Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[geekborj]

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’

Simple: If you allow human sex to be equal to animal sex and reproduction, you have:

1. lowered the dignity of the two parties
2. increased the probability of “using” each other for “enjoyment” sake: sex without love is a very selfish idea
3. popularize the flawed idea of happiness
4. increase the frequency of family problems
5. increase the probability of having STDs or STIs (read: condoms are not 100% sure at all even if you use it right), don’t argue “protective barriers” because the other reasons above prevails.
   The most important is this:
   *** God’s relationship with Man is likened to marriage covenant. Within this covenant, there is nobody else but the two contracting parties. Within this covenant, only the two contracting parties can become one – both spirit/soul and body.

If you are in doubt, ask women about how they really and truly feel about having sex with whom they never liked. Catholics have been preventing humans to look at each other like a sexual organ with brains!

The idea is not medieval, it has been there since Christ.

Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality?

Does this make the idea absurd? Contemporary philosophers are not always correct. The Church has been thinking about that for about 2000 years old now. Your contemporary philosophers barely can live 5% of that time frame.

 

[thegame]

Pete:

I understand your point…all too well.

In every discussion, either with other denominations or with secularists - its easy to see how the Catholic arguement is more comprehensive, and more consistent, EXCEPT when sex is involved.

I “think with the church (sentire cum ecclesia),” and gain value from its teachings in this area, but am also pained at what I’m forced to accept:

Someone asked me if they should really tell their 15yr old son that masterbating is a mortal sin?
Medical studies show that decreased sexual activity can lead to higher prostate cancer rates, so why are priests celebate?
I convinced a friend to become Catholic, so he and his Catholic wife could get married in the church: so his first institutional exposure is an NFP class taught by a 60yr old woman - now his entire motivation is destroyed by some of the absurd things she said.

My sympathy is with you. I’m a die hard Catholic, and anything but a relativist…but I understand. The church doesn’t get that it loses cred in other realms, because people care about this one so much.

 

[mdaeges]

I think we all need to understand the influence of movies, television, the internet, etc. when it comes to our outlook on sex in relation to the Catholic Church. Many people think that the Church’s position on certain issues relating to sex are outdated. I think this comes from what we are exposed to on tv, the movies, etc. (pop culture) The Church’s position on sex and everything it entails has been well thought out, prayerfully considered, and extensive. Pope John Paul II wrote about this in his Theology of the Body document. Christopher West has made great efforts to relate this document in laymen’s terms. This position is very counter-cultural and hard to follow at times. However, I believe the Church got right. The main force moving in the Church is the Holy Spirit. Jesus us the gift of the Holy Spirit to know what to say and how to say it. One of the most important jobs the pope has is to pray and try to hear where the Holy Spirit is leading him on all issues relating to Catholics. I believe that is what John Paul the II did. I know that it is not easy to avoid sex until one is married and I know that it is not easy to say no to contraception. But, it is what the Church teaches, and for good reason. Today, many people are learning about sex from television and the media. If you have learned your values from these sources then the Church’s teachings are going to seem foreign. However, one needs to step back from the present and consider history. Being a good Christian is counter-cultural in and of itself. It is not suprising that the Church’s teachings on sex are counter-cultural. But, I believer they are the truth and sometimes we have to move forward, even when we don’t completely understand certain teachings and trust that God will lead us to him through the Church.

 

[Charles_22]

By all means, please enlighten me as to the detrimental effects of my considering matters sexual independently of religious teachings. Thus far, I have noticed nothing but the benefit of increased knowledge and wisdom through thought and experience, but hey - what would I know?

I do believe we have covered that before. Have I not talked for the longest in just this very way? You just haven’t been convinced, or better yet, still don’t see it as enough incentive.

Your convoluted attack proves only that you misunderstood my intention. If you look back to the original post to which I responded, it says, and I quote:

They would have sex in their offices during break times or even during working hours. What force would there be shall stop them from doing there thing anywhere and any time?

It should be clear from this that Agangbern is suggesting that the only thing restraining the libidos of every person is their faith in God - not the fact that they might be occupied by other activites or other thoughts, or maybe even realise that their actions might not be appropriate for the situation. There is far more to life than sex, or thinking about sex, even if you take God out of the equation.

But if you think it’s rational to imagine atheists having sex on their office desks during work hours, then by all means assume that I am engaging in a paltry point-scoring exercise. But then again, perhaps the poster of the above would do well to consider the impression made by an argument before making such patently ridiculous assertions.

We’re going in circles and I did investigate the matter in the first place, even if I didn’t quote all but your claim. I had that impression right from the start what you were doing when it came to this accusation that he thought only of sexual sin, instead of sin altogether possible in a godless world. Maybe you should read what you wrote, and see just how easily this impression came across, and then in future be more careful? It’s a common tactic used by those basically promoting sexual license, and I’m sure we’ve all seen it before. It’s so common, it’s really a bore.

 

[paulacanthe]

I have read this thread with much interest, and can only add a personal experience and try to explain why I have moved from a similar attitude to the OP to one which is more in line with Catholic teaching.

In my early twenties, despite being a cradle catholic, I reasoned (if you can call it that) that there was no harm in using contraception and having premarital intercourse. I was an educated adult, contraception was reliable…what was the big deal, right???

I then discovered a fundamental truth: man made technology is fallible There is no such thing as perfect contraception, and therefore every time there was a chance (although very small) of new life being conceived. My arrogant belief that man had moved on from 2000 years ago to the extent of superceding God was shattered.

It was a difficult time in my life, and I am still living with the consequences of it now, paying for my arrogance with much unhappiness. But if ever there was a case of God showing mercy and kindness, this is it.

Firstly, I was shown that the rules of the Church, even though we may not understand or agree intellectually with them, are rules of love and compassion. They work with our humanity, weakness and partial knowledge and show us the way forward. We may not always understand, but that is not the point: we should, like little children, obey. We may think we are in control of our fertility and our sexual appetites, but time and time again we show we cannot do so on our own, without God.

Secondly, was there ever a more merciful Father than the one who showed me the error of my ways by blessing me with a beautiful, healthy child? I feel humbled.

Sexuality and procreation are some of the most powerful aspects of our humanity and deserve respect. Why exclude the will of God here of all places?

 

[Charles_22]

By all means, please enlighten me as to the detrimental effects of my considering matters sexual independently of religious teachings. Thus far, I have noticed nothing but the benefit of increased knowledge and wisdom through thought and experience, but hey - what would I know?

I do believe we have covered that before. Have I not talked for the longest in just this very way? You just haven’t been convinced, or better yet, still don’t see it as enough incentive. I’m not a walking encyclopedia, that’s all I have at this time.

Your convoluted attack proves only that you misunderstood my intention. If you look back to the original post to which I responded, it says, and I quote:

They would have sex in their offices during break times or even during working hours. What force would there be shall stop them from doing there thing anywhere and any time?

It should be clear from this that Agangbern is suggesting that the only thing restraining the libidos of every person is their faith in God - not the fact that they might be occupied by other activites or other thoughts, or maybe even realise that their actions might not be appropriate for the situation. There is far more to life than sex, or thinking about sex, even if you take God out of the equation.

But if you think it’s rational to imagine atheists having sex on their office desks during work hours, then by all means assume that I am engaging in a paltry point-scoring exercise. But then again, perhaps the poster of the above would do well to consider the impression made by an argument before making such patently ridiculous assertions.

We’re going in circles and I did investigate the matter in the first place, even if I didn’t quote all but your claim. I had that impression right from the start what you were doing when it came to this accusation that he thought only of sexual sin, instead of sin altogether possible in a godless world. Maybe you should read what you wrote, and see just how easily this impression came across, and then in future be more careful? It’s a common tactic used by those basically promoting sexual license, and I’m sure we’ve all seen it before. It’s so common, it’s really a bore.

Oh. one last thing about this spinning wheel, have you bothered to wonder just what level of a godless world agangbern was talking about? Recall how there is a level where without God we aren’t even born, so just what level is it that would turn out those possible circumstances of office atheists? One without any laws? One with pagan laws (since their gods aren’t the true one), what? No laws but a created existence?

Since the thread is about sex, he is thinking in those terms. If it had not been about sex then there’s a good chance he referred to it because the sexual drive is often considered one of the more powerful. I think there’s a good case for unrestricted murder in a godless world too, far eclipsing what we have now, but, as you no doubt are well aware, the thread isn’t about other sin so much, and so his ‘ban sex obsession’ or whatever kick you think he’s on misleads you. I frankly don’t think you were misled at all, you were just following the same ol’ tactic we’ve seen time and again, but I think I’m through here nonetheless.

 

[PJM]

=Roy5;4824438]A FEW SIMPLE THOUGHTS RE CONTRACEPTION

1. The Catholic position on abortion is generally good, though there are extreme instances when abortion may be acceptable as the lesser evil. For example, if a mother of several children is likely to die if she delivers another baby, it can be argued that her life should be saved so that she can raise her other children, etc.

Roy my friend, are you a non Catholic, or simply a Catholic  
who is unclear about what we teach and why?

The Position of the RCC does not afford this “option”
Why? Because all lives are equal. Age, responsibilities Ect.
do not factor in because of the Precence of Divine Providence.

God is, God must be in charge. That is an element of practice
of our Faith according to God’s Will. “Thy Will not mt will be
done”

1. However, the position of Catholicism on contraception is ridiculous. One of the supreme gifts of God is sexual relations between husbands and wives. It is an important glue - pardon the analogy - that can often serve as an expression of reconciliation between spouses. To essentially force couples to risk another child, when they may have as many as they can properly provide for already, is just silly.

Sorry about my first question. Your not a Catholic right?

Again you have the very best intentions, but completely lack an
proper understanding of the the RCC.

Roy, may I respectfully suggest that you read two additional 
documents. This is nevessary to gain a full and proper 
understanding of the RCC position on conterception and 
abortion.

Pope paul VI: *Humanae Vitae* **On Human Life**

Pope John Paul II *Evangelium Vitae* **Gospel of Life**

They are easy reading, and necessary for anyone and everyone
 who actually wishes to understand these critical, and highly 
 signifiant matters. Bouth can be downloaded online.

1. One special problem arises in Catholicism because this rule (disallowing artificial birth control) has been made by celibate men who know little if anything from first-hand experience as husbands. The notion that scripture condemns modern methods of birth control is absurd.

  Roy, I WISH it was that simple. It's not. It's God that you have
  a disagreement with, not His RCC. We're just the messangers!

1. The Catholic teaching against pre-marital sex is wise when dealing with teenagers and should be the norm. But today most couples who are older and are in steady relationships will indulge in sex. This may be unfortunate, but it is a reality with which the Church must deal.

   Once again your taking it out on the messanger. God made 
   this decission, NOT us! Please read then post:thumbsup:

1. The Church’s authority on matters sexual has been undermined in millions of minds by the scandalous behavior of priests and their bishops. Predatory priests who exploited children and youth should have been exposed and jailed instead of hidden and even moved from parish to parish! Their bishops who covered up are equally guilty.

   Finally you and I agree  :clapping: :extrahappy:

Keep the faith, but don’t make it a straight-jacket that imprisons instead of liberates!

   Roy, please read as I suggested and you will understand, it's
   anything but a "straight-jacket."

   God's special blessings my friend.

    Think about this. Why did God CREATE ME?

 

[catholic2dacore]

Hello Pete_

If you can, forget everything everyone here has said. This here will prove to you, in no uncertain terms, that the Catholic ‘indefensible’ position is irreproachable - Link(part1) (part2) - no need to thank me. The Catholic Church is guided by God my friend; the Holy Spirit will never allow the gates of hell to prevail (we’ve our Lord Jesus’ promise on that!) so don’t fear that any teachings are wrong - its impossible.

Yours in Christ,

God love you

(P.S. more free talks here on about every subject Sonitus Sanctus)

I see some people still haven’t listened to the official Catholic position and have instead chosen to believe their presumption of what that position is. Do listen to it, the talk given by Dr. Smith, those who hold it or not, as there are many insights in this that you might be unaware of.

Yours in Christ.

 

[Sair]

I do believe we have covered that before. Have I not talked for the longest in just this very way? You just haven’t been convinced, or better yet, still don’t see it as enough incentive.

I’m certainly not convinced that there have been any ‘detrimental’ effects of my attitudes to sexuality and sexual expression, nor am I convinced that the Catholic church has the authority to speak for all people, at all times and in all circumstances. You can’t presume to know what I think unless I tell you, nor can you presume that I have been damaged by my beliefs, any more than I can presume that you are damaged by yours.

We’re going in circles and I did investigate the matter in the first place, even if I didn’t quote all but your claim. I had that impression right from the start what you were doing when it came to this accusation that he thought only of sexual sin, instead of sin altogether possible in a godless world. Maybe you should read what you wrote, and see just how easily this impression came across, and then in future be more careful? It’s a common tactic used by those basically promoting sexual license, and I’m sure we’ve all seen it before. It’s so common, it’s really a bore.

You’re still trying - and in my view, failing - to explain how I was changing the subject or employing ‘underhanded’ and ‘cheap’ tactics in arguing against the supposition that only God can control people’s sexual behaviour. My argument centred upon the fact that there are many other things that can and do restrain people from acting inappropriately when it comes to sex. That you fail to grasp this essential point of my argument - the possibility that people can adhere to their own sexual morals - is no reason for you to denigrate and insult my means of expression (or at least tie yourself in knots in the attempt.)

 

[brentomistic]

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.

Clive Hamilton is a modern Australian ‘philosopher’. He is a former head of the Australia Institute - a thinktank sponsored by the Australian government. In 2008 he wrote a book entitled ‘The Freedom Paradox: Towards a Post-secular Ethics.’ I found this to be a very interesting read, especially considering he is not associated with the catholic church.

The synopsis is at www.clivehamilton.net.au

A radical reconsideration of the meaning of freedom and morality in the modern world. The past two centuries delivered individual and political freedoms that promised unprecedented opportunities for personal fulfilment. Yet citizens of affluent countries are encouraged to pursue lives of consumerism, endless choice and the pleasures of the body. Clive Hamilton argues that the paradox of modern consumer life is that we are deprived of our inner freedom by our very pursuit of our own desires. He turns to metaphysics to find a source of transformation that lies beyond the cultural, political and social philosophies that form the bedrock of contemporary western thought. His search takes him to an unexpected conclusion: that we cannot be truly free unless we commit ourselves to a moral life. The implications of this conclusion are profound, and they challenge many deeply held beliefs in modern secular society.

 

[Charles_22]

I see some people still haven’t listened to the official Catholic position and have instead chosen to believe their presumption of what that position is. Do listen to it, the talk given by Dr. Smith, those who hold it or not, as there are many insights in this that you might be unaware of.

Yours in Christ.

Yes, Dr Smith was on the Jupiter 2, you guys ought to listen!

I did listen to the whole thing BTW, but then I’m not of the atheistic viewpoint either.

 

[Charles_22]

I’m certainly not convinced that there have been any ‘detrimental’ effects of my attitudes to sexuality and sexual expression, nor am I convinced that the Catholic church has the authority to speak for all people, at all times and in all circumstances. You can’t presume to know what I think unless I tell you, nor can you presume that I have been damaged by my beliefs, any more than I can presume that you are damaged by yours.

Well you did tell me and what verbiage sprang forth was of an unconvincing nature. You can keep running semantical arguments all you want, it doesn’t change the fact what you did, but, then of course you want us to disbelieve what our eyes see on the matter. I just wonder how far you would had went with the lame reasoning had I not spotted it. You notice how agangbern didn’t respond to it. Maybe because it was below the belt? Nah, it couldn’t be possible.

You’re still trying - and in my view, failing - to explain how I was changing the subject or employing ‘underhanded’ and ‘cheap’ tactics in arguing against the supposition that only God can control people’s sexual behaviour. My argument centred upon the fact that there are many other things that can and do restrain people from acting inappropriately when it comes to sex. That you fail to grasp this essential point of my argument - the possibility that people can adhere to their own sexual morals - is no reason for you to denigrate and insult my means of expression (or at least tie yourself in knots in the attempt.)

Wow, why don’t you just drop it with me, aye? You resorted to that cheap tactic, and until you own up to it I’m done. I’ve just about exhausted all I can impart on this subject anyway, so it’s not like it will be a loss.

 

[Sair]

Well you did tell me and what verbiage sprang forth was of an unconvincing nature. You can keep running semantical arguments all you want, it doesn’t change the fact what you did, but, then of course you want us to disbelieve what our eyes see on the matter. I just wonder how far you would had went with the lame reasoning had I not spotted it. You notice how agangbern didn’t respond to it. Maybe because it was below the belt? Nah, it couldn’t be possible.Wow, why don’t you just drop it with me, aye? You resorted to that cheap tactic, and until you own up to it I’m done. I’ve just about exhausted all I can impart on this subject anyway, so it’s not like it will be a loss.

Actually, Agangbern did respond. Just didn’t get it.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but as it was you who levelled the accusation of cheap tactics, the burden of proof rests with you. If you’re happy to leave your accusation unproven and merely languishing in an excess of confusing verbiage, I am content with that too.

 

[Sair]

Sair,

I don’t know what happened to you that it has turned you off to the church, but I, too, was once away “from home” and have been so incredibly blessed to have found my way back. I know this is “off thread”, but I just wanted to share it with you.

Ultimately, what brought me back was acceptance. IF I was going to believe that Jesus was God made man and the reason He came to earth was to die for our sins so that WE may be reconciled with God, the Father. And IF I was going to believe that, than I had to believe everything he said was the TRUTH, otherwise, what was the point. For Jesus was either a liar, lunatic or the Lord. And IF I was going to believe that, than I had to believe that God, the Spirit, was going to protect this church established on earth, because Jesus said so. And IF I was going to believe that, than I had to believe that no matter what I thought or disagreed with, I had to be wrong. Do you know how difficult that is. But logically and reasonably, I cannot get to any other conclusion. Sure there is always the argument that the bible was written by men, interrupted by men and men are fallible. BUT going back to my reasoning, isn’t GOD, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient? Otherwise why would we consider him to be God?

To bring this right back to the subject of the thread - the OP’s claim that much of Catholic sexual morality is indefensible - I first posed my position on the subject by saying that, without reference to Catholic doctrine, there is a large amount of the Church’s sexual morality that indeed is indefensible. I maintain this position, as there has been nothing written in this thread that has challenged it. Everyone who has attempted to argue against my position has argued with reference to God.

Now, as far as the original poster is concerned, that may be enough to answer his questions. If you profess faith in Catholic doctrine, then you accept church teachings on matters of sex, and accept the reasons for them - namely, that any act of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity outside of marriage is offensive to God, and that any use of artificial birth control denies God’s (name removed by moderator)ut into procreation. That is the core of the church’s teaching. Without reference to God - and for those who don’t believe in God, or the Christian conception of God - considerations of sex are independent of considerations of their faith.

In an attempt to make some kind of connection with secular arguments, many have attempted to claim that non-marital sex (otherwise known as fornication, as distinct from adultery, which has the element of betrayal of trust attached) and the use of artificial birth control are psychologically damaging and emotionally alienating to all people who practice them. Certainly they are psychologically damaging if you are plagued with guilt and worry over whether or not you have offended God. Otherwise, I treat with a great deal of scepticism these people’s claims that they can know the effects of such actions upon every person who makes them, and in every circumstance.

As to what happened to me to cause me to leave the church, it was a long process of enlightenment. I won’t ever reconvert, because I would consider it a backward step. If there are waverers who read this forum, I know there are many faithful who would consider me the devil’s advocate, but there are many things worth thinking about before you decide whether or not to accept them. For example, it is impossible for me to believe that God can be at once omniscient, omnipotent, and good. Either he is not omnipotent nor omniscient, or he really has it in for us. But that, as it happens, is a subject for another thread.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Did you call me an idiot? I asked an honest question, I am not a troll.

I guess you and the moderator have me mixed up with some one else. I got a warning about calling your ideas idiotic but have gone over the posts time and time again (Something the Mods should try sometime) and for the life of me can’t find anything anywhere where I called you an idiot. I may think that but would never post it and never will. If I did post it, please point it out to me and to the mods and I will apologize.
You know what, You don’t even need to point it out I am sorry I made a point of challenging you for your complete slamming of what Catholics believe…It is way more important that your thoughts be heralded than the truth. AFTER ALL WE ALL NEED TO GET ALONG. Peace Brother and I will never challenge your thoughts again.

 

[Mike_Dye]

Besides who of us in these lowly forums could stand up to anyone of your advanced intelligence.Please mods recognize that I believe the poster that I am responding to is at the least far above the average poster and is really smart and everything. He is a cool guy. I like him

 

[paulacanthe]

Let me put this in entirely secular terms:

1. there is no such thing as perfect contraception: it (unlike the pope ) is not infallible. Accidents happen.
2. therefore, EVERY SINGLE TIME that you fornicate there is the risk of pregnancy, of kicking of a new life into existance.

So you should be able to look at each and every sexual partner and say right here and now I am prepared for you to become the father/mother of my child.

Then the question is, if the roll of the dice, it did not go your way, and a pregnancy occurred, what do you do?

If you are a woman you will live with the consequences of that pregnancy, whether carried to term or not, whether you raise the child yourself or not, for the rest of your life. You cannot turn back time to make yourself unpregnant, you cannot erase the reality of that life that was inside you.

If you are a man, you may walk away, and shirk your responsibilities. You may persuade the woman to have an abortion or give up her child. In either case, you are condemning somebody else to live alone with the consequences of a joint act. You may grit your teeth and do the decent thing by mother and child and commit to a lifetime of financial and emotional responsibility with somebody that you may or may not love to raise a child you would have prevented from existing.

You may say “yes, but I do love her”. Well the, why not make a lifelong commitment and get married? Because, if you do have a child you will have a lifelong commitment whether you like it or not. When you are married you can have sex as often as you like

The answer through all this is simple: if you don’t want kids, don’t have sex. Put it away until you are ready to take that on. Although the odds may be low, the stakes are too high, and involve too many lives to take chances.

Practice sexual continence so that you control your sexuality and reproduction instead of being controlled by it. And that means PRACTICE in all senses: learn to control your urges, your thoughts, your desires through daily practice. Wait for that one person with whom you want nothing more or less than a life long bond.

Sexual continence is freedom. Being bound against your wishes to a state of life you did not wish for because you trusted in the infallibility of man-made technology is self-induced slavery.

 

[third84]

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’

I didn’t read the whole tread, sorry, but I don’t think its worth it. There is nothing in this initial post that suggests you have done much critical thinking, and a lot that suggests you are simply biased from the start. For starters, you rely on a number of logical fallacies: “Has no one noticed that virtually no respectable secular contemporary philosophers maintain a Catholic view of sexual morality?” Not only is this manifestly untrue (obviously you haven’t looked very hard - try John Paul II), this is an appeal to authority to extend your argument beyond which you have shown, that any and every philosopher, including the ones you attempt to invoke, would rightly dismiss as being the poorest and weakest forms of argument. Besides, it is hard for a “secular” philosopher because this isn’t about secular, worldy phenomenon. Its about supernatural, otherwordly, God-ordained phenomenon; i.e. Theology. Not something a “secular” would much care about. There are other basic assumptions (like the existence and incarnation of God) to deal with first.

Also, you the only “proof” that you’ve offered for your view is that you can’t find “proof” the other way. You simply make the claim that Catholic view “fails miserably.”

The most interesting part of this post was this :

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.

Um, yeah. The physical act and the act of love are bound inseperably by the laws (or the Law! Get it?) of the universe. That’s hitting the nail on your head. Just because its “hard for you to accept” doesn’t make it untrue. If anything, the fact that you find it perhaps convincing reveals a little something about that law being “written on your heart?” And it is the hardness there that is having such a difficult time with this teaching?

 

[PJM]

=Sair;4827418]I’m certainly not convinced that there have been any ‘detrimental’ effects of my attitudes to sexuality and sexual expression, nor am I convinced that the Catholic church has the authority to speak for all people, at all times and in all circumstances.

**
Friend your not on an island, the only person in denial**.

Your position steems from one of the following;

1. Your not firmiliar with the bible
2. You do not correctly understand what you read in the bible
3. You chose (refuse) to accept what is in the bible

But, none of the above alter or change the truth. It is still TRUE

Mt. 16: “.” 17* And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18* And I tell you, you are Peter, * and on this rock * I will build my church, and the powers of death * shall not prevail against it. 19* I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

FACTS:

Jesus Himself founded what today we call THE RCC (v.180

Jesus founded only ONE Church (v. 18 “my”) thus all authority on earth and in heaven must logically come through His OBE church.)

Jesus Himself selected St. Peter to completely and atonomously, run and administer His church. (v.19)

Evidence of Our Blessed Lords intent: (2nd. part v. 19)

“Bind and Loose” were common Rabbi (they WERE the leaders) terms, with Legal at law consequences, and meant specifically, “unlimited” authority to make lawas and rules that bound everybody.

It would be completely illogical to think that Jesus (who is God) would give this power and authoroty to St. Peter, and when he Peter died, do did this authority. God can’t be stupid!

So my dear friend in Christ, which is it? Number 1, 2 , or 3 ?

You may wish to open your mind and heart and reconsider your not too well thought out position?

Love and prayers,

 

[Charles_22]

Actually, Agangbern did respond. Just didn’t get it.

And correct me if I’m wrong, but as it was you who levelled the accusation of cheap tactics, the burden of proof rests with you. If you’re happy to leave your accusation unproven and merely languishing in an excess of confusing verbiage, I am content with that too.

I looked back further and you are correct, he did respond to stated cheap tactic. I don’t know how I missed it. His response didn’t seem to pick up the slight of hand you pulled though, as far as the aubject matter is concerned and that is what must had made me thought he did not respond.