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