Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[LilyM]

It’s interesting that you assumed I was referring to marital infidelity, which is absolutely an abuse of the trust between husband and wife. But in this case, betrayal of trust is the issue, not sex in and of itself. Spouses can betray each other in many ways, of which sex with someone else is only one.

In any case, the term extramarital sex - sex outside of marriage - doesn’t equate with adultery - sex with someone other than your spouse. If neither party is married, it is still extramarital sex, but it’s not adultery.

Not really. ‘Extracurricular activity’ for example (activities offered or done outside a school’s regular curriculum) of course assumes that the school HAS a regular curriculum to start with! If you can imagine a school that somehow HAD no regular curriculum, in such a case all its activities would just be undifferentiated ‘activities’ and couldn’t rightly be described as ‘extracurricular’.

So with sex where neither partner is married. It would not be ‘marital’ sex, nor ‘premarital’ sex, nor ‘extramarital’ sex (which presumes a marriage, outside of which one partner is having sex), but simple ‘fornication’ (sex between unmarried persons).

 

[agangbern]

; and studies have shown that when young people are educated in the use of birth control and safe sex options, they tend to delay sexual activity, have fewer partners and fewer complications in the form of pregnancy or infection. These are all practical benefits.
.

Let us see that “study” you mentioned here. We will see if it is really a study or simply a personal opinion of the writer.

 

[agangbern]

Dameedna:

What makes “humans”? Sex or pro-creation if you will. How can what creates them, be against them? I mean, I take the word dehumanize to indicate being against them. What could be more absurd? You act as though a pro-creative act (seed used in the vagina) isn’t a part of sex. What part of sex is more human than allowing for the possibility of more humans? What could be more dehuman than to not allow for that?

That’s right! What is more dehumanizing is the act which go against one basic principle of life: to live and let live. When one performs acts specifically intended to prevent the coming forth of life, then that is the act which is obviously dehumanizing. And the opposite, which is to leave the natural possibility of procreation take its is course, is obviously more humanizing.

 

[Sair]

No, not ‘incapable’ really, but far less inclined. It is a fantasy guess in any case, but without eternal damnation and a few other factors that are weighing in the current situation, it only seems logical to me that people would have less incentive, therefore less realized good.

I would be inclined to think that ‘realised good’ has little or nothing to do with eventual salvation or damnation. Whereas if you treat people with respect, courtesy and care, and demonstrate your love to those close to you, what need have you of divine sanction in order to realise the good of these actions?

It seems to me that to say that atheists are inherently lacking in a sense of morality is rather like saying that people are only inclined to be good under duress.

However, I won’t go any further into it at present, since I’m pretty sure that this kind of discussion is in violation of the recently-declared moratorium…

 

[WarriorInChrist]

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.

How is contraception harmful, you ask? Let me fill you in, contraception does not always work. Babies may still be born even if contraception is used. Contraception is used by a couple who clearly are not in favor of children, however, should it not work, there is a burden on the couple’s shoulders. What would most likely happen next? Abortion, giving the child up for adoption, or something else that leads to a making the child’s life more difficult or even ending it. That is how contraception is harmful my friend

Oh, and if you’re concerned with overpopulation, here’s a 100% sure way not to cause it: Don’t have sex.

 

[agangbern]

So with sex where neither partner is married. It would not be ‘marital’ sex, nor ‘premarital’ sex, nor ‘extramarital’ sex (which presumes a marriage, outside of which one partner is having sex), but simple ‘fornication’ (sex between unmarried persons).

Yes! And if society should not look at fornication with stigma, then unmarried men and women could just have sex with anyone anywhere and any time. Nothing would disturb their conscience, no feeling of shame of what they are doing, just like the dogs in the streets. 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? Apart from God, they would have all arguments in favor of fornication and other sexual immorality. Unfortunately, their arguments would simply lead to the pure animalization of man.

 

[RobbyS]

I would be inclined to think that ‘realised good’ has little or nothing to do with eventual salvation or damnation. Whereas if you treat people with respect, courtesy and care, and demonstrate your love to those close to you, what need have you of divine sanction in order to realise the good of these actions?

It seems to me that to say that atheists are inherently lacking in a sense of morality is rather like saying that people are only inclined to be good under duress.

However, I won’t go any further into it at present, since I’m pretty sure that this kind of discussion is in violation of the recently-declared moratorium…

Maybe you should not use the term “atheist,” because most atheists’ disbelief is really more a disinterest in looking for a cause behind the order of things. Of course an “atheist” can be a “good” person, once we are decided what is good and what is evil, or if you like a good outcome and a bad outcome. We Christians like “deists” like Thomas Jefferson think that Christian morality is a good model for all humans. Even if one thinks it was simply a happy invention does not makes it unhappy just because Christians invented it. The universal rights of man proclaimed by the UN is largely a Christian model, Now that model is being tinkered with, and we think that if that
leads to a different morality, then human beings will be less well off. Hoswever there are many people who think our morality “culture-bound,” and is not really superior to but simply other than other moralities, that there is ultimately not test by outcome except maybe survival. So everything then reduces to power. The strong live, and the weak die.

 

[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’

The sad thing about this kind of post is that everyone jumps on the bandwagon and comes to the defense of Catholic Teaching (A good thing), the bad part is it just opens up the forums to an unending stream of idiotic, non relenting nonsense from those that are incapable of logical understanding. So a thousand posts later everyone is wore out except the glib idiot that started the post. And when the post dies a natural death he will be back with more silliness and it starts all over again.

 

[DCD]

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’

You can’t be serious overpopulation? This is a complete myth that society has bought into. If you allotted 1,250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx. Population growth is declining. We are contracepting ourselves out of existence.

Peace,
David

 

[Mike_Dye]

The sad thing about this kind of post is that everyone jumps on the bandwagon and comes to the defense of Catholic Teaching (A good thing), the bad part is it just opens up the forums to an unending stream of idiotic, non relenting nonsense from those that are incapable of logical understanding. So a thousand posts later everyone is wore out except the glib idiot that started the post. And when the post dies a natural death he will be back with more silliness and it starts all over again.

While I was on my high horse I left out the most important part and that is when these mental giants post do this…simply don’t reply to them. Don’t fall for their game.
Please understand, I am not advocating snubbing those that are truly questioning what we believe, just those that come here with an anti-catholic bias and trying to disrupt everything.

 

[WarriorInChrist]

The sad thing about this kind of post is that everyone jumps on the bandwagon and comes to the defense of Catholic Teaching (A good thing), the bad part is it just opens up the forums to an unending stream of idiotic, non relenting nonsense from those that are incapable of logical understanding. So a thousand posts later everyone is wore out except the glib idiot that started the post. And when the post dies a natural death he will be back with more silliness and it starts all over again.

It never ends, my friend! The battle will forever be until the very end. There will always be believers and non-believers so long as this earth exists.

 

[Sair]

Yes! And if society should not look at fornication with stigma, then unmarried men and women could just have sex with anyone anywhere and any time. Nothing would disturb their conscience, no feeling of shame of what they are doing, just like the dogs in the streets. 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? Apart from God, they would have all arguments in favor of fornication and other sexual immorality. Unfortunately, their arguments would simply lead to the pure animalization of man.

Yes, because sex is, after all, the only thing that human beings ever think about, regardless of what other interests or activities they might engage with, and fear of God or fear of social stigma is really the only thing keeping any person from ever making an unwise or harmful choice.

Really, people - you believe God gave you rational faculties; it would be nice to see them exercised occasionally…

 

[Sair]

You can’t be serious overpopulation? This is a complete myth that society has bought into. If you allotted 1,250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx. Population growth is declining. We are contracepting ourselves out of existence.

Peace,
David

Don’t forget that into that 1,269 square feet per person, you would need to fit the means of supporting that person’s life - arable land for growing food, a well for water, materials for shelter and clothing, and the means of producing same; adequate space for physical activity - presumably this would extend upwards? - and access to fossil or other fuels for things like warmth and cooking. And that just covers the very basics for subsistence living.

And…contracepting ourselves out of existence? Please. That won’t happen within the next million years. The only thing that’s likely to kill us off any time soon is humanity’s wilful ignorance of global ecology and climate change.

 

[agangbern]

Yes, because sex is, after all, the only thing that human beings ever think about, regardless of what other interests or activities they might engage with, and fear of God or fear of social stigma is really the only thing keeping any person from ever making an unwise or harmful choice.

Really, people - you believe God gave you rational faculties; it would be nice to see them exercised occasionally…

"Sex is the only thing that human beings ever think about"? You must be talking from your own view of yourself! Your opinion is certainly false. If you yourself keeps thinking of nothing else but sex, then know that not all are like you. What makes you think, for example, that Jesus and the Apostle Paul, were all their lives thinking of sex? What makes you think that every poster here is now thinking of sex just as what you say you are doing now?

Your life of dreams is only your own! Do not impute it to others unless you are able to read their minds. Yes, better use your rational faculties once in a while. Do not stick to your dreams.

 

[Viki63]

"Sex is the only thing that human beings ever think about"? You must be talking from your own view of yourself!

I believe the previous poster is being sarcastic.
Sarcasm is very hard to see online, better be careful using it.

To the OP, if you are still wondering why contraception is wrong, you might look for a tape called “Contraception Why Not” by Dr. Janet Smith.
It’s a clear and convincing explanation of how contraception tends to result in an increase of divorce, by interfering in the unity and respect between husband and wife. She explains it much better than I could.

 

[Sair]

"Sex is the only thing that human beings ever think about"? You must be talking from your own view of yourself! Your opinion is certainly false. If you yourself keeps thinking of nothing else but sex, then know that not all are like you. What makes you think, for example, that Jesus and the Apostle Paul, were all their lives thinking of sex? What makes you think that every poster here is now thinking of sex just as what you say you are doing now?

Your life of dreams is only your own! Do not impute it to others unless you are able to read their minds. Yes, better use your rational faculties once in a while. Do not stick to your dreams.

And was the sarcasm really so difficult to discern? I know it’s impossible to detect tone of voice in an online forum, but really, I thought it should have been obvious from the context. The comment about humans always thinking about sex was in direct response to your claim that without God or social stigma, people would be having sex all the time, even at work. You can understand why I might have indulged in a little irony…

 

[Viki63]

If you think about it, when you speak sarcastically you use body language and expression to help convey your point.
Online, you lack those things, some people use smilies.
People read fast online and don’t always pause for subtleties.

But I take your point. Obviously people have other things on their minds besides sex.

Apropos of the overpopulation idea, you forgot that the 1269 sq ft per person is just for the human population which we have crammed into the state of Texas. We have left the whole rest of the world for arable land, buildings, recreation, etc.

 

[agangbern]

And was the sarcasm really so difficult to discern? I know it’s impossible to detect tone of voice in an online forum, but really, I thought it should have been obvious from the context. The comment about humans always thinking about sex was in direct response to your claim that without God or social stigma, people would be having sex all the time, even at work. You can understand why I might have indulged in a little irony…

Good. You should make a short note next time to tell us you are simply sarcastic. Don’t expect that posters here should be able to read your mind. At least now I am happy to know that you are not all the time thinking of sex.

So now the fact is clear to you that sexual immorality needs to be stigmatized. And arguments for that purpose which ignore the truth and reality of God are bound to result in the pure animalization of man.

 

[Sair]

So now the fact is clear to you that sexual immorality needs to be stigmatized. And arguments for that purpose which ignore the truth and reality of God are bound to result in the pure animalization of man.

I wouldn’t necessarily go that far. I agree that sexual immorality - indeed, all kinds of immorality - should be treated with disdain, distaste, anger, or any other suitable response to bad things. Where we still disagree is in the precise definition of sexual immorality. There are some aspects of sex - birth control, lack of marriage/monogamy - which are very difficult to define as immoral unless you make reference to God and religion.

And this has been the whole point of my posts to this thread - as the OP was throwing open the question of the indefensibility or otherwise of Catholic sexual morality, I thought it was quite relevant to point out that there are some aspects of the Catholic church’s teaching on sex which may very well be indefensible without reference to God - since that seemed to be implied by the OP. I’ve returned time and time again to this, and no-one has yet offered anything in defence of Catholic sexual morality, other than to re-exert their own belief in God and make sweeping statements about the supposed effects of birth control and sexual freedom. Such reasoning makes no allowances for differences between people and circumstances. I, at least, have acknowledged the fact that Catholic teaching on sex and marriage obviously works and makes perfect sense to some people. But there are many others out there who see it as overly restrictive and repressive, and who can’t see any reason - other than a God in whom they don’t believe - to think that things like birth control and sex without marriage are actually and irrefutably wrong for all people and in all circumstances.

And, no, I don’t concur that a lack of God results in the ‘animalisation’ of human beings - certainly not in the sense you appear to use the word, which I interpret as being a return to unthinking savagery. We are, in any case, animals by definition. The only things that distinguish us from other animals - in particular those closely related to us, like apes - are our abilities to reason and imagine, and to develop a profound self-awareness. These are the things that have resulted in us behaving in ways often very different to other creatures in the animal kingdom, and that includes our approach to sex.

 

[agangbern]

There are some aspects of sex - birth control, lack of marriage/monogamy - which are very difficult to define as immoral unless you make reference to God and religion.

That’s true! That fact maybe sad. But that is simply so. For Jesus said, “Apart from me you can do nothing.”

I’ve returned time and time again to this, and no-one has yet offered anything in defence of Catholic sexual morality, other than to re-exert their own belief in God and make sweeping statements about the supposed effects of birth control and sexual freedom. Such reasoning makes no allowances for differences between people and circumstances. I, at least, have acknowledged the fact that Catholic teaching on sex and marriage obviously works and makes perfect sense to some people. But there are many others out there who see it as overly restrictive and repressive, and who can’t see any reason - other than a God in whom they don’t believe - to think that things like birth control and sex without marriage are actually and irrefutably wrong for all people and in all circumstances.

When it comes to teachings on morality, the Church’s position cannot simply be compromised. We should not expect or even have a passing wish of it that a Catholic should detach himself from God, or renounce Him first, in order to defend morality.A Catholic true to that name will never do that. So, maybe it is better for us to just keep it that way.

Anyway, no one could also formulate a system of morality so good and beautiful apart from God and yet have enough power to bind everyone. No one I know has ever done that. But Catholics simply defend morality in a Catholic way.

And, no, I don’t concur that a lack of God results in the ‘animalisation’ of human beings - certainly not in the sense you appear to use the word, which I interpret as being a return to unthinking savagery. We are, in any case, animals by definition. The only things that distinguish us from other animals - in particular those closely related to us, like apes - are our abilities to reason and imagine, and to develop a profound self-awareness. These are the things that have resulted in us behaving in ways often very different to other creatures in the animal kingdom, and that includes our approach to sex.

Yes, those differences between man and animals are true. But when I said “animalization of man”, I particularly mean the treatment given to man as if he has no soul. The presence of a soul is the highest element that distinguishes man from animals. I am referring not just to any kind of soul, but to the kind of soul that God breathed unto man, and not to animals, during creation.