CatholicEducation.com: Sexuality today

Vangelis

What do you people think about what's written here?

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html

Rev Hellfire

It seems an accurate refection of catholic teaching on the subject of contraception, at least as I understand ( Although I admit I skimmed over it).

Why what do you think of it.

Dades

And now, I can hardly watch the advertisements on TV without being offended, let alone afternoon soaps which are surely soft porn, let alone the talk shows that introduce perversions into my mind that I hadn't even imagined, let alone MTV which approaches being hard-core porn

I think this comment shows the mindset of the writer.

There's a lot of statistics, and a lot of tenuous connections between those statistics and contraception. The jist of it is that much of society's problems stem from pre-marital sex. And contraception allows people to have sex.

There's only a passing mention of STD's/AIDs and that is in the context of Sex-Ed to high school students. It seems the pandemic the planet faces at the moment can be dealt with by telling school kids to keep it in their pants.

Vangelis

I think the whole article is aweful.

John Paul II stated that sexual intercourse without intending(being open to) to become pregnant and have a child is not bonding. Making love solely to express that the spouses love eachother is not valuable, it simply isn't showing love.

The author quotes his statement late in the article.

It also says that NFP will help couples confine their sexual intercourses to the wife's 'infertile' period and that this has great consequences for them both and for society. What??

Research shows that a woman can get pregnant even if she is in her 'infertile' period(that time between her menstrual cycle and sometwo weeks before the next cycle).

So it's bollocks.

I agree with her on porn though. It's everywhere and it's false. I wish Christians would take back what is beautiful: sexuality. And keep it within marriages.

Excelsior

Sex for procreation alone is not a Biblical message. Sex is so much fun because it was meant to be so much fun. It is one of the aspects of Catholic teaching that just leaves me dumbfounded. WTF is an appropriate response to the obbsession about contraception.

UU

What's new?

We've heard it all before. How the Roman Catholic Church [RCC] condemns contraception and pre-marital sex, etc . . .

What do the RCC know? Sure they are a bunch of old celibate men of whom many haven't experienced sexual pleasures before so they virtually know nothing about this. They tell other people that this is wrong but it is only them who are wrong. That's my opinion!

robindch

> Sex is so much fun because it was
> meant to be so much fun.

Absolutely -- it's the thoroughly enjoyable payoff that organisms receive for attempting to procreate themselves! What on earth would happen if sex required some serious effort, like taking a long (upright) jog? Life on earth would grind to a unsteaming halt within one generation

> It is one of the aspects of Catholic teaching
> that just leaves me dumbfounded

It certainly will, unless you look at it from the memetic point-of-view.

Christianity, like any self-reproducing idea (eg, language, other religions, politics, etc), is constantly doing its best to get itself reproduced. One of the best and most tried'n'tested ways is to get parents who hold the idea to pass it to their kids, of whom there should be as many as possible to ensure the idea's survival and propagation. For which you need both parents suitably tuned up to believe that sex, except for the explicit purposes of procreation, is "a sin", and therefore likely to result in harm when you're dead. Once people believe that, well, it's just a question of time before you end up with something like the overpopulation and poverty in the Philippines, unless some unexpected wotsit like contraception turns up and has a greater impact than the church's instructions!

The icing on the memetic cake, of course, is that the church, having got people to reproduce for its own (albeit indirect) benefit, then says that once you've picked a suitable mate, you've to get married within the same church, which means you've to pay money to the church, and then promise to bring up any kids as members of the church, ensuring that the behaviour comes full circle and can sustain itself. This is the evolution of selfish ideas -- in the same sense of Dawkins 'Selfish Genes' -- at its most exquisite.

> WTF is an appropriate response to the obbsession about contraception.

As above, not really. It makes total, even obvious, sense if you think of religion as a cultural artefact which encodes rules for its survival into its carriers (ie, human brains).

BTW, listening to Alistair McGrath going on about memes not existing is a bit like creationists babbling on that they can't see evidence of evolution -- look around, memes are everywhere and they're fascinating

Vangelis

Sex being confined to marriage is God's will.
No human individual's "opinion" goes before that.

But this anti-contraceptive hysteria I don't understand.

Sexual intercourse for the sake of bonding between husband and wife is not wrong in my opinion because it is not declared wrong in the Bible.

Everywhere where the Bible describes sexual immoral it is about being unfaithful to one's spouse, engaging in homosexuality, when a man looks at a woman to desire her and that's all there is.

The Catholic arguement is that intercourse without being 'open' to pregnancy is a sin, but it is also a sin if intercourse is performed only for pleasure and expression of love. It is a sin if both of these things are the case and if only one of them is the case.

But it has no basis in the Bible and that makes my ass sore with irritation!

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

But it has no basis in the Bible and that makes my ass sore with irritation!

Curious imagery!

Dying to know what the ID crowd lurkng in here think about this.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

Curious imagery!

Dying to know what the ID crowd lurkng in here think about this.

Are you sure you really want to suffer another couple of chapters of the Bible?:( I'm not sure you want that can of worms opened, I got an awful lot of opinions that I can throw back:)

Vangelis

The Atheist wrote:

Curious imagery!

Dying to know what the ID crowd lurkng in here think about this.

I haven't met the ID crowd here yet.
What will they say?

wolfsbane

Atheist said:

Dying to know what the ID crowd lurkng in here think about this.

Hmmm. I'm not 'lurking', but I am an IDer. I share Vangalis' conclusion that it is entirely unbiblical. My irritation is less disturbing, however, , as I don't expect much Biblical sense from that organization.

As to ID, the sexual aspect to human love serves us on the deepest emotional levels even when no procreation is possible. Seems a bit pointless from an evolutionary standpoint - maybe Roman Catholicism and Evolutionary Theory have seen eye to eye longer than we think!:)

robindch

> the sexual aspect to human love serves us on the deepest emotional
> levels even when no procreation is possible. Seems a bit pointless from
> an evolutionary standpoint

Quite the contrary -- as a creationist, you may not be familar with biological research or information in this area, but if you have some time available, do try googling for things the actions of oxytocin, dopamine, vasopressin, as well as more general things like the evolution of co-operative and altruistic systems. There are excellent, and quite simple, evolutionary reasons for all of this activity, all you have to do is look for them

Pink Bunny

I know this is a really long post, but I read the whole article and just had to reply.

This article is riddled with false comparisons to sway the reader into agreeing with him. To make a valid argument one has to compare apples to apples not apples to oranges (just because they are both fruit does not make them the same). He also jumps to conclusions using faulty cause and effect suggesting that because B follows A, A must cause B.

The biggest example of this would be when he talks about Pope Paul VI”s 4th prediction that” we would begin to treat our bodies as though they were machines”. He jumps from how grand it is to have children to the evils of reproductive technologies allowing infertile or older women to give birth. Is this due to contraception? No it’s all due to medical advancement. The logic does not follow. It’s like arguing that liver transplant surgery is bad because we are treating our bodies as machines, taking from the dead and transplanting in into the living.

He’s also harboring the misconception that things were better in the “good old days” (read: before contraception). Of course the t.v. shows in the 1960's were more wholesome (and I do agree with him on the level of offensive crap on tv today), however what he ignores is that society wasn’t as full of blissful morality as portrayed on those programs. Society just glossed over those things “not talked about”. Behind the scenes, pregnant girls were sent to “visit their out of town aunt” and returned back home once the baby was born and adopted away. Women and children were physically and/or sexually abused the only difference is that it wasn’t discussed as it is today and therefore there weren’t resources for help or escape. And don’t even get me started on decades of abuse little children suffered at the hands of the same Catholic church during this "magical time of innocence" called the 1950's & 60's.

His statement that “it's also the fact that people who have children, become better people”, ignores child abuse and neglect. In fact, if you follow the logic it goes against everything he has said in his argument! Yes-if you have carefully planned for this child (see contraception) and it’s a welcome addition to your family then sure, I’ll give you that it can indeed bring out the best in a person. However just because B follows A does not mean B causes A. If this were the case, every child would be wanted, cared for and cherished as they deserve. Ask a poor working family who barely scraps by with 5 children how the prospect of another 5 fits into their “happy plans”. Not allowing them the choice to use a form of contraception is irresponsible. If you only make enough money to feed a family of 4 then stop with 2 children. Don't push the idea of "being fruitful and multiply" on a family that could not properly care for any more.

There is so much more that I would like to add, but for the sake of time (and your eyes) I'll stop here.

If someone can show me where in the Bible it says sex for anything other than conception is a sin, and if they can show me where contraception is prohibited I would truly be amazed.

wolfsbane

Robindch said:

There are excellent, and quite simple, evolutionary reasons for all of this activity,

I'm not familiar with advanced science, but I did find this evolutionist article interesting: http://mathforum.org/~josh/eyeless.html. Far from 'quite simple', it seems to me that quite complex theories are proposed and rejected in the effort to give evolution credibility.

I admire evolutionists' efforts; a pity their presuppositions are wrong. Still, honest enquiry has led some evolutionists to Intelligent Design, and some to seek the Designer.

samb

As to ID, the sexual aspect to human love serves us on the deepest emotional levels even when no procreation is possible. Seems a bit pointless from an evolutionary standpoint

Love is a good idea for a couple raising children from an evolutionary perspective, it is quite simple. You do suddenly lose this capacity to love just because you can't procreate. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is not correct.

I admire evolutionists' efforts; a pity their presuppositions are wrong.

list a couple please.. I think you are not familiar with basic science

Excelsior

I will irritate the ass of anyone who tries to railroad this conversation into ID!

Vangelis

samb wrote:

Love is a good idea for a couple raising children from an evolutionary perspective, it is quite simple. You do suddenly lose this capacity to love just because you can't procreate. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it is not correct.

As if you know why people love eachother. I love my husband-to-be and we are not going to have any children. I will grow old with him, die with him, but never stop loving him. You don't love somebody because you want to have children! That's pitiable and desperate. And don't even try to say that it is something of a subconscious instinct. That will make my ass even sorer with irritation.

samb

Vangelis wrote:

As if you know why people love eachother. I love my husband-to-be and we are not going to have any children. I will grow old with him, die with him, but never stop loving him. You don't love somebody because you want to have children! That's pitiable and desperate. And don't even try to say that it is something of a subconscious instinct. That will make my ass even sorer with irritation.

You can't make yourself love anybody for any reason. All i'm saying is that many animals have the ability to care deeply about one another and this ability has evolutionary origins. the reasons why you love someone from your perspective I cannot know, of course. Your ability to love is an ability your brain has, this brain evolved. It doen't make that love any less spiecal. Where do you think the ability of your brain to love has come from, if not via the same process the rest of you came from.
This is very much connected to our other conversation. Sorry to irritate you.

samb

Sorry. I meant to say that you DO NOT lose your capacity to love when you do not procreate

Vangelis

That is.. if you believe in evolution.

Asiaprod

Excelsior wrote:

Sex for procreation alone is not a Biblical message. Sex is so much fun because it was meant to be so much fun. It is one of the aspects of Catholic teaching that just leaves me dumbfounded. WTF is an appropriate response to the obbsession about contraception.

From the Horses mouth;

Pius XI ruled out any reason that would allow the use of contraception and defined the sex act for procreation only:

No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything which is intrinsically against nature may become comformable with nature and morally good. Since, therefore, [php]the conjugal act is designed primarily by nature for the begetting of children, [/php]those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purposely sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious

DeVore

No disrespect but if he thinks that MTV is Hardcore Porn, I hope he never actually sees hardcore porn...

DeV.

Vangelis

Asiaprod wrote:

From the Horses mouth;

Pius XI ruled out any reason that would allow the use of contraception and defined the sex act for procreation only:

No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything which is intrinsically against nature may become comformable with nature and morally good. Since, therefore,

[php]the conjugal act is designed primarily by nature for the begetting of children, [/php]

those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purposely sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious

And Pius XI was a pope, no?

Catholicism is so strange. They add things to the Bible that have no foundation there. It's perplexing! I'm sure that one can actually be indoctrinated to think that sexual pleasure is a sin and must be avoided. But hey, how then is the husband going to impregnate his wife. And then there is the arguement that you shouldn't let anything of this world become dominant in your life.

But, Asiaprod, one Catholic told me that there is no sin to have sex and not become pregnant as long as one is open to the idea of getting a child. Sexual intercourse is meant to serve as a means of bonding between wife and husband, for them to express their love in the most intimate way, and for the sake of giving birth. Sexual intercourse for bonding only is a sin and so is sexual intercourse only for the sake of having a child. The two go together hand in hand, according to what he told me. He also gave me some references on this. Would you like me to attach a link?

MartMax

forgive me, my curiosity

what i understand sex is shared between husband n wife ie no pre-marital sex as per catholic church. i wonder is this practised by irish catholics in general? being foreign, after 5 years living in ireland, i can't see much in public being promoted or shouted. all i can think of is everyone shags everyone, just my naive perspective. not that i'm saying everyone is everyone.

anyone can provide some brief explanation

Vangelis

mart_max wrote:

all i can think of is everyone shags everyone, just my naive perspective.

What makes you think this?
That's not what I experience.

Asiaprod

Vangelis wrote:

Catholicism is so strange. They add things to the Bible that have no foundation there. It's perplexing! I'm sure that one can actually be indoctrinated to think that sexual pleasure is a sin and must be avoided.

It is not a question of being sure or not, it was a fact when I was growing up that pleasure or fun had nothing to do with it. Sex was for having children, period. It was a gift from God only to be practiced within the confines of a legal marriage. Outside of marriage, It was banned on pain of sin, as was all form of masturbation, or any indulgence in any type of practice that brought sexual pleasure.

Would you like me to attach a link?

I will pass on this one Vangelis. Please do not misunderstand me, I appreciate the thought, But I firmly believe that the Church has no rights getting involved in the sexual aspects of anyone. I am fine with them having a ceremony of Marriage as a celebration and a vow sharing between people, but stay out of my life. They do not make rules for me. I would rather they deal with their own problems with in the priesthood and leave me and anyone who I decide to sleep with alone. In plain simple terms, It is not their business what non Christians do or do not believe in relations to sex. The church wants to be celibate, be celibate, but don't for one moment think that they can make rules for other sexually active people, Their abstinence removes them from the decision making process since they have no experience of the acts they are trying to enforce against. Its is the usual stick and carrot game, fear and punishment to keep all in line. How come a religions that bases its belief on a kind and loving God is so anti sex for all buts its own clergy. Take a trip to Asia where there are no inhibitions or prohibitions on sex (within reason of course) and see how much more relaxed the sexes are in each others company.

Vangelis

Asiaprod wrote:

It is not a question of being sure or not, it was a fact when I was growing up that pleasure or fun had nothing to do with it. Sex was for having children, period. It was a gift from God only to be practiced within the confines of a legal marriage. Outside of marriage, It was banned on pain of sin, as was all form of masturbation, or any indulgence in any type of practice that brought sexual pleasure.

I understand that.

I will pass on this one Vangelis. Please do not misunderstand me, I appreciate the thought, But I firmly believe that the Church has no rights getting involved in the sexual aspects of anyone. I am fine with them having a ceremony of Marriage as a celebration and a vow sharing between people, but stay out of my life. They do not make rules for me. I would rather they deal with their own problems with in the priesthood and leave me and anyone who I decide to sleep with alone. In plain simple terms, It is not their business what non Christians do or do not believe in relations to sex. The church wants to be celibate, be celibate, but don't for one moment think that they can make rules for other sexually active people, Their abstinence removes them from the decision making process since they have no experience of the acts they are trying to enforce against. Its is the usual stick and carrot game, fear and punishment to keep all in line. Take a trip to Asia where there are no inhibitions or prohibitions on sex (within reason of course) and see how much more relaxed the sexes are in each others company.

Fine. I'm not preaching. I don't support the Catholic decision that 'sexuality for pleasure is a sin' myself.

I am very relaxed in men's company, unless you didn't think I was.

How come a religions that bases its belief on a kind and loving God is so anti sex for all buts its own clergy.

You are misconceiving. Sexuality is confined to marriage in the Christian faith, but there is no arguement in the Bible that it is only for reproducing. That's a Catholic fixation. Lovingness and kindness has nothing to do with sex in itself, unless sexuality is an expression of love. And about the clergy having to live in celibacy, someone else here said something different.

The call for celibacy is not meant to be negative. Sexuality and married life will take up much of one's attention, the attention which is supposed to be payed to God. And this is quite obvious. If you are married, you make an effort to nurture the marriage with much commitment, time and affection. This "steals" time from a priest to pray and focus on God. And a priest is called to stand close to God cannot allow for these "disruptions". That is the point of with celibacy.

Asiaprod

Vangelis wrote:

Fine. I'm not preaching. I don't support the Catholic decision that 'sexuality for pleasure is a sin' myself.

Gosh, I do hope nothing I wrote made you feel like I was attacking you. I never for one moment thought you were preaching. I am afraid that my early years experience with the Christian Brothers has really made sex and the church a strong issue for me. I've been there, remember. But I am one of ther lucky ones who it did not effect.

While your view on celibacy for priests is admirable and acceptable, I think the church better remind them that they are to spend this time closser to their God and not chasing down innocents to molest. Only when they clean up their own back yard and learn what real life man/man, women. women/women/man relationships are all about (did I miss anyone:)) can they feel in any way justified in commenting on mine.

I am very relaxed in men's company, unless you didn't think I was.

Sorry, this one has gone right over my head, I am not sure why you thought that I thought that you were not very relaxed in men's company. Was this relating to something I wrote. It certainly never entered my head:)

Vangelis

Asiaprod wrote:

Gosh, I do hope nothing I wrote made you feel like I was attacking you. I never for one moment thought you were preaching. I am afraid that my early years experience with the Christian Brothers has really made sex and the church a strong issue for me. I've been there, remember. But I am one of ther lucky ones who it did not effect.

No I didn't feel that you were attacking me.

While your view on celibacy for priests is admirable and acceptable, I think the church better remind them that they are to spend this time closser to their God and not chasing down innocents to molest. Only when they clean up their own back yard and learn what real life man/man, women. women/women/man relationships are all about (did I miss anyone:)) can they feel in any way justified in commenting on mine.

Not all priests find young children to abuse, you know. But those who do clearly have a problem, maybe not with the celibacy. They are not the one's who oppose to whatever lifestyle you have that is not in accordance with God's teachings. God is the one who will righteously judge you. And me, for whatever law of His that I have transgressed. It is not the clergy no matter if it seems like that some times.

Sorry, this one has gone right over my head, I am not sure why you thought that I thought that you were not very relaxed in men's company. Was this relating to something I wrote. It certainly never entered my head:)

Oh, you just said that I should go to Asia and observe how relaxed people are about sex and their opposite sex. I just confirmed that I am myself relaxed. There is no need to be hyper or paranoid. Be natural, be smooooooth.. be ooo-la-laaaaa... No, you get the point!

Asiaprod

Vangelis wrote:

I just confirmed that I am myself relaxed. There is no need to be hyper or paranoid. Be natural, be smooooooth.. be ooo-la-laaaaa... No, you get the point!

Oh good, that's just what we need, more relaxed people. I will add your name to my list of super cool, naturally relaxed, ooo-la-laaaaaa people:D

Yipeeeeeeeeeee, nearly Xmas. Special day for me, I got married on Christmass day (I`m a cheapskate, managed to save on presents)