The chaste person is therefore not a person who is rigid, devoid of affection or incapable of entering into deep relationships, even emotionally, with people, but on the contrary is capable of interaction, of compassion, of tenderness. And it should be noted that in this sense chastity is a virtue proposed to everyone, even married people: in fact it is not, as one might believe, not having sexual relations, but living love in a fully and truly human way, and this is what we are all called, married or not. Thus it is important for a couple not to close themselves in their own circle: love between two should also be able to fuel openness to others beyond their own family. In this sense, the natural outlet of human love is children. As we have already seen considering the fourth commandment, the fact that we are all fathers or mothers does not mean that we are all good fathers or mothers: paternity or maternity is not just a natural fact. Parenthood, being physically or biologically fathers or mothers, does not necessarily make us true, that is, good, fathers or mothers, but we must learn to be. Likewise, the fact that we are sexual, that is, physically gifted for reproduction, does not automatically make us people capable of love or a real couple. We can be satisfied or reduced to an appearance.
Being husband and wife is like being a priest: you can't pretend to be one, but either you are one or you aren't. In this sense, external acts must express a truth of what one is, otherwise, precisely, they are a comedy, a "pretending" to be what one is not, as if one could remove from being husband and wife that unity, stability and definitiveness that this requires. In this sense, it is interesting to observe the hypocrisy of talking about premarital relations: whether there is a marriage is yet to be seen, and for the moment they are only sexual relations. Which is not to say that they are the worst or most serious that can happen in matters of chastity, but at least they are premature and often illusory: and the woman most often pays for the illusions.
Marriage is stable not for some metaphysical reason, but because this corresponds precisely to the profound desire of love, which asks that it be forever and with only one: of course, we have become disillusioned and have learned to say that it is not true, we have become cynical. Ultimately, the consequence of divorce is that it has prevented us from believing in love: it has left us with a byproduct. And we see it very well especially in young people: you need to have great courage and very deep motivations to go against the grain. Love must be conquered, even by fighting.
Christian marriage, which has only established itself over the centuries and going against the customs of previous pagan societies, precisely because of its character of definitiveness and freedom for both spouses, and not just for the male, and for the protection of the offspring resulting from it, freed women from being the object of male power, first paternal and then marital. Cohabitation takes you back to the time before these conquests, and returns the couple's relationship to whim and force. On the other hand, it is sad to see that many people live together not out of malice or because they are aware of what we have said, but simply out of disappointment or sadness: how can we believe in stable love today? Ultimately, many don't get married out of fear, and in a certain sense that's understandable. It is up to the Church, that is, Christian spouses, to show that the human desire for true, stable and fruitful love is still and always possible, despite everything.