Matt Fradd
Spirituality/Belief • Books • Writing
This PWA community exists to facilitate an online community of PWA listeners and all lovers of philosophy and theology.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?

Proposing New Ways to Help Understand Chastity — Part 5: How the Appetite Might Be a Blessing Even for Those Called to Celibacy or Virginity

Lately, I was watching more YouTube videos on Christopher West’s Theology of the Body Institute channel, and I came across “What Do Celibates Do With Their Sexual Urge?” and “Did Jesus Have Sexual Desires?”. The former video even featured our guy Matt Fradd as Christopher’s guest speaker. The videos’ topics reminded me of a thought experiment I once mulled over, about what purposes the sexual appetite could have for someone, whom God is calling to celibacy/virginity.

For a while, this thought experiment was difficult for me to come up with answers for, since having sexual desire at all seemed pointless or even a curse, if someone’s lifelong vocation calls for them to not ever have any relations. I wanted to figure out how to answer it, so that I could more unconditionally see the sexual appetite as a good gift from God and better look to celibate/virgin saints as approachable role models for chastity. That is, without the unintended implication that said saints are role models, simply because they “threw away” or “repressed” such desires altogether. Also, I have felt sympathy towards some Protestants, whenever they express how it would be easier for them to find Mary fully approachable, if her and Joseph did have typical relations and other children after Jesus’ virginal birth.

To tackle this thought experiment, I decided to go straight to analyzing what purposes such yearnings could have had for the Virgin Mary herself, the greatest of all saints, whose grace made her akin to Adam and Eve before Original Sin and whose very title alludes to the perpetual virginity in her calling. After thinking about it for a while, these were the observations and potential answers I noticed:

1.) Because the capacity to desire that physical union was part of Adam and Eve from the very beginning and not a product of the Fall, it would only be natural for Mary the “New Eve” to possess it too (and in its original purity). Any such desires that Mary potentially possessed would have been untainted by sin, per Catholicism’s doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. So it would have been perfectly aligned with God’s will and not have had vices or disorders like Lust mixed in. In turn, the unmet appetite would not have been prone to becoming a stumbling block for Mary.

2.) Although Mary’s calling was to perpetual virginity as the mother of Jesus, Mary still had free will and was entrusted with the ability to choose otherwise. I heard Trent Horn arguing that the Immaculate Conception was also important for ensuring Mary could consent to such a mission, without having her mind clouded by disordered desires or a fear that God would be displeased should she say “no”. If God wanted Mary to choose this mission freely, then I imagine it was important for God to let Mary still have full ability to recognize, appreciate, and even pursue the joys of a more typical marriage. That way, she is not just choosing perpetual virginity out of being denied knowledge of the alternatives.

3.) Even after Mary made the choice to serve God as a perpetual virgin, I imagine having the capacity for such yearnings could still serve a purpose, one of which being how anyone can respond to unmet desires in a way that directly draws them to a greater appreciation of God. For example, Mary could have chastely recognized the physically attractive beauty of the men around her, recognized the beauty of the full person from there, then further oriented her mind towards appreciating the Creator behind such beauty. I reminded myself that one does not need to “possess” or “experience” everything they find desirable firsthand, in order to be enriched by their ability to appreciate something beautiful and praise God for its existence (I might make a post sharing one of my personal examples of this broader idea). When I began to define sexual gratification as the initiation and continual nourishment of that marital bond, rather than merely a “relief”/“release”/“outlet” for one’s internal sexual urges, it became easier for me to adopt my previous sentence’s mentality towards that bodily communion.

4.) For all I know, Mary could have had chances to counsel men and other woman about their romantic yearnings, by drawing from her own perceptions and experiences. According to John 21:25, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”. Would not the same be true for Mary? Her lack of a struggle with concupiscence might, at first, make her seem less helpful a mentor to someone striving for chastity. But that same Immaculate Conception would presumably allow her to more clearly see the good things people’s hearts are truly yearning for beneath the appetite. Would Mary’s unclouded vision of those good things not also be an invaluable perspective for someone to know, if they were seeking advice and moral support in their quest for chastity?

5.) Finally, if Mary had the same capacity to desire that one-flesh union herself, it could have been an opportunity for her to feel greater joy for those who are called to typical marriage, in turn adding to her relationships with God and other people. If a celibate person were to experience what the draw of sexual intimacy feels like, he could see his feelings as a chance to be all the more happy for those called to lovingly partake in the marital act. That is, rather than pessimistically seeing and lamenting it, as a reminder of what he has denied himself in his earthly life. I imagine Mary’s grace and faith would make it easier for her to similarly respond, by harboring greater happiness for any woman called to “know” a particular man (or vice versa), plus trusting that God will bring about that ultimate fulfillment in the end either way. Not to mention, this could further benefit my #4 point, since Mary’s potential secondhand joy could make her an even more encouraging person to have mentoring and praying for someone called that kind of union.

Using my musings on Mary as a template, I can summarize these reasons why the appetite can still be a gift even for one called to celibacy. It can help ensure that the person was fully capable of understanding and pursuing the joys of marriage, thus making their choice to pursue a celibate vocation a more free and meaningful one than it otherwise would be. Even if they are to never have sex, they can still use their inclinations to help themselves further recognize and appreciate the beauty in which God made man, thus growing closer to God. And living with the same appetite as people called to marital intimacy can enable a celibate person to be a more helpful and encouraging mentor for said people, plus harbor and express greater happiness for them. That is, rather than such a person turning their unmet appetite into a source of jealousy, envy, and/or self-repression. To quote a certain children’s-book-turned-animated-short-film, “One of our greatest freedoms is how we react to things”.

EDIT — Shortly after I made and uploaded this post, Christopher West uploaded this video, in which he brings up a few things I only alluded to here as my extra side-points, then articulates them in a better, deeper, and more expansive way than I ever could:

"A Proper Understanding of Mary's Virginity: Sexuality, Desire, and Divine Union"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voEX0U8RAtQ

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Nine Years In - Taking Stock of My Priestly Life - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

I was ordained on May 21, 2016 . . . as I celebrated an anniversary this past month, I prayed a bit about what the Lord has done, is doing, and might do in my life. What gives life? What deals death? And then, well, I pushed record. Here's what come out : )

00:19:22
Sneak Peek: Tammy Peterson

This Wednesday I'll release my interview with Tammy Peterson here on Locals. Thanks for being a member of Locals.

00:00:58
The Human Excellence that Technology Can Never Replace - Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.

Squad, I've been thinking about AI lately. It's not that I understand the technology, though I am trying some, but that my limited understanding has given me occasion to think specifically about what is distinctive to the human person. And, it turns out, those distinctive notes are incredibly precious. In this video, I'm think about our call to conversation for intimacy . . . look forward to chatting with you there.

00:21:22
Simple NEW Lofi Song

Working on an entire album of lofi music. Here's one of those songs. Album should drop next week. THEN, a couple of weeks after that we hope to have our 24/7 stream up and running.

Simple NEW Lofi Song
December 01, 2022
Day 5 of Advent

THE ERROR OF ARIUS ABOUT THE INCARNATION

In their eagerness to proclaim the unity of God and man in Christ, some heretics went to the opposite extreme and taught that not only was there one person, but also a single nature, in God and man. This error took its rise from Arius. To defend his position that those scriptural passages where Christ is represented as being inferior to the Father, must refer to the Son of God Himself, regarded in His assuming nature, Arius taught that in Christ there is no other soul than the Word of God who, he maintained, took the place of the soul in Christ’s body. Thus when Christ says, in John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” or when He is introduced as praying or as being sad, such matters are to be referred to the very nature of the Son of God. If this were so, the union of God’s Son with man would be effected not only in the person, but also in the nature. For, as we know, the unity of human nature arises from the union of soul and body.

The...

Day 5 of Advent
November 27, 2022
Day 1 of Advent

RESTORATION OF MAN BY GOD THROUGH THE INCARNATION

We indicated above that the reparation of human nature could not be effected either by Adam or by any other purely human being. For no individual man ever occupied a position of pre-eminence over the whole of nature; nor can any mere man be the cause of grace. The same reasoning shows that not even an angel could be the author of man’s restoration. An angel cannot be the cause of grace, just as he cannot be man’s recompense with regard to the ultimate perfection of beatitude, to which man was to be recalled. In this matter of beatitude angels and men are on a footing of equality. Nothing remains, therefore, but that such restoration could be effected by God alone.

But if God had decided to restore man solely by an act of His will and power, the order of divine justice would not have been observed. justice demands satisfaction for sin. But God cannot render satisfaction, just as He cannot merit. Such a service pertains to one who ...

Day 1 of Advent

My very anti-Catholic family members, including my aunt who so often comes after me about being Catholic, are in Rome right now and just their day visiting The Vatican, the Sistine Chapel, and St. Peter's Basilica.

May the Lord use this vacation to soften their hearts towards Catholicism.

"All sin starts with the words, "I want...."" I heard that a few weeks ago, and the thought has been rattling around inside my head. So here is a question for anyone & everyone - did Jesus ever say "I want..." anywhere in the Bible? I don't think I Want is always wrong - "What kind of ice cream do you want? Chocolate!". But does it become sinful when it supercedes God's plans? I think the answer there is yes. How many times a day do I say I Want? More than I realize - probably the same for all of us. The question becomes, how to turn this into total surrender to His will? Maybe even on little things.

Cool model Gundam I finished. Hyaku Shiki is the name. A ton of fun to build.

post photo preview
Welcome to Locals!

A big and hearty welcome to all who have joined our Locals community!

Here's what to expect:

  1.  Interviews one week early (before they hit Youtube)
  2. The opportunity to ask my guests questions
  3. Exclusive biweekly spiritual direction videos from Fr. Pine
  4. Access to video courses such as:
  • 7 part series on St. Augustine's Confessions by Dr Chad Engelland (here).
  • 5 Part series on Salvation History by Dr Andrew Swafford (here).
  • 5 Part series on Flannery O'Connor by Fr Damian Ferrence (here).
  • 6 Part series on Love and Responsibility by Christopher West & Matt Fradd (here).
  • 5 Part Series o Aquinas' 5 ways by Dr. Ed Feser (here).

5. Occasional livestreams with me.

6. Knowing that you're supporting the work of Pints With Aquinas.

Thanks!

Read full Article
post photo preview
Life is very, very simple, actually.

There is a lot going on. We are confused about many things. Embarrassed that we are confused. Pretend not to be. Have a few soundbites we can rely on when the conversation turns to Trump or the state of the Church or what is going on in Israel and Gaza or the AI revolution. We hope they don’t press us because we know enough to answer two or three questions before they will hit bedrock and we will have nothing.

All of this can lead us to believe the lie that life is complicated. And since we cannot figure it out, we should either quit, or numb, or pretend, or run ourselves ragged trying to understand everything we think we should understand.

And yet life is simple. Very, very simple. There is very little to figure out.

Love what is good. Hate what is evil. But how? When I have willingly habituated myself to do the opposite. Pray. Repent. Keep turning away from distractions. Don’t hate yourself for failing. Hope in the good God who is better than you think He is. Who cares for you more than you think He does.

What are your duties? Do them with joy and attention. Don’t hate yourself when you fail at this. Pray. Repent. Have a sense of humor about your littleness. You are incredibly loved after all, remember?

Turn away from what is useless and petty and vulgar and think about what is excellent.

Say “Your will be done” 100 times a day, especially when things are bad or seem meaningless. Your headache. Your bad night sleep. The house you can’t seem to get around to tidying.

Be patient and gentle with stupid people who can’t seem to make themselves love or want to love what is good, yourself first and foremost.

Jesus, help me want to want to love you. Help me want to want to hate anything opposed to you or your kingdom.

Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Read full Article
post photo preview
Is Knowledge Possible (No ... And Yes)

I want to begin by admitting that I’m an amateur when it comes to epistemology. I do have a master’s degree in philosophy, but epistemology wasn’t my area of focus. Some of you reading this will know more about the subject than I do. And to be honest, I’m a little nervous about the comments. There’s a good chance that if you engage with what I’m about to say in any real depth, I won’t understand you and it will be my fault that I don’t.

Okay, with that admission out of the way…

 

We've long assumed that knowledge requires three criteria: (1) belief, (2) truth, and (3) justification. In other words, to know something is to believe it, for it to be true, and to have good reason for believing it. That’s the classical definition: justified true belief (JTB).

And just real quick, if you’re wondering why knowledge can’t be defined by just the first two criteria, it’s because believing something that happens to be true is more like getting lucky than knowledge. Imagine I say it’s raining in Adelaide, but I have no reason for thinking so. I didn’t check my weather app or ask anyone who lives there. If it turns out that it is raining, I was right, but only by chance. That’s not knowledge. To genuinely know something, you need more than belief and truth, you need a reason for thinking it’s true. You need justification.

Okay …

Along Comes Gettier

Now, for a long time, this three-part definition held up well. But then, in 1963, Edmund Gettier came along and broke everything in three pages. You can read that paper here.

Gettier presented scenarios where someone has a belief that is both true and justified, yet we still hesitate to call it knowledge. Why? Because the belief turns out to be true by accident.

One of the most well-known examples (though not from Gettier himself but often used to illustrate his point) is the case of the stopped clock. A man glances at a clock that has stopped working, sees that it says 2:00, and forms the belief that it is 2:00. And it just so happens to be 2:00. His belief is true. He used a normally reliable method, checking the time on a clock. And yet, the method failed. The belief was correct purely by coincidence.

Can We Save “Knowledge”

Now, some have tried to save the classical definition by saying, “Well, that wasn’t really justified. The clock was broken, so the belief was faulty from the start.” But that kind of move just shifts the problem. If we start redefining justification every time we hit a weird case, we risk making it so strict that it no longer resembles what anyone would call a “justified belief.”

Others, like Alvin Goldman, proposed ditching the concept of justification entirely. Maybe knowledge isn’t about having reasons, but about using processes that generally lead to truth. This is called reliabilism: if your belief comes from a trustworthy process (like vision, memory, or scientific inference) it counts as knowledge.

But again, the clock case poses a problem. Even if the process is usually reliable, it clearly failed here. So are we back to calling this knowledge, even though it was true by luck?

Still others have suggested that knowledge is less about having the right reasons or processes, and more about the person doing the knowing. This is what’s known as virtue epistemology: the idea that knowledge is a kind of intellectual success rooted in intellectual virtue: careful thinking, honesty, openness to evidence. On this view, knowing isn’t about checking boxes; it’s about doing something well. Like an archer hitting the bullseyes, not by accident, but through skill.

That’s compelling. But even here, questions linger. How do we measure intellectual virtue? And isn’t it still possible to do everything right and end up wrong—or to be wrong for the right reasons and still, somehow, stumble into truth?

An (Initially) Unsettling Realization

Which brings me to a more unsettling thought.

If a belief like “it’s 2:00” can be true, feel justified, come from a reliable process, and still be the product of a broken clock—what else might we be getting wrong without realizing it? Maybe the deeper problem is that we can always be deceived. Even our best faculties (sight, memory, reason etc.) can betray us. And if that’s the case, maybe knowledge (at least in the strong, philosophical sense) is impossible. Or if not impossible, impossible to know if and when you have it.

David Hume once said, “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.” That strikes me as a sane and honest approach. The question isn’t whether I can be absolutely certain about what I believe, but whether I have good reasons for believing it—and whether I’m open to changing my mind if those reasons fall apart.

Some might find it unsettling—even scandalous—that we can’t achieve a God’s-eye view of the world. But honestly, what’s strange isn’t that we can’t see things with perfect clarity. It’s that we ever thought we should.

Maybe that’s why I find myself leaning toward fallibilism—the view that we can still know things, even while admitting we might be wrong. That kind of knowledge isn’t rigid or absolute, but humble and revisable. And that, to me, feels much closer to the way real life works.

So no, I’m not sure we need to cling too tightly to the word knowledge, at least not in the abstract, capital-K sense. What matters more is the posture we take toward the truth. That we pursue it carefully, honestly, and with a readiness to revise our beliefs when the evidence calls for it.

At least, that’s what I think I know.

 
Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals