The very good series of articles on the single vocation by our new writer Salwa Bachar ( and ) has caused some turmoil among several readers. TIA has received heated reactions from readers who object to the commentary of St. John Chrysostom or consider marriage a higher vocation than virginity, as well as from religious persons who do not like to see lay celibacy proposed as the most needed ideal today, in view of the great apostasy we are witnessing in almost all the religious orders. Since the answers to these objections may include analyses of the conjugal act, which are inconvenient to be addressed by a single young lady, I will assume the task of responding.

So far, we received about 25 different objections and I am informed that there are more to come. A nervous word-of-mouth campaign seems to be in motion spreading that TIA is against marriage, denies that marriage was instituted in Paradise, is promoting these errors and that we do not respond to the objections received. Out of consideration for our readers and a desire to clarify these topics as much as I can, I shall answer these objections in a series of articles, this being the first. For this reason, I ask patience from our present and future objectors on this topic if their points are not answered as soon as they expect. I will limit this article to a readable length. The choir of virgin-martyrs Let me state as a presupposition of these answers that, although I shall be advocating virginity, chastity and celibacy for lay people, I, as well as my companions at TIA, pay all possible respect to marriage, the formation of children and the preservation of the Catholic family.

By clicking 'submit', you additionally agree to be contacted by Dun & Bradstreet/Hoover’s at the contact information you provide above. Dun & Bradstreet/Hoover's, may use an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to connect you with a team member.

Even a cursory search on our website offers abundant of the great effort we have made in the last 15 years to preserve these values from the countless attacks of their enemies. I am also well-aware that natural marriage was instituted in Paradise, as Fr. Paul Sretenovic states in his articles, which I edited carefully before posting on our website ().

So, when I shall stress the nobility of virginity, chastity or the celibate life for a lay man or woman, it should not be understood as any denigration of the married life. The objections shall be answered at random. There is no particular order to them.

I end this introduction apologizing to persons of delicate feelings for some crude descriptions I may be obliged to make of the conjugal act and the process of giving birth necessary to answer the many objections. * First objection: 1. John Chrysostom affirmed: “Once man was formed, he lived in Paradise and while in that place there is no mention of marriage whatsoever. He needed a companion, so woman was given to him. But even so, matrimony still did not seem necessary. It still did not exist and they lived very happily in Paradise as if it were Heaven, without knowing marriage, rejoicing in the familiar treatment with God” ( De Virginitate, part II, chap.

But, on the contrary, the Council of Trent quoting Genesis taught the following on marriage as a natural institution: “The faithful must know that, before anything else, matrimony was instituted by God. In Genesis it is written: “And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:27-28). Further on: ‘It is not good for man be alone; let us make him a help like unto himself’ (Gen 2:18). Further on: “But for Adam there was not found a helper like himself. Then the Lord God cast a deep sleep upon Adam; and when he was fast asleep he took one of his ribs, and filled up flesh for it. And the Lord God built the rib which he took from Adam into a woman: and brought her to Adam.

And Adam said: This now is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman because she was taken out of man. Wherefore a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they shall be two in one flesh” Gen 2:20-24). “These words, as the Lord himself says in St. Matthew, prove that matrimony is of divine institution” ( Catechism of Trent, part II, chap. Therefore, because of the Council of Trent’s clear biblical references to marriage in Paradise before the fall, we see that St.

John Chrysostom was wrong since he contradicted the narration in Genesis. Answer to the first objection: 1. Given that St. John Chrysostom was a quite erudite man – let us not forget that he is one of the greatest Fathers of the Church, the most prominent Greek Doctor and the one who left the largest quantity of written documents – we should not suppose that he ignored those verses of Genesis and the corresponding doctrine of the Church or, even less, that he rebelled against them. I believe it would be absurd to take this position. When flagrant contradictions like this occur, we should not proclaim the Saint to be in error and tear our clothes as if it were a heresy or blasphemy, but rather look for a harmonic interpretation. St John Chrysostom has been accused of disregarding the first chapters of Genesis This is what I will do.