Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[Pete_1]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Start reading:

Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Evangelium vitae
To the Bishops
Priests and Deacons
Men and Women religious
lay Faithful
and all People of Good Will
on the Value and Inviolability
of Human Life

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

Life is supernatural. It has a supernatual beginning and a supernatural ending. Life belongs to God. It is not to be made profane or perverted. We are not to play God and usurp the definition of “sexual morality” to our own, flawed, liking.

 

[Mike_Dye]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

There are so many flaws in your thinking that even the most unversed in Catholic moral understanding would not waste their time responding. You simply need to come up with better arguments.

 

[agangbern]

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy?

Contraception is a manifestation of rebellion against God! For Christ came that “you may have life, and have it more abundantly.”.
But now here comes you wanting to prevent life! Rebelliousness is a scheme of satan!

 

[marleighmartine]

The one’s speaking so vehemently against moral sexuality are the ones trying to find fault in it so as not to have to give it up

 

[Pete_1]

There are so many flaws in your thinking that even the most unversed in Catholic moral understanding would not waste their time responding. You simply need to come up with better arguments.

This is no way to argue. If there are so many flaws in my thinking I ask you to humour me and show me my error. You cannot simply state that I am wrong.

On a side note, if Catholic morality is so plainly the truth then why are there virtually no modern secular philosophers that embrace its supposedly indubitable foundations? Catholic morality is based on logic not theology and secular philosophers seek the truth in the same way that theistic ones do. Why then is the Catholic view so disreputable today, perhaps it is because its proofs are unsound.

 

[Ender]

Catholic morality is based on logic not theology and secular philosophers seek the truth in the same way that theistic ones do.

This is just fundamentally wrong. “Catholic morality” does not exist any more than do dragons or unicorns.

The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio 7)

*As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. *(Veritatis Splendor 95)

Ender

 

[Pete_1]

This is just fundamentally wrong. “Catholic morality” does not exist any more than do dragons or unicorns.

The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith. (Fides et Ratio 7)

*As Teacher, she never tires of proclaiming the moral norm … The Church is in no way the author or the arbiter of this norm. *(Veritatis Splendor 95)

Ender

Perhaps I am missing your point. Catholicism allegedly supports it moral prohibitions based on natural law, a moral theory that can work in the context of atheism. Thus the justification for Catholic morality is not theological but purely logical.

Thus secular philopsophers could use natural law as a basis for morality I do not know of any that do, this seems to suggest that it is unsound in some way.

 

[Linna]

I’m surprised any Catholic can even bring up the subject of “sexual morality” in the Catholic Chruch when it is now known most of the priests in seminary in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were homosexual. In our times we now know Catholic priests abused young boys and women and were protected by the Chruch. Are you sure you want to talk about Catholic sexual morality?

 

[Pete_1]

I’m surprised any Catholic can even bring up the subject of “sexual morality” in the Catholic Chruch when it is now known most of the priests in seminary in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were homosexual. In our times we now know Catholic priests abused young boys and women and were protected by the Chruch. Are you sure you want to talk about Catholic sexual morality?

Who are you addressing?

 

[Linna]

I’m addressing the issue of nonexistent sexual morality in the Catholic Church.

 

[Sarpedon]

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Have your read The Theology of the Body and Humanae Vitae?

Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Catholics can practice Natural Family Planning if there is sufficient reason to limit family size, such as finances, health, and perhaps overpopulation. There is significant debate as to whether increasing population actually causes the problems we observe or whether other things like the distribution of resources are to blame.

There is nothing wrong with limiting family size for a good reason. The difference between NFP (abstaining during fertile periods) and contraception is that NFP acknowledges that sex cannot be disconnected from the reality of procreation. Sex is tied in to both the unitive aspect and the procreative aspect.

Catholic theology says that if there is a legitimate reason to limit family size, there is nothing wrong with doing so. At the same time, if this is done, the couple cannot partake of the “fun” part. It is immoral to pursue pleasure by changing the natural physical functions created by God. This is the same reason why it is immoral to seek pleasure by changing the natural function of the brain through drugs.

Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love?

Depending on the degree, probably not for people with normal and healthy bodies. Romantic activity causes a release of hormones that act upon the brain to induce bonding activity. In women this hormone is called oxytocin. I don’t know if a hormone in men has been discovered, but it is reasonable to assume that there must be a hormone of some sort.

Of course, some people may have little reaction because their hormones have been released so often to different people that they have little effect. In other words, the hormonal bonding gets “spread thin” among various people. This is often the case for individuals who are sexually or romantically active with numerous different people at different times (i.e. the actor in your example). At the same time, this dulled effect is the result of prior objectively bad actions. In other words, some actors can kiss without feeling “love,” but only because they have already been damaged by not controlling their bonding hormones.

I’m not saying that it would be impossible to morally kiss in a movie. Sexual responses vary among people, so it is perfectly possible that for some individuals a kiss would not lead them to a release of bonding hormones. At the same time, there reaches a point, such as intense, prolonged kissing, where most healthy people will have a hormone release.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

Catholic morality is not pleasurable in the short run. That’s why so few people follow it. The benefits come later after much sacrifice.

 

[Pete_1]

Catholic theology says that if there is a legitimate reason to limit family size, there is nothing wrong with doing so. At the same time, if this is done, the couple cannot partake of the “fun” part. It is immoral to pursue pleasure by changing the natural physical functions created by God.

But here you assume that 1.) we were created by God - which no atheist will accept and:
2.) God wishes us never to act against/contrary to our natural functions.

2.) Is absurd.

This is the same reason why it is immoral to seek pleasure by changing the natural function of the brain through drugs.

Or perverting the natural faculty of hearing by wearing ear plugs? It is not the case that it is always wrong to act against a natural function.

Depending on the degree, probably not for people with normal and healthy bodies. Romantic activity causes a release of hormones that act upon the brain to induce bonding activity. In women this hormone is called oxytocin. I don’t know if a hormone in men has been discovered, but it is reasonable to assume that there must be a hormone of some sort.

Of course, some people may have little reaction because their hormones have been released so often to different people that they have little effect. In other words, the hormonal bonding gets “spread thin” among various people. This is often the case for individuals who are sexually or romantically active with numerous different people at different times (i.e. the actor in your example). At the same time, this dulled effect is the result of prior objectively bad actions. In other words, some actors can kiss without feeling “love,” but only because they have already been damaged by not controlling their bonding hormones.

Thanks this is very interesting.

I’m not saying that it would be
impossible to morally kiss in a movie. Sexual responses vary among people, so it is perfectly possible that for some individuals a kiss would not lead them to a release of bonding hormones. At the same time, there reaches a point, such as intense, prolonged kissing, where most healthy people will have a hormone release.

Catholic morality is not pleasurable in the short run. That’s why so few people follow it. The benefits come later after much sacrifice.

But for the philosopher the truth is more valuable than pleasure.

 

[Spirithound]

I’m surprised any Catholic can even bring up the subject of “sexual morality” in the Catholic Chruch when it is now known most of the priests in seminary in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s were homosexual. In our times we now know Catholic priests abused young boys and women and were protected by the Chruch. Are you sure you want to talk about Catholic sexual morality?

NO!!! Most priests are NOT homosexual. Most priests are NOT pedophiles. A child is more likely to be abused by a stepfather, or basically any other sector of society, other than Catholic priests.

 

[Spirithound]

But for the philosopher the truth is more valuable than pleasure.

Then perhaps we have no philosophers left.

I encourage you to read Humanae Vitae, or at least to look up Pope Paul VI’s four predictions. I think they have come true in spectacular fashion (not a good thing…)

 

[Pete_1]

Then perhaps we have no philosophers left.

Isn’t it more likley that Catholic morality is false rather than postulating that virtually every academic philosopher is somehow blinded by lust.

I encourage you to read Humanae Vitae, or at least to look up Pope Paul VI’s four predictions. I think they have come true in spectacular fashion (not a good thing…)

 

[timotheos]

The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? What good does it destroy? It seems that this basic principle is indefensible unless one appeals to some fallacious medieval relic of a teleology. Contraception seems to be harmless and in good sense if one does not want to cause overpopulation.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

More sophisticated defences remain unconvincing ‘procreation is a basic human good, and one should not act to prevent something good from occurring’. This defence fails too. Why should I respect every basic good in every act?

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

All purely physical acts (it seems) only subjectively create emotions. How can a purely physical act objectively cause an emotion? Cannot actors kiss one another without feeling love? Then why cannot actors engage in intercourse without feeling love? Perhaps subjectively most of the time this is not possible, but it does not follow that it is never possible.

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

Pete,

Catholic sexual morality, like Catholicism itself, is not, and will never be, a philosophy. It will never make “sense” within an atheistic, secular humanist worldview. Catholicism is first and foremost Christ-centric, in the setting of salvation history in its entirety. Ignore this reality and the rest, not just sexual morality but social justice also, is as you put it, indefensible.

-Tim

 

[Sarpedon]

But here you assume that 1.) we were created by God - which no atheist will accept and:
2.) God wishes us never to act against/contrary to our natural functions.

2.) Is absurd.

I’m not talking directly to atheists. If God does not exist, then obviously morality is whatever we want it to be.

Or perverting the natural faculty of hearing by wearing ear plugs? It is not the case that it is always wrong to act against a natural function.

It is only acceptable to work against God-created natural functions in certain situations. In your example, it would not be immoral to use ear plugs to deaden sound in order to aid sleeping. You are removing a faculty that God has created, but you are removing it for a good reason. If you were using the ear plugs for a bad reason, such as trying to block out the sound of someone telling you something you morally need to know but you do not want to know, this is immoral.

In simple terms, blocking out something that God wants us to have is only acceptable if there is a legitimate reason for changing the status quo. In regards to contraception, there is never a morally acceptable reason to block out the procreative part.

The reason that the procreative aspect cannot be blocked out is that God has created human sexuality to act as a demonstration of God’s love in the Trinity. The two aspects cannot be separated. You can forgo both (as in NFP), but you cannot have either aspect on its own.

Obviously, contraception is based on Catholic teachings that are not shared by non-Catholics. This is why dialogue between atheists and Catholics usually starts at the fundamental level, such as the existence of God. Some of the doctrines, such as contraception, are based off of other doctrine that is not mutually shared.

But for the philosopher the truth is more valuable than pleasure.

Who can claim to be a true philosopher?

 

[PJM]

Pete_;4777993]The more I look into the philosophical justification for Catholic sexual morality the more I realise Catholic morality is based upon perhaps indefensible foundations.

Not even close to being true my dear friend:blush:

Firstly I have never read a single convincing defence of the most basic premises of Catholic sexual ethics and believe me I have looked.

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI? ot JP II The Gospel of Life? Both can be “Googled” If not do so, you’ll likely gain a better undersranding.

Firstly the idea that sexual activity ought to always be ‘open to life’ is frankly ridiculous. What possible reason could anyone have for suggesting that contraception is immoral, whom does it harm? …

You, your sex partner and the very fabric of a moral society.Read on for more.

Common defences of Catholic morality fail miserably. ‘The natural end of the genitals is procreation’ so what? Why shouldn’t I act against a natural end, where is the harm? Where is the loss of good?

I’m going to continue to be simplestic here, but I can expound, if you’d like me to?

Is there a God? Yes

Can the existance of God be proven? Yes!

What is God? God is Spirit and TRUTH, God is also, and this is key… CREATOR of everything and everyone.

What else does God do? God both goverens and keeps (litteraly) all of His Creations in existance.

**What are the consequences of this ** (proveable) fact? It obligates the only created beings with Minds. wills, intellects and Souls, to acknowledge God and to obey God.

So how does this relate to me a sex?

Commandments are only topical heading, not the entire list of “do’s and don’ts.”

For example “thou shall not kill” not only forbids KILLING, but physically PREVENTING a Life (Only God has that right) is seen as the same degree of evil as, for example, Abortion, which by the way is an all to commom consequence of casual sex. (Yea, it hurts others, actually it kills them!)

**
Is there any biblical evidence of this?** How about Mt. 5: 7 "**27 "You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 f your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 **And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off ****anGuess what is being implied here, my friend? Personal sex!

The second doctrine concerning sex, that it is unitive perhaps is more convincing. But for me it is hard to accept that objectively a physical act is somehow and act of love as if the two are somehow bound – tied together in the very laws of the universe.

Actually I like to think of the “Unitive aspects” as payment for doing God’s Will. I think of it more a “marriage cement.” And I have had (so far) 41 years of seeing it WORK

I like Catholic sexual morality, but it genuinley seems unjustifiable. Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality? Surely this cannot purely because they have ‘hardened their hearts’

Yea, actually I have. the word you should key in on is “secular,” which if I understand, means “worldly?”

John Chapter 17:
“9* I am praying for them; I am not praying for the world but for those whom thou hast given me, for they are thine; 10 all mine are thine, and thine are mine, and I am glorified in them. 11* And now I am no more in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to thee. Holy Father, keep them in thy name, which thou hast given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12* While I was with them, I kept them in thy name, which thou hast given me; I have guarded them, and none of them is lost but the son of perdition, that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14* I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I do not pray that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that thou shouldst keep them from the evil one. * 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth. 18 As thou didst send me into the world, so I have sent them into the world. 19 And for their sake I consecrate myself, that”

May God bless you, and enlighten you, may He grant you understanding and give you the humility to know His Divine Will, who as the giver of these gifts, has every right, to limit there use.

 

[Pete_1]

I’m not talking directly to atheists. If God does not exist, then obviously morality is whatever we want it to be.

The Catholic church teaches that morality is not dependent on religion.

It is only acceptable to work against God-created natural functions in certain situations. In your example, it would not be immoral to use ear plugs to deaden sound in order to aid sleeping. You are removing a faculty that God has created, but you are removing it for a good reason. If you were using the ear plugs for a bad reason, such as trying to block out the sound of someone telling you something you morally need to know but you do not want to know, this is immoral.

In simple terms, blocking out something that God wants us to have is only acceptable if there is a legitimate reason for changing the status quo. In regards to contraception, there is never a morally acceptable reason to block out the procreative part.

So for you a good nights sleep is a better reason than overpopulation and the consequent death of millions for ‘perverting a faculty’?

Even if overpopulation was not an issue the unitive aspect of sex is still a good. Why shouldn’t one pervert the faculty for the reason of expressing love. Surely this a noble end and a better reason than a good night’s sleep.

The reason that the procreative aspect cannot be blocked out is that God has created human sexuality to act as a demonstration of God’s love in the Trinity. The two aspects cannot be separated. You can forgo both (as in NFP), but you cannot have either aspect on its own.

Obviously, contraception is based on Catholic teachings that are not shared by non-Catholics. This is why dialogue between atheists and Catholics usually starts at the fundamental level, such as the existence of God. Some of the doctrines, such as contraception, are based off of other doctrine that is not mutually shared.

This is not true, Catholic morality is justified by natural law it is not intended to rest on theological premises.