Adam and Eve: Real or just representation of events

[StAnastasia]

of? how long did it take?

The scablands, I’ll bet, and it doesn’t prove your case for Noah’s Flood.

 

[larkin31]

This Is a Long Response and I Apologize

I think there’s a lot of merit in what you’re saying when it comes to soul-body duality. The proper way to see the body and soul is that they are two aspects of one subject, the individual human person (who is always some particular person, John Smith Jr for example, and not just an instantiation of abstract “humanness.”) A soul without a body is not a whole person (which is why there is a Resurrection of the dead at the end of time.)Both the Gnostic-Manichean view (that the soul is good and the body bad) and the Cartesian view (that the soul is the ghost that runs the fleshy machine) are incorrect and in conflict with Catholicism proper. However inasmuch as the spiritual part of man transcends (although it also participates in) his physical part, and inasmuch as his spiritual faculties (intellect, free will) are what make him a moral being, the spirit is higher in the ontological order.

Now I think that the Church has always struggled with the Manichean demon, indeed, most of the popular heresies in the history of the Church have been some form of Gnosis or Manicheanism. The Church has ruled against this sort of thing in councils, but defeating an error on paper doesn’t mean you’ve really removed it from people’s hearts. Augustine (who was himself a former Manichean,) was very hostile to sex after his conversion and held (I believe) that concupiscence made sex inherently sinful and that sex was the original sin… positions the Church rejected by the way.

Now if people are body and soul and Creation is good, a number of things follow. 1) The body and its natural functions are good and meaningful and 2) What we do with our bodies is not irrelevant, but may have a spiritual dimension as well. But if we have free will and it is possible for us to choose evil, then it is possible to do evil with our bodies. We cannot say “Well, it’s just my body” as if the body were a vacuum cleaner that we happen to be operating. One’s body is oneself just as one’s soul is oneself. They can’t be separated except by death. If I discipline my body (by forcing myself to go running or by refusing a tasty snack that I don’t really need) I am also disciplining my spirit (in this case, the will.)

Having established then that what we do with our bodies is, or can be, spiritually, morally important, let’s take a look the sex instinct which you feel we Catholics are unfair to. Rather than write a long essay here in the forum, I’ll include a link to C.S. Lewis discussion of sexual sin, which I think really sums up the issue well. philosophyforlife.com/mc15.htm

I realize I haven’t responded to everything you said, but I want to establish first that Catholicism is not “anti-sex” as you imagine. It is the misuse of sex which is anti-sex.

I did not say that the Church was “anti-sex.” I said that some aspects of its treatment and view of sexuality–especially non-reproductive sexuality–were neurotically repressive.

 

[buffalo]

The scablands, I’ll bet, and it doesn’t prove your case for Noah’s Flood.

You win! Lights flashing - finally. Yes indeed many geologic formations are formed by catastrophic events such as floods. So it is now quite evident that uniformatism is not the whole story.

Larkin - the formations in the picture were formed in a day or so.

 

[larkin31]

…Having established then that what we do with our bodies is, or can be, spiritually, morally important, let’s take a look the sex instinct which you feel we Catholics are unfair to. Rather than write a long essay here in the forum, I’ll include a link to C.S. Lewis discussion of sexual sin, which I think really sums up the issue well. philosophyforlife.com/mc15.htm

here is part of the document you have linked:

Chastity is the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. There is no getting away from it: the Christian rule is, ‘Either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner or else total abstinence.’ Now this is so difficult and so contrary to our instincts, that obviously either Christianity is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it now is, has gone wrong. One or the other. Of course, being a Christian, I think it is the instinct which has gone wrong.

But I have other reasons for thinking so. The biological purpose of sex is children, just as the biological purpose of eating is to repair the body…

I already have objections to the assumptions here, which lack subtlety and detail. This is constructed upon a series of “or” statements that are not all true. The most accurate depiction of the reality may be that BOTH conditions are SOMEWHAT true. Moreover, the statement that “the biological purpose of sex is children” is an overstatement, and over simplification, and an entire argument about the morality of human sexuality cannot be built from it. It is very clear that the intimacy of sexual contact builds trust and connection between the mating pair, and this, too, may have a strong evolutionary (biological) advantage in terms of encouraging cooperation and support for survival. Human relationships are quite complex, human pairing and families are also very complex, and to reduce sexuality only to reproduction is to ignore other positive social aspects of the behavior that are also “biological” in origin and may be positively selected for through evolution.

 

[larkin31]

Here is another part (the conclusion), where more of the argument is broken into either/or statements:

Finally, though I have had to speak at some length about sex, I want to make it as clear as I possibly can that the centre of Christian morality is not here. If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastity as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronising and spoiling sport, and back-biting; the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.

The last part-- Animal Self/Diabolical Self–has no reason to be true or acceptable at all. To reduce all wrong behavior into these two figurative personifications is to commit a fallacy. Although I agree with ranking several forms of sexual “sin” as pretty low on the sin-meter.

 

[larkin31]

You win! Lights flashing - finally. Yes indeed many geologic formations are formed by catastrophic events such as floods. So it is now quite evident that uniformatism is not the whole story.

Larkin - the formations in the picture were formed in a day or so.

So? What is your point? Did science determine this, or was it through religion?

 

[grannymh]

This Is a Long Response and I Apologize

I think there’s a lot of merit in what you’re saying when it comes to soul-body duality. The proper way to see the body and soul is that they are two aspects of one subject, the individual human person (who is always some particular person, John Smith Jr for example, and not just an instantiation of abstract “humanness.”) A soul without a body is not a whole person (which is why there is a Resurrection of the dead at the end of time.)Both the Gnostic-Manichean view (that the soul is good and the body bad) and the Cartesian view (that the soul is the ghost that runs the fleshy machine) are incorrect and in conflict with Catholicism proper. However inasmuch as the spiritual part of man transcends (although it also participates in) his physical part, and inasmuch as his spiritual faculties (intellect, free will) are what make him a moral being, the spirit is higher in the ontological order.

Now I think that the Church has always struggled with the Manichean demon, indeed, most of the popular heresies in the history of the Church have been some form of Gnosis or Manicheanism. The Church has ruled against this sort of thing in councils, but defeating an error on paper doesn’t mean you’ve really removed it from people’s hearts. Augustine (who was himself a former Manichean,) was very hostile to sex after his conversion and held (I believe) that concupiscence made sex inherently sinful and that sex was the original sin… positions the Church rejected by the way.

Now if people are body and soul and Creation is good, a number of things follow. 1) The body and its natural functions are good and meaningful and 2) What we do with our bodies is not irrelevant, but may have a spiritual dimension as well. But if we have free will and it is possible for us to choose evil, then it is possible to do evil with our bodies. We cannot say “Well, it’s just my body” as if the body were a vacuum cleaner that we happen to be operating. One’s body is oneself just as one’s soul is oneself. They can’t be separated except by death. If I discipline my body (by forcing myself to go running or by refusing a tasty snack that I don’t really need) I am also disciplining my spirit (in this case, the will.)

Having established then that what we do with our bodies is, or can be, spiritually, morally important, let’s take a look the sex instinct which you feel we Catholics are unfair to. Rather than write a long essay here in the forum, I’ll include a link to C.S. Lewis discussion of sexual sin, which I think really sums up the issue well. philosophyforlife.com/mc15.htm

I realize I haven’t responded to everything you said, but I want to establish first that Catholicism is not “anti-sex” as you imagine. It is the misuse of sex which is anti-sex.

In addition, Cartesian (extreme) dualism treats spiritual and matter as being separate. With this view, it is easy to see how the spiritual soul can be left out of any discussion regarding the human species.

Because Adam and Eve would be the first recorded humans with an intimate unification of soul/body, rational/corporeal/ spirit/matter, they present a serious challenge to the philosophy of materialism which drives current science.

Darwin’s position, that all reality is material, is unable to address the uniqueness of the human species. Instead of expanding the points of view to include both the material and non-material reality of humanity, the distinguishing uniqueness of the human species was eliminated. Consequently, man was considered a material being, an animal with higher degrees of certain abilities. The reasoning was that science, by definition, was limited to the natural world. This definition was then used to exclude the non-material, spiritual soul.

The reality is that there is only one species which was so loved by God, that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity became human in order to reconcile humanity with its Creator. It is because of the unique unity of the human species, that the supreme gift of Christ’s death on the cross is the sacrifice for all for all time.

The assurance that all humans benefit from Christ’s Gift of Salvation is that we all descended from the real, original, sole parents, Adam and Eve.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is meant for eternal life.

 

[buffalo]

So? What is your point? Did science determine this, or was it through religion?

You have an inadequate view of religion. Knowledge tells us this. We get knowledge in a few ways:

1. Revelation
2. Observation

The pursuit of knowledge is not the exclusive domain of modern science. Revelation illuminates our reasoning of our observations.

 

[larkin31]

In addition, Cartesian (extreme) dualism treats spiritual and matter as being separate. With this view, it is easy to see how the spiritual soul can be left out of any discussion regarding the human species.

Because Adam and Eve would be the first recorded humans with an intimate unification of soul/body, rational/corporeal/ spirit/matter, they present a serious challenge to the philosophy of materialism which drives current science.

Darwin’s position, that all reality is material…
This was NOT Darwin’s position. It is important to get your assumptions and premises right at the start of your argument.

Secondly, you assume that there is indeed a “soul” that is spiritual. That is nothing more than an assumption, a matter of faith. In a real argument you would need to establish this premise as true before continuing, not merely claim it.

 

[larkin31]

You have an inadequate view of religion. Knowledge tells us this. We get knowledge in a few ways:

1. Revelation
2. Observation

The pursuit of knowledge is not the exclusive domain of modern science. Revelation illuminates our reasoning of our observations.

You did not answer my question.

I will ask you again: What told you this, religion or science (that the deposits were formed in a day)? Was it some other form of special revelation? I asked you which one you used to get this information. It is a simple answer, I would imagine.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

here is part of the document you have linked:

I already have objections to the assumptions here, which lack subtlety and detail. This is constructed upon a series of “or” statements that are not all true. The most accurate depiction of the reality may be that BOTH conditions are SOMEWHAT true. Moreover, the statement that “the biological purpose of sex is children” is an overstatement, and over simplification, and an entire argument about the morality of human sexuality cannot be built from it. It is very clear that the intimacy of sexual contact builds trust and connection between the mating pair, and this, too, may have a strong evolutionary (biological) advantage in terms of encouraging cooperation and support for survival. Human relationships are quite complex, human pairing and families are also very complex, and to reduce sexuality only to reproduction is to ignore other positive social aspects of the behavior that are also “biological” in origin and may be positively selected for through evolution.

Oh dear. The Catholic church does teach that sex has both a unitive and pro-creative dimension. Unfortunately Lewis doesn’t go into the its unitive aspect as much as I’d like, but I think that his example of the food striptease can be applied to the unitive dimension as well. Suppose we say that the unitive aspect of sex is primary…there is still something wrong with our sexual instinct, for it is activated by all sorts of things that would in fact lead to disaster. A man or woman, in order to love and be faithful to his or her spouse, cannot be swept away by the desire for sexual unity either since this sense can easily become fixed on someone who is not one’s spouse. If I am in love with two women and decide to be sexually united with both, I am actually being unfaithful to both since I will not decide and commit. However, my sexual instinct may very well persuade me that I’m not a faithless cur, but in fact that my love is too great for just one woman…or any number of other ridiculous rationalizations that go along with sex. I cannot have many women as sexual partners while expressing faithful love to any of them, but the sexual instinct is expansive in precisely this way. It doesn’t automatically line up with what is good for a unitive relationship that can really last.

Now we have other instincts (like the instinct to eat) which may be a little expansive and out of synch with our needs than they ought to be, but they are nowhere near the ‘natural’ misdirection of the sexual instinct. There is something different about this. Something has happened to drive a wedge between instinct (what one automatically feels/wants) and virtue (what is good for oneself.) This something is particularly evident in human sexuality. I agree with Lewis that sexual sins are not the worst sins by any stretch, but they can nevertheless be serious. One could argue that a Don Juan is far more hateful and does far more damage than the average armed robber, because he uses sex (an instrument of unitive love and mutual self-giving) as a means of taking what he want from others and giving nothing real back, of using others to satisfy his urges under the false pretense of love.

 

[larkin31]

Oh dear. The Catholic church does teach that sex has both a unitive and pro-creative dimension. Unfortunately Lewis doesn’t go into the its unitive aspect as much as I’d like, but I think that his example of the food striptease can be applied to the unitive dimension as well. Suppose we say that the unitive aspect of sex is primary…there is still something wrong with our sexual instinct, for it is activated by all sorts of things that would in fact lead to disaster. A man or woman, in order to love and be faithful to his or her spouse, cannot be swept away by the desire for sexual unity either since this sense can easily become fixed on someone who is not one’s spouse. If I am in love with two women and decide to be sexually united with both, I am actually being unfaithful to both since I will not decide and commit. However, my sexual instinct may very well persuade me that I’m not a faithless cur, but in fact that my love is too great for just one woman…or any number of other ridiculous rationalizations that go along with sex. I cannot have many women as sexual partners while expressing faithful love to any of them, but the sexual instinct is expansive in precisely this way. It doesn’t automatically line up with what is good for a unitive relationship that can really last.

Now we have other instincts (like the instinct to eat) which may be a little expansive and out of synch with our needs than they ought to be, but they are nowhere near the ‘natural’ misdirection of the sexual instinct. There is something different about this. Something has happened to drive a wedge between instinct (what one automatically feels/wants) and virtue (what is good for oneself.) This something is particularly evident in human sexuality. I agree with Lewis that sexual sins are not the worst sins by any stretch, but they can nevertheless be serious. One could argue that a Don Juan is far more hateful and does far more damage than the average armed robber, because he uses sex (an instrument of unitive love and mutual self-giving) as a means of taking what he want from others and giving nothing real back, of using others to satisfy his urges under the false pretense of love.

You really only discuss infidelity here, and some other reference to “virtue,” which you do not define. I am not arguing for infidelity. This is an easy case, and the discouragement of infidelity is not necessarily excessive, or repressive, or neurotic.

But sex without procreation? Even among married couples?

Sex between consenting unmarried adult partners?

The wrong of masturbation?

Sex and union long predate the institution of marriage and the Judeo traditions. And humans survived just fine.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

here is part of the document you have linked:

I already have objections to the assumptions here, which lack subtlety and detail. This is constructed upon a series of “or” statements that are not all true. The most accurate depiction of the reality may be that BOTH conditions are SOMEWHAT true. Moreover, the statement that “the biological purpose of sex is children” is an overstatement, and over simplification, and an entire argument about the morality of human sexuality cannot be built from it. It is very clear that the intimacy of sexual contact builds trust and connection between the mating pair, and this, too, may have a strong evolutionary (biological) advantage in terms of encouraging cooperation and support for survival. Human relationships are quite complex, human pairing and families are also very complex, and to reduce sexuality only to reproduction is to ignore other positive social aspects of the behavior that are also “biological” in origin and may be positively selected for through evolution.

With respect to sex and evolution, first of all I would like to point out that anyone who spends anytime reading evolutionary literature is overwhelming struck by how much emphasis it puts on the sex instinct as the reproductive instinct. Certainly sociobologists also emphasize the role of sex in bonding and encouraging human cooperation, but in general the emphasis is on sex as an instinct for passing on as many genes as possible. Indeed, it is not uncommon to encounter the claim, both that sex has evolved for pair-bonding (because that is the best way to ensure that one’s genes are passed on etc) and the contradictory claim that men are promiscuous because having many partners is the best way to pass on one’s genes.

Thankfully, the latter doctrine has come under scrutiny lately: livescience.com/culture/090424-sos-roles.html

In any event, sex is clearly emotionally bonding and for procreation. The Catholic faith stresses both as components of a sexual relationship that is in conformity with natural law (and I’m using the term ‘natural law’ in it’s philosophical sense meaning the prescriptive law of ethical behavior given man’s nature.)

 

[grannymh]

This was NOT Darwin’s position. It is important to get your assumptions and premises right at the start of your argument.

Secondly, you assume that there is indeed a “soul” that is spiritual. That is nothing more than an assumption, a matter of faith. In a real argument you would need to establish this premise as true before continuing, not merely claim it.

Describing Darwin’s position as being materialistic regarding the human species is simply a statement which can be verified by the fact that he used empirical science or if you prefer he used natural science.

Of course, I am assuming that the human species is unique in that its nature is spiritual/material. I am assuming quite a bit about the human species. So what?
Readers can decide for themselves if they wish to accept or not accept these assumptions.

I’m not writing some kind of a real argument so why do I need a premise to make statements which are wide open so that people can decide for themselves? All I need to do is to be reasonably sure that my assumption or my claim or whatever you want to call my statements is reasonably true.

You are free to give your opinions about Adam and Eve which seems to me to be the purpose of this thread. If you wish to say that a human being’s spiritual soul " is nothing more than an assumption, a matter of faith." that is a matter of free speech.

Genesis leads me to recognize the spiritual soul in Adam which is why I consider him a true, real, fully complete human being. Catholic Church teaching confirms that Adam is real. That is good enough for this old granny who is approaching death.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

 

[larkin31]

Describing Darwin’s position as being materialistic regarding the human species is simply a statement which can be verified by the fact that he used empirical science or if you prefer he used natural science.

Darwin includes the possibility of God as first creator in his Origin of the Species. You should know that. It helps to characterize these things correctly.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

I read your encyclopedia entry.

Here is a conclusion from an assessment of Wolley’s discovery of flood evidence:

from the National Center for Science education (an evolution and teaching site)
[The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education](from the National Center for Science education (an evolution and teaching site) The Flood: Mesopotamian Archaeological Evidence | National Center for Science Education)

Woolley did find flood sediments, but they are too early for most Biblical possibilities, and much too local. The other flood evidence in the same valley comes from different times. And of course, no one denies that both the Euphrates and the Tigris were capable of major flooding. No one suggests that there have never been big floods that could turn into myths and cautionary tales.

Thanks, I didn’t see this before.

 

[buffalo]

You did not answer my question.

I will ask you again: What told you this, religion or science (that the deposits were formed in a day)? Was it some other form of special revelation? I asked you which one you used to get this information. It is a simple answer, I would imagine.

Asking the question. And then having an open mind to the possibilities.

 

[grannymh]

Darwin includes the possibility of God as first creator in his Origin of the Species. You should know that. It helps to characterize these things correctly.

I do know that and it seems to me that the actual quote, which I believe is at the end, is a bit more vague.

Don’t agnostics include the possibility of God?

I know some do. The possibility of God is part of Darwin’s individual outlook on life which of course is a good way. Regardless, the possibility of God is not part of Darwin’s natural science approach.

However, the proof is in the pudding --which is what I pointed out. There are no branches on Darwin’s “tree of life” named “possibility of God.” On the other hand, the Catholic Church goes beyond possibilities and theories and says very clearly that Adam and Eve are the real parents of the human race.

Blessings,
granny

The quest for knowledge is worthy of the adventures of the journey.

 

[Rothbardcatholi]

You really only discuss infidelity here, and some other reference to “virtue,” which you do not define. I am not arguing for infidelity. This is an easy case, and the discouragement of infidelity is not necessarily excessive, or repressive, or neurotic.

But sex without procreation? Even among married couples?

Sex between consenting unmarried adult partners?

The wrong of masturbation?

Sex and union long predate the institution of marriage and the Judeo traditions. And humans survived just fine.

What I am discussing are the conditions necessary in order for sex to be properly ordered towards its purpose, which is the building up of a family. Sex merely for the fun of it without a lifelong commitment divorces the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect. Sex merely for procreation without regard for an emotional and spiritual union of the spouses reduces human sexuality to mere animal breeding and does not do justice to the needs of a human relationship.

“But sex without procreation? Even among married couples?” Most sex between married couples will not lead to procreation, however to deliberately thwart procreation (via contraceptives) is what is at issue. Just as it would be wrong to cut out the unitive aspect of sex solely in order to have a child, it is disordered to deliberately prevent procreation in order to have the fun of sex without the responsibility. The sexual act, by its very nature, is ordered towards the creation of a human life. That is one of its purposes.

“Sex between consenting unmarried adult partners?”…is telling a lie with your body. Sex by its nature cements and helps create and renew a bond of permanency between two people. But that permanency is only an empty gesture if it is not really permanent. Then you are just playing with sex, treating it like a toy. And of course, should the birth control fail, the resulting child is not a precious gift but an “accident” and a catastrophe, a problem that must be taken care of. Even if this doesn’t happen, you’re giving away your most intimate gift for no real cost.

“The wrong of masturbation?” Making allowance for the fact that this a very common sin
and that an individual’s culpability may be considerably lessoned by various circumstances (see CC 2352), it is still a serious sin in principle. Why? Because again it involves seeking the good of sexuality apart from the proper moral environment for sexuality. Sex is a means of self-giving. Having sex with yourself is a misuse of sex and it involves a person in a sexual fantasy world that is far removed from the demands of real love. Not to mention that this sin in particular erodes the power of the will. I’m sure you will cite to me irrelevant statistics about the percentage of the population who masturbate (which are about as enlightening as the percentage of people who admit to telling lies.)

Your last statement is indefensible on several counts:
“Sex and union long predate the institution of marriage and the Judeo traditions.” There is no way that you can make this claim. The earliest civilizations that we know of already have institutionalized marriage as do most contemporary primitive societies. Marriage of some kind or another is a universal human phenomenon. That sex predates Judaism is obvious, since Judaism is a rather late development in human history. So what?

“And humans survived just fine.” Even if I were to accept your claim that marriage post-dates “sex and union” confused, so what if they “survived just fine?” I don’t accept the thesis that the sole purpose of ethics is to aid in survival. Which by the way, brings me to the question of what is virtue.

"[Virtue] signifies a habit superadded to a faculty of the soul, disposing it to elicit with readiness acts conformable to our rational nature. “Virtue”, says Augustine, “is a good habit consonant with our nature.” (newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm)

As human beings, we are rational animals. That is what distinguishes us most fundamentally from the animals, namely the ability to reason and to choose to act either in accordance with reason or against it. It is below a person’s dignity (and contrary to proper love of oneself and of others) to be enslaved to his passions. Sex is something good that we can make use of in those situations in which it fulfills its real purposes, which is to say, a lifelong commitment which is open to new life.

 

[larkin31]

What I am discussing are the conditions necessary in order for sex to be properly ordered towards its purpose, which is the building up of a family. Sex merely for the fun of it without a lifelong commitment divorces the unitive aspect of sex from the procreative aspect. Sex merely for procreation without regard for an emotional and spiritual union of the spouses reduces human sexuality to mere animal breeding and does not do justice to the needs of a human relationship.

“But sex without procreation? Even among married couples?” Most sex between married couples will not lead to procreation, however to deliberately thwart procreation (via contraceptives) is what is at issue. Just as it would be wrong to cut out the unitive aspect of sex solely in order to have a child, it is disordered to deliberately prevent procreation in order to have the fun of sex without the responsibility. The sexual act, by its very nature, is ordered towards the creation of a human life. That is one of its purposes.

“Sex between consenting unmarried adult partners?”…is telling a lie with your body. Sex by its nature cements and helps create and renew a bond of permanency between two people. But that permanency is only an empty gesture if it is not really permanent. Then you are just playing with sex, treating it like a toy. And of course, should the birth control fail, the resulting child is not a precious gift but an “accident” and a catastrophe, a problem that must be taken care of. Even if this doesn’t happen, you’re giving away your most intimate gift for no real cost.

“The wrong of masturbation?” Making allowance for the fact that this a very common sin
and that an individual’s culpability may be considerably lessoned by various circumstances (see CC 2352), it is still a serious sin in principle. Why? Because again it involves seeking the good of sexuality apart from the proper moral environment for sexuality. Sex is a means of self-giving. Having sex with yourself is a misuse of sex and it involves a person in a sexual fantasy world that is far removed from the demands of real love. Not to mention that this sin in particular erodes the power of the will. I’m sure you will cite to me irrelevant statistics about the percentage of the population who masturbate (which are about as enlightening as the percentage of people who admit to telling lies.)

Your last statement is indefensible on several counts:
“Sex and union long predate the institution of marriage and the Judeo traditions.” There is no way that you can make this claim. The earliest civilizations that we know of already have institutionalized marriage as do most contemporary primitive societies. Marriage of some kind or another is a universal human phenomenon. That sex predates Judaism is obvious, since Judaism is a rather late development in human history. So what?

“And humans survived just fine.” Even if I were to accept your claim that marriage post-dates “sex and union” confused, so what if they “survived just fine?” I don’t accept the thesis that the sole purpose of ethics is to aid in survival. Which by the way, brings me to the question of what is virtue.

"[Virtue] signifies a habit superadded to a faculty of the soul, disposing it to elicit with readiness acts conformable to our rational nature. “Virtue”, says Augustine, “is a good habit consonant with our nature.” (newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm)

As human beings, we are rational animals. That is what distinguishes us most fundamentally from the animals, namely the ability to reason and to choose to act either in accordance with reason or against it. It is below a person’s dignity (and contrary to proper love of oneself and of others) to be enslaved to his passions. Sex is something good that we can make use of in those situations in which it fulfills its real purposes, which is to say, a lifelong commitment which is open to new life.

I appreciate all these replies. They conform well to Catholic teachings on the subject.