—some pleasure or benefit each person receives from the other—than on a true commitment to each other and the pursuit of a common goal. Think about how couples who are dating or married tend to relate nowadays. What are some ways we see mutual use in relationships today?

2. Why do people in utilitarian relationships feel so much insecurity and instability? Have you ever observed this in others or even experienced this yourself? Do the pope’s insights help you to better understand and come to terms with that experience?

3. What are some signals that a relationship is based more on mutual use than on committed love?

4. How is the sexual urge in human persons different from mere animal instinct? What does this difference tell us about the way we should respond when we experience physical or emotional attraction to a person of the opposite sex?

5. As John Paul II pointed out, “…if I treat someone else as a means and a tool in relation to myself I cannot help regarding myself in the same light” (39). How is this so? How do the dynamics in our relationships actually reflect our view of ourselves?

6. What does John Paul II mean when he says the sexual urge can provide the raw material for love? How is this so?

Chapter Five

The Law of the Gift: Understanding the Two Sides of Love

The Italians have a beautiful expression for love: ti voglio bene. Though commonly translated as “I love you,” ti voglio bene more literally means “I wish you good” or “I want what is good for you.”

This phrase reminds us that love is not primarily about what good feelings may be stirring within. Even less is it about what I can get out of a relationship for myself. The fullness of love is looking outward toward my beloved and seeking what is best for that person, not just what is good for me. This, in fact, is how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines love: “To love is to will the good of another” (CCC, 1766, quoting Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, I–II, 24, 1). It’s also a point John Paul II makes when he discusses the two sides of love: the subjective and objective.

According to John Paul II, understanding the difference between the subjective and objective is crucial for any married, engaged, or dating relationship. As we have seen in earlier chapters, the inner dynamic of emotional love (sentimentality) and physical desire (sensuality) largely shapes how men and women interact with each other, and it is what makes romance, especially in its early stages, so thrilling for the couple involved. John Paul II calls this first side of love the subjective aspect.

While this is one aspect of love, it is not to be equated with love in the fullest sense. We know from experience that we can have powerful feelings for another person without in any way being committed to them or without that person being committed to us in a relationship of selfless love.

This is why John Paul II puts the subjective aspect of love in its proper place. He wakes us up and reminds us that no matter how intensely we experience these sensations, it is not necessarily love, but simply “a psychological situation” (127). In other words, on its own, the subjective aspect of love is no more than a pleasurable experience happening inside of me. And these powerful sensations might actually conceal the reality of a relationship that has failed to develop fully.

Turning Love Inward

Men and women today are quite susceptible to falling for this illusion of love, for the modern world has turned love inward, focusing primarily on the subjective aspect. John Paul II, however, emphasizes that there is another side of love that is absolutely essential no matter how powerful our emotions and desires may be. This is what he calls love’s objective aspect.

This aspect has objective characteristics that go beyond the pleasurable feelings of the subjective level. True love involves virtue, friendship, and the pursuit of a common good. Both people are focused on a common goal outside of themselves. In Christian marriage, for example, a husband and wife unite themselves to the common aims of helping each other grow in holiness, deepening their own union, and raising children. Most of all, true love involves the selfless pursuit of what is best for the other person, even if it means sacrificing one’s own preferences and desires—love in the sense of ti voglio bene.

When considering the objective aspect of love, I must discern what kind of relationship exists between my beloved and me in reality, not simply what this relationship means in my feelings. Am I committed to this other person for who she is or for the enjoyment I receive from the relationship? Does my beloved understand what is truly best for me, and does she have the faith and virtue to help me get there? Are we deeply united by a common aim, serving each other, and striving together toward a common good that is higher than each of us? Or are we just living side by side, sharing resources and occasional good times together while we selfishly pursue our own interests and enjoyments in life? These are the kinds of questions that get at the objective aspect of love.

Now we can see why John Paul II says that true love is “an interpersonal fact” (127), not just a “psychological situation” (127). A strong relationship is based on virtue and friendship: Unless a man and woman have the objective aspects of love in their relationship, they do not yet have a bond of true love.

Knowing the difference between these two aspects of love is crucial within marriage as well. What will spouses do in moments when the subjective feelings of love fade? A husband may not always have strong romantic feelings for his wife, but he is still called to serve her and make sacrifices for her. A woman may at times feel frustrated with her husband, but she must still honor and serve him. Will I really seek the good of my spouse, even when I don’t feel like it? When I’m busy? When I’d rather be doing something else? Or what about when my spouse upsets me?

It’s easy to love when we get a lot in return. But the objective aspect of love reminds us that true love is not merely about my experience of good feelings in marriage, but the commitment to seek what is best for the other person even when those feelings are not there—ti voglio bene. As John Paul II puts it, “…love as experience should be subordinated to love as virtue—so much so that without love as virtue, there can be no fullness in the experience of love” (120).

The Two Sides of Love

Subjective Aspect of Love

“a psychological situation” (the feelings I experience)

Spontaneous reactions to sexual value based on:

• Sensual attraction to the other’s body

• Emotional attraction to the other’s masculinity/ femininity

Develops quickly

Arises spontaneously without much effort

Objective Aspect of Love

“an interpersonal fact” (the relationship in reality)

Union of persons based on:

• Virtuous friendship

• Pursuit of common good

• Seeking what’s best for the other

• Self-giving love

• Total commitment and sense of responsibility for the other person

Develops over time

Requires much effort and grace to cultivate virtuous, self-giving love

Self-Giving Love

One of the chief hallmarks of the objective aspect of love is the gift of self. John Paul II teaches that what makes betrothed (married) love different from all other forms of love such as attraction, desire, and friendship is that two people give themselves to each other. They are not just attracted to each other, and they do not simply desire what is good for each other. In betrothed love, each person surrenders himself entirely to the other. “When betrothed love enters into this interpersonal relationship something more than friendship results: two people give themselves each to the other” (96).

Yet the very idea of self-giving love raises some important questions: How can one person give himself to another? What does this mean? After all, John Paul II himself teaches that each human person is utterly unique. Each person has his own mind and his own free will. In the end, no one else can think for me. No one else can choose for me. Each person “is his own master” and is not able to be given over to another (125). So in what sense can one person give himself to his beloved?

John Paul II responds by saying that while on the natural and physical level it is impossible, in the order of love a person can do so by choosing to limit his freedom and uniting his will to the one he loves. In other words, because of his love, a person may actually desire to give up his own free will and bind it to the other person. Love “…makes the person want to do just that—surrender itself to another, to the one it loves” (125).

The Freedom to Love

For example, consider what happens when a man marries. As a single man, Bob is able to decide what he wants to do, when he wants to do it, and the way he wants to do it. He sets his own schedule. He decides where he lives. He can quit a job and move to another part of the country in an instant if he so desires. He can keep his apartment messy. He can spend his money as he pleases. He can eat when he wants, go out when he wants, and go to bed when he wants. He is used to making life decisions on his own.

Marriage, however, will significantly change Bob’s life. If Bob decides on his own to quit his job, buy a new car, go on a weekend vacation, or sell the home, this is probably not going to go over very well with his wife! Now that Bob is married, all the decisions that he used to make by himself must be made in union with his wife and with a view to what is best for their marriage and family.

In self-giving love, men and women recognize in a profound way that their life is not their own. They have surrendered their will to their beloved. Their own plans, dreams, and preferences are not completely abandoned, but they are now put in a new perspective. They are subordinated to the good of the spouse and any children that may flow from their marriage. How they spend time and money and how they order their lives are no longer a matter of private choice. The marriage and the family become the primary reference points for everything they do.

This is the beauty of self-giving love: As single people, we have great autonomy and can in large part order our lives however we want. But men and women, driven by love, freely choose to give up their autonomy, to limit their freedom, by committing themselves to the good of the spouse. Love is so powerful that it impels them to want to surrender their will to their beloved in this profound way.

Indeed, many marriages today would be much stronger if only we understood and remembered the kind of self-giving love we originally signed up for: When we made our vows, we freely and lovingly chose to surrender our wills to our spouse. As John Paul II explains, “The fullest, the most uncompromising form of love consists precisely in self-giving, in making one’s inalienable and non-transferable ‘I’ someone else’s property” (97).

The Law of the Gift

Now we come to the greatest mystery of self-giving love. At the heart of this gift of self is a fundamental conviction that in surrendering my autonomy to my beloved, I gain so much more in return. By uniting myself to another, my own life is not diminished but is profoundly enriched. This is what John Paul II calls the “law of ekstasis” or the law of self-giving: “…the lover ‘goes outside’ the self to find a fuller existence in another” (126).

In an age of vigorous individualism, however, this profound point from John Paul II may be difficult to understand. Our modern world emphasizes not self-giving love, but self-getting love, which focuses on what I get out of the relationship. Why should I go outside myself to find happiness? Why would I ever want to give up my autonomy and commit myself to someone else in this radical way? Why would I want to limit my freedom to do whatever I want with my life? These are the questions people ask today.

From a Christian perspective, however, life is not about doing whatever I want. It is about fulfilling my relationships with God and with the people God has placed in my life. In fact, this is where we find fulfillment in life: in living our relationships well. But to live our relationships well, we must often make sacrifices, surrendering our own will to serve the good of others.

This is why we discover a deeper happiness in life when we give ourselves in this way, for we are living the way God made us to live, which is the way God himself lives: in total, self-giving, committed love. As one of John Paul II’s favorite lines from Vatican II says, “Man finds himself only by making himself a sincere gift to others.”1

Self-Giving or Self-Getting Love?

This statement from Vatican II is especially applicable to marriage, where self-giving love between two human persons is seen most profoundly. In committing myself to another person in betrothed love, I certainly limit my freedom to do whatever I want. But at the same time, I open myself up to an even greater freedom: the freedom to love. As John Paul II explains:

Love consists of a commitment which limits one’s freedom—it is a giving of the self, and to give oneself means just that: to limit one’s freedom on behalf of another. Limitation of one’s freedom might seem to be something negative and unpleasant, but love makes it a positive, joyful and creative thing. Freedom exists for the sake of love. (135)

So we see that freedom is given for a purpose: for the sake of love. God gave us freedom so that we could choose to live for others, not just ourselves. The purpose of freedom is not to equip us to live a selfish life, slavishly pursuing whatever pleasurable desires come our way. We have freedom so that we can choose to make our lives a gift to God and others, committing ourselves to other persons, serving them and their needs.

Therefore, while the modern individualist may see self-giving love in marriage as something negative and restrictive, Christians view such limitations as liberating. What I really want to do in life is love my God, my spouse, my kids, and my neighbor—for in these relationships I find my happiness. And if I am to love my spouse and kids, I must be totally committed to them and free from having my selfish desires dictate my life and rule my household. If I am enslaved to always wanting to do whatever I feel like doing, it will not be easy for me to be generous with my spouse, be patient with my children, or make sacrifices for my family. It simply will not be easy for me to love them because I am habitually inclined to put my own preferences and desires above others.

That’s why I must be free from the tyranny of doing whatever I want. Only then am I free to live the way God made me. Only then am I free to experience the happiness that comes in self-giving. Only then am I free to love.

For Further Reading

Love and Responsibility, pp. 82–100, 119–130

For Discussion and Reflection

1. In your own words, explain the distinction between the two sides of love—the subjective and the objective. How do these two aspects relate?

2. Read 1 Corinthians 13:4–7. How does this passage describe the objective side of love? Which attribute of the love St. Paul describes do you find most challenging or inspiring? What is one practical way you can strive to practice the virtue of love more in your everyday life?

3. What do you think John Paul II meant when he said, “love as experience should be subordinated to love as virtue—so much so that without love as virtue there can be no fullness in the experience of love” (120)? What is the effect of making the subjective aspect of love the primary aspect of a relationship?

4. John Paul II said, “Love proceeds by way of this renunciation, guided by the profound conviction that it does not diminish or impoverish, but quite the contrary, enlarges and enriches the existence of the person” (125–126). How is it that when I surrender my freedom and give myself to another person, I actually gain so much more in return? How might we see the profound rewards of sacrificial, self-giving love played out in marriage and family life?

5. Matthew Kelly writes in his book The Seven Levels of Intimacy:

But in order to love, you must be free, for to love is to give your self to someone or something freely, completely, unconditionally, and without reservation. It is as if you could take the essence of your very self in your hands and give it to another person. Yet to give your self—to another person, to an endeavor, or to God—you must first possess yourself. This possession of self is freedom. It is a prerequisite for love, and is attained only through discipline.

This is why so very few relationships thrive in our time. The very nature of love requires self-possession. Without self-mastery, self-control, self-dominion, we are incapable of love….

The problem is we don’t want discipline. We want someone to tell us that we can be happy without discipline. But we can’t…. The two are directly related.2

Why are discipline and self-renunciation a prerequisite for a genuine love? How can you specifically cultivate a habit of discipline in smaller areas of your life in order to gradually live the virtue of love in greater ways?

6. John Paul II wrote, “Freedom exists for the sake of love” (135). Have you ever experienced the mysterious freedom and joy that result from self-giving love—that is, choosing to go outside yourself for the sake of another? Describe your experience.

7. If you are married, how have you experienced the transition from living the single life to living a commitment to another person in self-giving love? Were these changes positive or negative? How have they helped you grow as an individual and as a couple? Or if you are currently discerning the vocation of marriage, what are some of the specific challenges and joys you anticipate as part of this particular call to self-giving love?

8. How is every person called to live self-giving love, whether one is single, married, or religious? What might this self-gift look like in the various states of life?

Chapter Seven

Resenting Chastity: The Current Crisis

Virtue is not simply something lacking in the modern world. It is something many in the modern world actually resent. John Paul II makes this point when beginning his teaching on chastity in Love and Responsibility.

Why do so many today resent virtue? Living the virtuous life is not easy. It requires constant effort, practice, and self-denial as we battle against our fallen, selfish human nature. On this side of the Garden of Eden, it’s much easier to give in to our emotions and desires than it is to control them. It is easier to indulge our appetite, for example, than to eat with moderation. It is easier to lose our temper when things don’t go our way than it is to moderate our anger. It is easier to give in to discouragement and complaining than to joyfully endure our trials with patience.

The virtues remind us of the higher moral standard we are called to follow. This reminder should inspire us to give more of ourselves in the pursuit of virtue and live more like Christ, rather than living life enslaved by our passions.

But not everyone wants to be reminded of this! For souls not wanting to give up certain pleasures or comforts—souls not wanting to do the work and make the sacrifices necessary to grow in virtue—any discussion of the virtues can be like a mirror reflecting back to them their own moral laziness.

Virtue Subverted

That’s why some people resent the virtues. Instead of being inspired to live a better life, they tear down the moral standard of the virtues and drag it down to their own level. In other words, they minimize the significance of the virtues in order to spare themselves the effort and to excuse their own moral failures.

Imagine, for example, several women working in an office who gossip and talk about other people behind their backs. One of their Christian colleagues, however, does not participate in their gossip. Instead of being inspired by her example, her coworkers make fun of her. They ridicule her as being a holy roller who is “too good for the rest us.” Rather than praise her virtue, they tear it down and resent it.

Similarly, imagine the college student who studies diligently, always does his assignments, and doesn’t go to parties with the other men on his dorm floor. Instead of praising his virtue, his peers ostracize him and view him as a boring nerd who never has any fun. By not going along with what everyone else is doing, he stands as a reminder of their own laziness and immoral behavior. And so they resent his virtue.

One last example: The world today deeply resents the virtue of faith. Pope Benedict XVI once pointed out that many people today marginalize and brand as fundamentalist those who have a strong faith based on the creed or who have convictions about what is morally right or wrong. Rather than be inspired by people who have good religious and moral convictions, the modern world tends to ridicule such people, labeling them as conservative, rigid, judgmental, and intolerant. The virtue of faith is now seen as something evil in the world. It is not admired. It is resented.

John Paul II says many people devalue the virtues in order to excuse themselves from having to live by a higher standard. Since they don’t want to make the effort to change, they treat the virtues lightheartedly or even openly attack them in order to justify their own lack of moral character. He explains that resentment “not only distorts the features of the good but devalues that which rightly deserves respect, so that man need not struggle to raise himself to the level of the true good, but can ‘lightheartedly’ recognize as good only what suits him, what is convenient and comfortable for him” (144).

Resenting Chastity

The virtue that is probably resented most today is chastity. According to John Paul II, chastity is the virtue that frees love from utilitarian attitudes. “The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of ‘the body and sex’” (171). Thus, chastity helps purify our hearts of selfish desires and makes selfless, mature love between two persons possible. Today, however, chastity is no longer seen as something good, something noble, something we should all pursue. Just the opposite: Chastity is often portrayed as something evil—something harmful for human persons.

Some argue that chastity is damaging to the psychological health of young men and women. Sexual desire is natural, they say. Therefore, it is unnatural to restrict it in any way. After all, “a young man must have sexual relief” (144).

Others say chastity is an enemy of love. If two people love each other, shouldn’t they be able to express their love through sexual intercourse? Chastity might have a role to play in other areas of life, but when two mutually consenting adults are in love, the restrictions of chastity are a tremendous hindrance to the couple expressing their love sexually.

These and many other arguments against chastity reflect our culture’s resentment of this virtue. We witness this resentment in many college classrooms, in many sex education programs, and especially in the media. When a Hollywood film or prime-time comedy portrays romantic relationships, how often is chastity held up as a moral ideal? How often is chastity presented as something that makes us happy, as something the heroes intentionally make a priority in their lives?

In the rare show that might actually have a character who is deliberately striving to live a chaste life, how is she portrayed? As beautiful, fun, and intelligent? In practically every case, the rare chaste character is portrayed as an awkward, judgmental, naive, or repressed woman whom no one would ever want to imitate—unless, of course, the director makes her in the end come of age and discover her “true self” precisely by shedding her traditional moral values and losing her virginity.

Why This Resentment?

John Paul II says the main reason modern man views chastity as an obstacle to love is that we associate love primarily with the emotions or the sexual pleasure we receive from the person of the other sex. In other words, we tend to think of love only in its subjective aspect. As John Paul II has shown, however, a true, lasting love needs a much stronger foundation. It must be based on virtue, a commitment to the other person’s good, and mutual self-giving—in other words, the objective aspect of love.

Therefore, the real questions in love are not the subjective ones: “Do I have strong feelings and desire for my beloved?” “Does he or she have strong feelings and sensual desire for me?” Anyone can have feelings and desire for another person. But not everyone has the virtue and commitment to make self-giving love possible.

Yet since the subjective aspect of love develops more rapidly and is felt more intensely than the objective aspect, many people confuse the feelings of love with love itself. On the objective level, it takes a lot of time and effort to cultivate a virtuous friendship. Relationships centered on total self-giving love and on a profound sense of responsibility for the other as a gift don’t just happen spontaneously.

On the other hand, with the subjective aspect of love, it doesn’t take much time and effort at all to experience sensual desire or emotional longing for a person of the opposite sex. Such reactions can happen in an instant. Furthermore, these sensual and emotional responses can be so powerful that they dominate how we view the other person.

In our fallen human nature, we can tend to see persons of the opposite sex primarily through the prism of their sexual values—the values that give us pleasure. As a result, we obscure our perception of them as persons and view them more as opportunities for our own enjoyment (159).

Our Tendency to Use the Opposite Sex

John Paul II points out that our encounters with the opposite sex are often mixed with this kind of emotional or sensual egoism—with a desire to use the person for our own emotional pleasure or sexual satisfaction. “The truth of original sin explains a very basic and very widespread evil—that a human being encountering a person of the other sex does not simply and spontaneously experience ‘love,’ but a feeling muddied by the longing to enjoy” (161, emphasis added).

Did you catch that? John Paul II is saying that when we encounter someone of the opposite sex—a stranger, a friend, a coworker, a boyfriend, a girlfriend, a spouse, or even another person’s spouse—we should not expect a purely selfless attitude of Christian kindness to spontaneously spring from our hearts. Because we are fallen, our many complex attractions are often tainted by a selfish attitude of wanting to be with the other person not for the sake of any commitment to his or her well-being, but for the rush of good feelings or sensual pleasure we may receive from being with that person.

In other words, when boy meets girl, they do not automatically fall into authentic, self-giving, committed love for each other. That is why we need a virtue that helps us integrate our initial sensual and sentimental attractions with authentic love for the other as a person. Chastity is the virtue that enables us to love in this way. As John Paul II says: “Since sensations and actions springing from sexual reactions and the emotions connected with them tend to deprive love of its crystal clarity—a special virtue is necessary to protect its true character and objective profile. This special virtue is chastity, which is intimately allied to love between man and woman” (146).

Chastity: The Guardian of Love

Now we can see why chastity is so necessary for love. Far from something that hinders our love, chastity is what makes love possible. It protects love from falling into selfish, utilitarian attitudes and enables us to love selflessly—irrespective of the powerful emotions or sensual delight we may receive from our beloved.

If we are to truly love a person of the opposite sex, we must see their full value as a person and respond to them in selfless love. John Paul II says chastity allows us to do just that. “The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation, and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of ‘the body and sex’” (171).

Men and women without chastity are in a very sad situation: They are not free to love. They may have good intentions and a sincere desire to care for the beloved, but without chastity, love will never flourish for it will not be pure. It will be mixed with a tendency to view the beloved primarily in terms of sexual values. John Paul II explains that without chastity, men and women cannot selflessly love the beloved as a person because the heart is so preoccupied with emotional and sensual pleasure (164).

But chastity protects love from falling into such utilitarianism; freed from utilitarian attitudes, the chaste are thus free to love. Thus also “only the chaste man and the chaste woman are capable of true love. For chastity frees their association, including their marital intercourse, from that tendency to use a person which is objectively incompatible with ‘loving kindness,’ and by so freeing it introduces into their life together and their sexual relationship a special disposition to ‘loving kindness’” (171).

Now that we see the great importance of chastity for protecting love, we can turn our attention in the next chapter to John Paul II’s practical strategies for putting chastity into practice.

For Further Reading

Love and Responsibility, pp. 143–158

For Discussion and Reflection

1. What are some ways we see the virtues mocked today? According to John Paul II, why are virtues often resented? Have you ever experienced resentment or even persecution for your pursuit of virtue? What was your response?

2. In what ways have you seen the virtue of chastity mocked or disregarded in contemporary culture? How do these false images and ideas distort the truth about chaste love?

3. John Paul II says that when men and women find themselves attracted to each other, their attraction is tainted by a desire to use each other sensually or emotionally. Because of original sin, “a human being encountering the opposite sex does not simply and spontaneously experience love, but a feeling muddied by a longing to enjoy” (161). Do you think this is true? Explain.

4. Ultimately, genuine love is greater than fleeting romance. How can living a life of chastity be its own reward? How does chastity protect love and make love possible?

5. Reflect on this verse from St. Paul: “Be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life” (Philippians 2:15–16).

How do you think a positive, integrated vision of chastity could be more effectively promoted in the midst of our own “crooked and perverse generation”? What can be done within your own life, family life, the Church, schools, and work environments?

Chapter Eight

The Battle for Purity

The battle for purity ultimately is fought deep in the recesses of the human heart. Our hearts were made to love, but since the Fall, they have been tainted by a desire to use others. In this reflection, we will see that chastity is so much bigger than simply saying no to certain sexual actions we may commit in the body. In the end, chastity is a matter of the heart.

Chastity: One Long No?

Chaste literally means clean: Christians have long used this word to describe the particular virtue that moderates our sexual desire. But this is not because sexual desire itself is somehow unclean or dirty. In fact, John Paul II warned against a negative view of chastity that turns this virtue into a mere suppression of sensual desire—“Just don’t have sex before you’re married!” In this negative light, chastity becomes merely “one long ‘no’” (170). This kind of suppression can have serious consequences for the human person:

Chastity is very often understood as a “blind” inhibition of sensuality and of physical impulses such that the values of the “body” and of sex are pushed down into the subconscious, where they await an opportunity to explode. This is an obviously erroneous conception of the virtue of chastity, which, if it is practiced only in this way, does indeed create the danger of such “explosions.” (170)

We must see chastity as a positive virtue that enables us to love and protects love from being tainted by the selfish tendency to use the other person for our own pleasure. John Paul II said chastity is emphatically not “one long ‘no.’” Rather, it is first and foremost a yes—a yes in our heart to the other person, not just to his or her sexual values. It is a yes that requires us to say no to other things in order to protect love from falling into utilitarianism.

Pure Love

This positive, wider context of love for a person is key to understanding the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. Joe, for example, truly wants to love his girlfriend as a person and not just as a source of pleasure. He chooses not to engage in sexual activity with her, understanding that sexual intercourse is meant to express total self-giving love.

A sexual expression of complete self-giving love makes sense within marriage, where husband and wife surrender themselves to each other completely in a lifelong commitment of love. Joe and his girlfriend, however, have not yet entered into such a relationship of full commitment and self-gift. A sexual relationship for them, therefore, would be a lie: Devoid of the total lifelong commitment to each other as persons and the complete self-giving love that comes in marriage, sexual intercourse in the end would be about using each other for the pleasure associated with this profound act of love. Therefore, choosing chastity helps free them from such pleasure-seeking utilitarianism and enables their relationship to develop, possibly, into a deeper self-giving love.

In short, chastity moderates our human desires for pleasure and allows us to experience a clear, pure love of the other person—a love that is truly centered on the other person’s good, not just our own enjoyment. As John Paul II explains, “The word ‘chaste’ (‘clean’) implies liberation from everything that ‘makes dirty’. Love must be so to speak pellucid: through all the sensations, all the actions which originate in it we must always be able to discern an attitude to a person of the opposite sex which derives from sincere affirmation of the worth of that person” (146).

The Difference between the Sixth and Ninth Commandments

One of the main fronts in the battle for purity is what John Paul II calls “sensual egoism,” which is the tendency to use another person for sensual pleasure. Certainly, various sinful sexual acts constitute this kind of egoism. But John Paul II stresses that one can fall into sensual egoism without making any bodily contact with another person. For example, as we saw earlier, a man can view a woman primarily in terms of the value of her body. And he can use her body as an object of enjoyment whenever he sees her or even in his memory and imagination long after he has seen her (108).

The Ten Commandments reflect this point. The sixth commandment, on one hand, addresses external physical actions in the realm of sex: You shall not commit adultery. The ninth commandment, on the other hand, addresses internal actions commonly known as lustful thoughts: You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife (147–148).

But it’s not always easy to discern the boundary between simply noticing someone’s sexual values and being attracted to them in a sinful way. What is the difference between an innocent interest in another person’s physical appearance and a lustful thought? John Paul II offers some very helpful insights.

The pope identifies three general stages we experience in the battle against sensual egoism. In the first stage, one may experience a spontaneous sensual reaction. At this stage, one happens to notice the sexual values of another person’s body and reacts to those values spontaneously. For example, a man walks into a cocktail party, catches the eye of a woman he has never met, notices the woman’s attractive features, and finds himself drawn to her throughout the evening.

The sexual values of the opposite sex often present themselves spontaneously like this. We notice the sexual values and find ourselves interested in them. This is not lust, nor is it sinful. It simply means we are human and have human sensual desire. As John Paul II explains, sensuality “merely orients the whole psyche towards the sexual values, awakening an interest in or indeed an ‘absorption’ in them” (148). As we have seen previously, such sensual desire is given by God to draw persons together in love. This can lead to authentic love if the sensual attraction leads to a deeper level of commitment to the person, not just to the person’s sexual values.

Lustful Thoughts?

However, John Paul II warns us of how easy it is to move from the first stage of simple interest in the sexual values of another person to the second stage of hankering after them as a potential object of sensual pleasure. John Paul II calls this second stage sensual concupiscence. At this point, something within the person begins to stir: a desire for the sexual values of the other person’s body as an object to enjoy.

Now the sexual values are not simply an object of interest, but an actual object of sensual desire in the heart. Something within us “begins to strive towards, to hanker after, that value” (148), and this reaction can culminate in “a desire to possess the value” (148).

Still, John Paul II says that even this second stage of sensual attraction is not necessarily sinful. It is the effect of concupiscence, our fallen inclination toward sin. Because of original sin, it is not easy for us to quickly direct that inner stirring of sensual desire to selfless love for the other person. Our desire for sensual pleasure is so powerful that we experience a desire to use the other person in order to gain that pleasure.

But here is the key: Even this stirring of sensual desire is not in itself sinful, John Paul II says, as long as the will resists that desire to use the person—as long as the will does not consent to it. Indeed, we may experience sensual desire mounting intensely within us without our will actually consenting to it and even with our will directly opposing it (162).

Don’t Expect Immediate Victory

That is why John Paul II wisely reminds us that we cannot expect to win the battle for purity in our hearts immediately, simply by saying no hard enough. He says, “An act of will directed against a sensual impulse does not generally produce any immediate result. In its own (psychological) sphere a sensual reaction generally runs its full course even if it meets emphatic opposition in the sphere of the will. No-one can demand of himself either that he should experience no sensual reactions at all, or that they should immediately yield just because the will does not consent, or even because it declares itself definitely ‘against’”(162).

This is very helpful advice for anyone desiring, but struggling, to be chaste. One might try with all his might to remain pure but still experience simple, spontaneous, sensual reactions and even the inner stirrings of concupiscent desires. Yet one must remember that as long as the will does not consent to those utilitarian desires, he or she has not fallen into sin. As John Paul II makes clear, “There is a difference between ‘not wanting’ and ‘not feeling’, ‘not experiencing’” (162).

In other words, one may feel the inner stirring of concupiscent desire, but this is not the same as giving the will consent to follow those desires and treat the other person as a potential object of enjoyment. John Paul II explains:

a sensual reaction, or the “stirring of” carnal desire which results from it, and which occurs irrespectively and independently of the will, cannot in themselves be sins. No, we must give proper weight to the fact that in any normal man the lust of the body has its own dynamic, of which his sensual reactions are a manifestation. We have drawn attention to their appetitive character. The sexual values connected with the body of the person become not only an object of interest but—quite easily—the object of sensual desire. The source of this desire is the power of concupiscence (appetitus concupiscibilis as St. Thomas calls it), and so not the will (161).

Crossing the Threshold of Sin

Nevertheless, we must be on guard and strongly strive against these concupiscent sensual desires. Left unchecked, they continually try to get the will to consent to them, thereby leading the person to cross the line of sin. Indeed, if the will does not resist this stirring of the sensual appetite, a person falls into the third stage, which John Paul II calls carnal desire.

Here, the will gives up resisting, throws in the towel, and consents to pursuing the pleasurable feelings occurring within. The man (or woman) deliberately commits the will to the promptings of the body, even though those promptings direct him to treat the other’s body as an object of enjoyment whether in thought, memory, or imagination or in actual external sexual actions.

Take, for example, a man who was struggling for purity but then consents to look at a woman lustfully. “As soon as the will consents it begins actively to want what is spontaneously ‘happening’ in the senses and the sensual appetites. From then onwards, this is not something merely ‘happening’ to a man, but something which he himself begins actively doing” (162).

Now the threshold of sin has been crossed. Before this point, the man had maintained an important level of purity in his heart because he was resisting those utilitarian concupiscent desires. But now that his will consents to those desires, something dramatic changes: The man himself changes as he wills in his heart to go along with those utilitarian desires. He is no longer simply experiencing a desire to use the woman’s body; he actually is using her body as an outlet for his carnal desire.

He is no longer simply a man struggling against lustful thoughts; he has become a lustful man who has consented to those thoughts in which he is exploiting the woman’s body for his own pleasure in his imagination.

Lustful Thoughts?

Crossing the Threshold of Sin

Stage One

Spontaneous Sensual Reaction

Simple, spontaneous interest in sexual values

Not sinful, but may be a near occasion of sin

Stage Two

Sensual Desire (sensual concupiscence)

Desire for the sexual values as an object for pleasure begins to stir within the person

But the will has not consented, is trying to resist this desire

Not sinful, but dangerous

Will must resist and not consent

Stage Three

Carnal Desire (carnal concupiscence)

The will gives up resisting and consents to pursue this desire

The deliberate commitment of the will to use the body as an object for pleasure whether in the memory and imagination (lustful thoughts) or in external sexual actions (lustful acts)

Sinful

What Do You Do When You Meet Bathsheba?

The biblical account of how David fell into adultery with Bathsheba sheds light on these stages of sensuality (2 Samuel 11:1–5). One day, David arose, looked out his balcony, and happened to see a woman bathing on a rooftop below. He immediately noticed that this woman was beautiful. David did not plan this encounter or seek this woman out. The sexual values of this woman’s body suddenly and unexpectedly appeared before him, and he couldn’t help but notice them and be interested in them. This alone was not sinful. David noticing her body simply indicates that he was a normal human being attracted to the sexual values of the opposite sex.

What should David have done when he saw the beautiful woman bathing? He should have turned away immediately in order to prevent himself from falling into the deeper, more intense levels of sensual desire. But David didn’t turn his eyes away and remove himself from the situation. Instead, he gazed at her and wondered about her. He let his curiosity get the best of him. He even called his servants to the balcony to ask them who she was.

At this stage, David seems to have been moving from an innocent spontaneous sensual response to the craving of sensual desire. And this is what got David into trouble. In the end, David failed to resist his sensual desires and deliberately did something to feed them. After his servants told him the woman was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite, David decided to act on his impulses and thus fell into sinful carnal desire. He called Bathsheba over to his palace and committed adultery with her.

This ancient biblical story has much application for our lives today. Beautiful women’s bodies still suddenly appear before the eyes of godly men even when they are not looking for such sensual stimulation. A man can be walking down the street and notice a woman with a short skirt who arrests his attention. He can be driving down the highway and be faced with a provocatively dressed woman on a billboard. He can be watching a football game when suddenly at the commercial break, half-naked women start running around promoting beer and cars.

And although men are more immediately affected by such visual stimuli, many women today find themselves fighting a similar battle, tempted by the deliberately provocative images of men that are common in our highly sexualized culture. They, too, are at risk of falling into sinful carnal desires. Especially in an age of magazines like Cosmo, and online pornography, many young women are growing up more sexualized than ever before.

Therefore, for both men and women, temptation may appear out of the blue in many forms. The key question is, “What will we do when these moments happen?” Will we immediately turn away before the stirring of sensual desire takes over? Or will we be like David and feed our curiosity? The story of David reminds us of the importance of extinguishing impure thoughts and glances right from the very beginning, before the fire of sensuality goes ablaze.

We Become What We Watch

This also sheds light on why we should be very careful about what we take in from the media. Everywhere we turn in our culture, we are bombarded with shows, movies, songs, and images that that have a sexualized view of love. Instead of being an expression of total self-giving love in marriage, sex is portrayed as a pleasurable recreational sport that everyone should enjoy if they have feelings for each other. “All the people in the movies who are having the awesome dating relationships are having sex. Maybe I should be willing to have sex, too, because that’s what all the beautiful stories show us,” one young adult said.

Even many good Christians have admitted how the love stories from Hollywood affect them. They might know in their heads that they should wait to be married, but in their hearts, they begin to wonder if it’s OK. It also has an impact on the way they approach relationships with the opposite sex. “I grew up Catholic, went to church, and went to youth group. But I thought it was cool to hook up with as many people as possible because that’s how dating was modeled for me in all the movies. I just imitated what I saw the cool guys doing.”

Emotional Chastity

One final reflection: Perhaps the lessons John Paul II offers on the stages of sensual desire can be applied somewhat analogously to emotional attractions as well. A man may encounter a woman who has a warm personality and find himself instantly experiencing an emotional attraction to her. He didn’t do anything to seek this out; it just happened. This is a spontaneous emotional reaction to the woman’s femininity. However, just as we saw with sensual reactions, what one chooses to do with this initial sentimental attraction is crucial.

Take, for example, a single woman who finds herself spending much of her time daydreaming about a certain man she hopes will notice her. Such a premature emotional attachment could distract her from her responsibilities at work or school, from her family and friendships, and even from her relationship with God, as much of her time in prayer is spent thinking of that man.

Similarly, a married man could find himself growing emotionally attached to a woman who is not his wife. If he finds himself thinking about this other woman throughout the day, wanting to see her, and worried about what she thinks of him, it is a clear sign that his heart is divided and not fully united to his wife’s.

This even applies to religious sisters who have made a vow to Jesus Christ as their spouse. A sister would not be giving her whole heart to Christ if she were allowing herself to think a lot about a certain man and seek his attention and affirmation for the good feelings she experiences from him.

We also can use people for the attention we receive from them, leading them on without having any desire for a relationship. Some single women, for example, have admitted, “I’ve used guys to overcome my fear of being alone. It’s just nice to have someone interested in me!” Or, “I didn’t really want to date this guy, but I felt good about myself knowing he was interested in me—I’m being pursued, I’m wanted, I’m interesting. But looking back, it was selfish. I was just using him to meet my emotional needs.”

Guarding the Heart

This initial experience of various emotional attractions is in itself not sinful. If I am married to someone else, however, or if I am a priest or religious, these initial emotional attractions can become particularly dangerous if I’m not careful. In these cases, the vital question I must face is, “What will I do with these sentiments?”

There are two options. I can choose to treat these feelings like impure thoughts and strive to prevent the emotional attraction from spinning out of control by turning away. I could curtail conversations with the person I’m attracted to, for example, or perhaps avoid spending time with the person. To be sure, some serious situations call for a complete break from any contact since this may be the only way to free one’s heart from the inappropriate emotional attachment.

Or, I can choose to give in to the sentimental attraction and feed it even though I’m married to someone else. In social settings, I can allow myself to gravitate toward conversation with this particular person. Throughout the day, I can let myself think about this person and dream about some imaginary life together. I can permit myself to go out of my way to see this person and talk to him or her. I may even open my heart to this individual, sharing personal details about my life and seeking to be emotionally fulfilled by the person’s interest in me.

In Christian circles, improper relationships like this may disguise themselves as spiritual: I pray for this other person, and we share intimate details about our spiritual lives. Yet when I begin to form an emotional attachment to someone of the opposite sex to whom I am not married, I am falling into a kind of infidelity. Even though I may not be committing adultery in the body, I am giving my heart to someone who is not my spouse.

Christ, however, wants us to live single-heartedly. He wants our hearts to be completely united to him and to our spouse. Only the person who is able to guard his heart, reserving it for his spouse, is able to live out his vocation faithfully and love his spouse with total self-giving love.

For Further Reading

Love and Responsibility, pp. 159–173

For Discussion and Reflection

1. Do people tend to view chastity as something restrictive or something freeing? Why? Why do you think John Paul II says chastity is foremost a yes rather than “one long ‘no’”?

2. How can understanding the three stages in the battle against sensual egoism help one resist lustful thoughts and actions? What helpful insights did you gain from John Paul II’s explanation of these stages?

3. Living chastity, interiorly and exteriorly, can be a great struggle. John Paul II reminds us that having self-control in other areas of our lives can help us in the battle for purity: “Moderation is not mediocrity but the ability to maintain one’s equilibrium amid the stirrings of concupiscence” (196). He concludes, “whoever is not self-controlled and moderate is not chaste” (196). What are some positive ways we can practice moderation and self-control in other areas of our lives so that we can have the virtue to resist those particular temptations against purity that may come our way?

4. Consider the following quote from St. Francis de Sales: “[Chastity] may be lost both by the body’s external senses and by thoughts and desires within the heart…. I recall to your mind an expression that an ancient father, John Cassian, relates as coming from the mouth of the great St. Basil. Speaking of himself, he said one day, ‘I have not known women, yet I am not a virgin.’” 1

Even many great saints struggled to overcome impurity—and by God’s grace, they triumphed. How can you strive to keep not only your body but also your mind and heart pure?

5. Reflect on this verse: “Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). How can we put this verse into practice in our own lives? How can living the ideal in this verse help us in the battle for purity?

6. While some Christians make a strong effort to guard their physical purity in their relationships with the opposite sex, not all make it a priority to guard their heart. Yet John Paul II warns of the dangers of what he calls an “emotional egoism,” which is the tendency to use another person for emotional pleasure. What are some examples of emotional egoism? How can these become a threat to love? How should men and women guard their hearts?

By Edward Sri
Photo by ameenfahmy on Unsplash