More reader responses to Andreas Gossweiler, who wrote, "I'd
really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence." (Earlier responses are in Sunday's entry "The Swiss Patrol.") Andreas plans to reply to the responses tomorrow.

Mom (see bio linked at left) writes:

Yes, I do want to answer that very sweet Swiss gentleman, who was kind enough to ask a question, instead of just hurling an insult, as do so many who disagree with our sexual mores.

Trust me, Sir. Many many of us have tried it your way. It really doesn't work. What has your "sexually emancipated" nation and others like it really learned about intimacy, partnership, commitment, fidelity, all the glorious character traits that really make a strong nation? What have children learned about parents who STAY? What have young women learned about men who honor them, cherish them, and treasure them, just because they saved their most intimate expression of love for one man? How many Swiss girls' hearts are broken every moment of the day, because they buy the idea that there is no difference between the sexes, and that they really can feel nothing but a pleasant friendship (at best) with the man with whom they were "doing the what-comes-naturally" the night before? How can they explain away the pain and mistrust that tears away a piece of their soul with every lost liaison?

Even in your movies, my Swiss friend, your people still sit with tears and the spark of a memory of beautiful love, the love of so many of their forefathers and foremothers. Sure, you can cite exceptions, but there was a main line of happy families who stayed together and who trusted that Mom, Dad, husband or wife, would be there to the end, "for better or worse". Even in Switzerland, a man or woman still becomes angry, sometimes murderous, when the beloved cheats with another partner. Why do you think that is? Because we still hold love and marriage to high standards.

What is "natural" means what is in nature means what the animals do. We humans are endowed with souls, feelings, character, visions and dreams. We are not condemned to do what is natural. We have been given the grace to be SUPER-natural. What a gift!

With sisterly love from Rachel-Rose, Dawn Eden's Mom.

For Andreas, who considers the natural-ness of something and its reservation for higher purposes mutually exclusive:

We praise chastity and abstinence because by doing so we recognize the special nature of sex. We recognize that sex is a gift God gives us, which increases intimacy between people whose union He has ordained. (In addition to creating children, which Richard Stuart has already addressed.)

Of course sex is a "natural" act, as are murder and bowel movements. In failing to value chastity and abstinence, people devalue sex, and place it in the same category as those other acts. What a loss—to miss the special significance of this wonderful gift, and to see it as nothing more than a response to stimuli.

That's the best I can come up with between rocket attacks here. Is it cold in NYC yet? [It's getting there, but no snow yet, thankfully.—Ed.

Consider this: No Christian would go into the church building thinking, "Hmm... I'm a little hungry... I'd like a snack... I'll bet the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle would be tasty with a little salsa..." That would be blasphemous even to think such a thing, much less to actually do it. In the same way, Christians hold sex to be so sacred that, far from suppressing it, they cherish it and reserve it for only the most intimate of covenant relationships, namely, marriage.

Not only many Europeans, but many Americans have this strange view that chastity is somehow anti-sex, when it's actually how christianity fulfills sex. Basically, this stems from a misconception about what chastity is and does.

The liberal's view of chastity seems to include self-hate, fear, guilt, or some other kind of negative emotions. None of these are the case for various reasons. Guilt is brought about by the conscience reacting to perceived sin. Chastity exists to remove this sin from the act of sex. Fear of sinning needs not worry you if you plan on having chaste sex. Self-hate probably refers to some kind of loathing caused by a sinful life. For a real Christian, there is authentic healing from this, but it requires a life-amending effort.

The problem of course, is that many such people who don't like chastity really don't want to hear out its restrictions. After all, who has the right to tell me how to have sex? Well, since God made sex (along with the rest of creation), it's fitting that those who strive to serve him have the inside scoop as to the morality.

At its core, chastity is a set of rules designed to make sure that sin is removed from that act, leaving only the pure and good parts that God intended us to enjoy. If we follow these rules, not only do we not have to worry about sin ruining our relationships, but we're free from the guilt, fear, and self-hate associated with it as well.

As has been mentioned, sex is procreative. Its primary purpose is perpetuating the human race by having children. Contraception, technical means for avoiding children while having sex, has become much more common in the last 50 years, ushering in the era of free sex.

But sex outside of marriage is never free. Someone always pays. This is because sex involves more than making babies. In addition to being procreative, sex is also unitive, allowing for the recreation of the marriage bonds in the deep physical and
spiritual union of husband and wife. Scripture teaches us that sex creates a union, where two become one.

This is not merely an ideal, something to be strived for, but a fact. Sex involves deep intimacy and vulnerability. Every act of sex is a giving away of a part of ourselves. A part of another person becomes a part of us, as sex involves mutuality. If we do this with strangers, or with someone whom we know only casually, we lose a part of ourselves. Pieces of us are missing, and the parts we take on from others don't fit properly.

Sex is never casual. Scripture teaches us that sex is a wonderful gift from God, and nothing God gives is casual. It's deep stuff, this gift of sex, and because it's so deep, sexual hurt is never shallow. The greatest pain many of us have ever
experienced is the pain of a broken heart. When we bond physically without the protection of a life-long commitment, we may necessarily steel ourselves against emotional bonding, resisting the desire to let that someone touch the deepest part of ourselves. We tell ourselves and each other "this doesn't mean anything." But it does. It always does. Someone invariably gets hurt. It's because we are wired to want someone to love us for who we are, someone to hold us in our nakedness and never abandon us, someone with whom we can face any eventuality, including the blessing of new life.

But our postmodern world often doesn't regard new life as a blessing. Interestingly, the early days of the abortion-rights movement had strong financial support from the Playboy Foundation. [This is true; it's also public record that Playboy financed SIECUS.—Ed.] Why? Because using a woman as an apparatus for pleasure is perfectly consonant with having her vacuumed, sucked clean of any consequence, and then discarded in favor of the next plaything. Objectification never allows for community, never allows for responsibility, never allows for anything other than the selfish pursuit of pleasure.

Apart from an unwanted pregnancy, we risk another biological possibility with a laissez-faire approach to sex, and that's disease. Twelve million people contract a venereal disease every year in America alone. AIDS is decimating Africa and Asia. Barrier methods are not foolproof. Saving sex for, and confining sex to, marriage greatly reduces the risk of having a lifelong relationship with an unwanted virus.

Sex has the potential to open us up in the most human of ways, and yet, outside of the care and commitment of marriage, we are often left empty. For many, this emptiness persists, and sex then becomes a means for trying to fill that hole. As an
anodyne, sex is more powerful than any drug, and virulent addiction can be the result. The explosion of Internet porn speaks to this epidemic.

Does sex outside of marriage lead to closeness, care and commitment? In other words, does it lead to love? What is love? To love someone is to care for that person's highest good. Loving one another honestly and selflessly is the essence of God's law regarding sex. Thomas Aquinas defined sin as "an inordinate affection for a mutable good." Sex can be a good thing, but it is a mutable good, a contingent good, one that has context. That context, "for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer or for poorer, as long as you both shall live," was devised for our protection.

Another definition of sin can be found in the writings of Reinhold Niebuhr. In The Nature and Destiny of Man, Vol. 1, he makes the claim that "all human life is involved in the sin of seeking security at the expense of other life." This living of life at the expense of life is at the heart of what the Bible calls sin. Marriage is the safe harbor for sexual intimacy because it places a primacy on mutuality and militates against the ripping-one-another-off that passes as love in this postmodern age.

Andreas would "really like to know why some Americans praise chastity and abstinence. Most Europeans think
of sexuality as something natural, not as something that should be suppressed."

What I'd really like to know is, seeing as European marriage and birth rates are declining and Muslim immigration increasing rapidly, how long will Andreas consider his view as that of "most Europeans?"

Andreas' point about sexuality being natural is true, but does anyone really claim otherwise? Many things are natural - eating, sleeping, going to the bathroom - but all societies have norms that regulate when and where these activities take place. This is not suppression, but the recognition that civilized society cannot function unless we control and regulate our natural urges. Most Americans believe that we were created by a God who has given us certain guidelines to live by. Of course if Andreas does not believe in God the moral argument in favor of chastity and abstinence may not mean anything to him, but it does resonate with most Americans.

For those who reject the moral argument, there is the utilitarian argument that a society failing to put limits on sexual behavior does itself great harm in the long run. Yes, one can argue that the freedom to sleep with who you want, when you want is loads of fun. But the greatest social disaster in the country over the past forty years has been the staggering increase in out-of-wedlock births. This problem is at the root of nearly every major social problem, and a society with no prejudice against promiscuous behavior will inevitably end up with lots of children who lack two committed parents and lots of busy abortionists.

Would Andreas like to argue in favor of this development? Maybe he'd argue that more birth control would prevent these problems. But if the Swiss birthrate is like the rest of Western Europe he doesn't have much of a case. In fact, he might want to start debating this issue with the Muslims who are populating Europe at such a staggering rate. Their views of Planned Parenthood will make Dawn's "attacks" seem quaint.

Finally, does Andreas believe that the society with a more casual attitude towards sex have a better sense of its importance than the society that restricts sexual behavior? Does a man who spends his paycheck the day he gets it understand the value of money better than the man who saves or invests it?