Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pete_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
I’m pretty sure that you are wrong there. Where do you find Catholic teaching saying that natural law would make sense in an atheist context? I think you’re confusing the claim that natural law would make sense outside a specifically Christian revelation with the claim that it would work in an atheist context. But these are radically different things. I have some problems with the whole Thomist/Vatican I argument that the existence of God can be rationally proven and a natural-law ethic derived from it. But it’s surely quite obvious that natural law in the Thomist position does derive from the existence of God.

Edwin
 
To say that human sexual desire is purely for pro-creation
Straw man. The Catholics on this forum are not saying this.
  1. Women being used as sex object - This is an extremely complex issue, and to claim that a woman is degrading herself by enjoying a healthy sex-life
You beg the question by using the word “healthy.”
outside of marriage is to degrade the woman. It is to tell her, that she should be valued by her “lack” of sexual endeavour. As though her desire for sex with another, relegates her to a sex object.
Not at all. It says that to give oneself physically in the absence of the total commitment that is marriage relegates oneself to a sex object (whether of one’s own or another’s desire).
  1. Divorce. As soon as divorce was legal, it was rampant. You can either say that with a Legal decree, humanity suddenly became evil, or you can recognize that most humans divorced because they made the very wrong choice in partners, and regret it later.
Or you can say that human beings were always sinful, and when society sanctions certain kinds of sinfulness human beings are much more likely to indulge in it.

Edwin
 
No, I’m saying the statment had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of life, but with your own life.
And I think the other poster was saying that the two things are related.
He was trying to free the Jew’s of their bondage of religious laws.
I do not accept this understanding of Jesus, and by and large I think most contemporary scholars don’t either (though it’s hard to generalize about Jesus scholarship). This is a very demeaning understanding of Judaism which most Jews do not even recognize. Are you aware that this is the kind of caricature of Judaism that has been the basis for a lot of discrimination and persecution in the past? (That doesn’t automatically make it wrong, but you should perhaps be a little more careful to ensure that your interpretation of the first-century documents is accurate in such a sensitive context.)

Edwin
 
The first position is easily refutable. What you’re basically saying is that women are only valuable because they can bear children.
No, that is not what HappyRevert was saying. You are caricaturing HR’s argument instead of engaging it seriously.
This was a position held throughout most of our history, and it’s only recently that women have emerged from centuries of social and psychological repression.
I’m not so sure women have “emerged.” Strides have been made in many respects, but there remain serious problems, as any feminist will tell you. I don’t think the picture is as simple as you say.
Also, it seems like you’re denying the role of the father in the procreative process. Why should men automatically start seeing women as sex objects because they don’t end up pregnant after every act of sex? Are women only respectable if they’re having babies? If we are to believe this reasoning, the real crisis is in women’s ability to enjoy sex and all its emotional and physical benefits, without ending up with a child.
Again, this is a caricature. No one says that every act of sex should result in pregnancy. The point is that if sex and pregnancy are separated, sexual pleasure becomes a good in itself and this tends to dehumanize women. Generally men do want sex more than women do (I know that this isn’t true for every couple by any means) and are more likely to pursue sex as a goal in itself rather than as part of a loving relationship. Contraception makes this a lot easier, and as Catherine MacKinnon said (in “Roe v. Wade: A Study in Male Ideology”) it takes away the only excuse women had for refusing sex other than the headache.

Edwin
 
The issue of sexual promiscuity has always been biased - whether for or against women depends on your point of view, but the fact is that while men have been exercising sexual freedom for centuries, because they can, like it or not, it took women exercising a comparable level of freedom for people to start calling it a problem.
But what you’re missing is that contraception makes men’s sexual freedom greater. It allows men to exploit women with even more impunity, because after all, if the woman does get pregnant, it’s her fault for not taking adequate precautions.

The sexual “freedom” of the male has always been one of the biggest threats to Christian civilization, and contrary to your implications the Church has historically recognized and denounced this. You’re right that the way it’s been done has been flawed. Feminism has done us all a great service in pointing out the biases in traditional attitudes, but the answer is not to throw out the one source of moral authority that has historically (however partially and inadequately) criticized the double standard and tried to put restrictions on male exploitation of women. It was only with Christianity that male promiscuity and infidelity came to be seen as a problem at all. In ancient Greco-Roman society, male sexual behavior didn’t matter in and of itself at all, except that too much sex (or taking the “female” role in homosexual relations) was seen as unmanly. Sexual immorality was all about picking the wrong women (or boys) to prey on. Yes, Christianity has been overly influenced by that cultural framework and did not shake off the double standard entirely, but at least Christians did name male sexual “freedom” as immoral and try to discipline men who exercised such “freedom.” Yet to hear modern secular folks (and some ill-informed Christians) talk you’d think Christians invented the double standard!

Edwin
 
Nothing could be more clear than that the act of consuming food is designed and intended primarily as the way we fuel our bodies. The natural purpose of eating is nutrition. It is also true that eating confers other benefits. It is enjoyable in its own right, and when shared with others at meals, provides a unitive benefit, bringing families and friends closer. But because God designed eating to be nutritional, all eating must be open to the nutritive aspect. Eating merely for enjoyment or fellowship is disordered and sinful. Therefore, artificial sweetners, fake fats, and other artificial substances designed to give enjoyment without nutrition are always and everywhere evil.

If the Church is right on sex, why isn’t the above (or something similar) the teaching on food?
Something similar, but not quite so stringent, is the teaching on food. Or haven’t you heard that gluttony is one of the seven deadly sins?

The best “food” parallel with contraception would be the ancient Roman practice (among the wealthy) of eating to the point of vomiting–which has always been regarded as sinful by Christians.

Edwin
 
After having read through 16 pages worth of posts, let me give my 2 cents. The Catholic sexual morality is perfectly defensible - **if **one embraces Catholicism. The title of the OP should have said: “Catholic sexual morality - indefensible - on secular grounds?” That is where the problem is… it cannot be substantiated on purely secular grounds. If one accepts Catholicism, there is no problem. However, if one does not… the whole house of cards collapses.
 
After having read through 16 pages worth of posts, let me give my 2 cents. The Catholic sexual morality is perfectly defensible - **if **one embraces Catholicism. The title of the OP should have said: “Catholic sexual morality - indefensible - on secular grounds?” That is where the problem is… it cannot be substantiated on purely secular grounds. If one accepts Catholicism, there is no problem. However, if one does not… the whole house of cards collapses.
The house does not collapse. The secularist is just left out in the cold.
 
The benefits for individuals abiding by Catholic sexual morality (masturbation, contraception, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, cohabitation) would include:
-no husbands/boyfriends addicted to porn
-no women entrapping men with pregnancy (saying they are on the pill when they aren’t)
-no divorce (involves financial side effects beyond emotional and moral side effects)
-no drop off in frequency of sex after marriage compared to pre-marriage
-no ‘perceived loss of freedom’ going from multiple partners to one partner after marriage
-preservation of marriage as a desirable way of life (if marriage is viewed as relevant)
-no transmission of STD’s
-no long term steroid use (the pill)
-no cheating / adultery
-higher self esteem (due to STD’s, body image disorders, inability to ‘score’ etc)
-reduced chance of breast cancer (the pill)
-reduced chance of heart attack and strokes (the pill)
-easier to conceive when wanting kids (coming off long term pill usage)
-no abnormal shocks to the hormonal system (morning after pill)
-no teen pregnancy
-lower teen depression (sexually active teenagers)
-lower teen suicide (sexually active teenagers)
-more fulfilling sex life post marriage (experienced by those holding traditional values)
-more orgasms for women during sex (experienced by less promiscuous women)
-longer lifespan (married couples vs defacto couples)
-better physical/mental health (married couples vs defacto couples)
-greater workforce productivity (married couples vs defacto couples)
-reduced levels of domestic violence (married couples vs defacto couples)
-less risk of children being exposed to physical and sexual abuse in cohabitation arrangements (married couples vs defacto couples)
-better conflict resolution between partners (married couples vs defacto couples)
-women returning to higher levels of happiness (women’s happiness has decreased relative to mens since the 60s/70s)

Some of these benefits (which are all backed by studies) should be recognised by a rational thinker who does not subscribe to being a member of the catholic church.
 
After having read through 16 pages worth of posts, let me give my 2 cents. The Catholic sexual morality is perfectly defensible - **if **one embraces Catholicism. The title of the OP should have said: “Catholic sexual morality - indefensible - on secular grounds?” That is where the problem is… it cannot be substantiated on purely secular grounds. If one accepts Catholicism, there is no problem. However, if one does not… the whole house of cards collapses.
In one sense you are correct in saying that Catholic sexual morality would be indefensible on secular grounds, that is, without recognizing God’s supremacy over all. For Christ said, apart from me, you can do nothing. That includes the defense of morality. But why should Christians be required to defend morality without appealing to the supremacy of God? Such requirement is treacherous! For in truth it wants the Christian to denounce God for a while. As if they want to say, "Hey, Christians, let us talk about morality. But first keep your God inside your cabinet so that our conversation would not be distracted by him." That in effect would be like talking in a dream world, a world far from reality. For a world without God is an unreal world.
 
In one sense you are correct in saying that Catholic sexual morality would be indefensible on secular grounds, that is, without recognizing God’s supremacy over all. For Christ said, apart from me, you can do nothing. That includes the defense of morality. But why should Christians be required to defend morality without appealing to the supremacy of God? Such requirement is treacherous! For in truth it wants the Christian to denounce God for a while. As if they want to say, "Hey, Christians, let us talk about morality. But first keep your God inside your cabinet so that our conversation would not be distracted by him." That in effect would be like talking in a dream world, a world far from reality. For a world without God is an unreal world.
Yes, I agree with you. Now if only someone could prove that God exists, and he made all those rules the Church claims. That would really be nice. Because I have a strong suspicion that God would never make those rules.
 
**All **backed by studies??? Wow.
Actually, it’s sloppy to say ALL. Some of them are just ‘binaries’ e.g. no divorce

That was the summary of a longer essay I wrote on the topic which is probably too long to post here.
 
Yes, I agree with you. Now if only someone could prove that God exists, and he made all those rules the Church claims. That would really be nice. Because I have a strong suspicion that God would never make those rules.
Oh, you mean you did not know it? God came to earth in the form of man about 2,000 years ago. He divided history into BC and AD. So that when we celebrate our birthday, we would remember that He was here because the year of our birth is reckoned in A.D.
 
Oh, you mean you did not know it? God came to earth in the form of man about 2,000 years ago. He divided history into BC and AD. So that when we celebrate our birthday, we would remember that He was here because the year of our birth is reckoned in A.D.
No kidding. 🙂 Life is full of surprises. Now, if you just could prove that the Bible is correct in what it says…
 
Actually, it’s sloppy to say ALL. Some of them are just ‘binaries’ e.g. no divorce

That was the summary of a longer essay I wrote on the topic which is probably too long to post here.
Yes, it was sloppy. If you care, please pick one of the so-called “bad” behaviors (masturbation, contraception, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, cohabitation) and give us the secular, double-blind “studies” which show that they are necessarily detrimental, or at least they are detrimental in most cases. (Just to show that sometimes they might be detrimental is not enough. Anything and everything can be bad under certain circumstances). I also ask you not to refer to any dogma, religious assertion while you doing it. Remember, I am saying that the Church’s sexual stance is indefensible of secular grounds. I would suggest to do it in a different thread. Your choice.
 
No kidding. 🙂 Life is full of surprises. Now, if you just could prove that the Bible is correct in what it says…
Which part or passage do you think is incorrect so that we could show to you that it is correct?
 
Which part or passage do you think is incorrect so that we could show to you that it is correct?
That would lead really too far from the topic of this thread. (One example, and please let’s discuss it somewhere else 2 Chronicles 4:2)
 
Yes, it was sloppy. If you care, please pick one of the so-called “bad” behaviors (masturbation, contraception, pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, cohabitation) and give us the secular, double-blind “studies” which show that they are necessarily detrimental, or at least they are detrimental in most cases. (Just to show that sometimes they might be detrimental is not enough. Anything and everything can be bad under certain circumstances). I also ask you not to refer to any dogma, religious assertion while you doing it. Remember, I am saying that the Church’s sexual stance is indefensible of secular grounds. I would suggest to do it in a different thread. Your choice.
Consider the following secular grounds why fornication and pre-marital sex should remain immoral.

Effects of Pre-marital sex:

*Sexual activity for young people arrests their psychological, social and academic development. Studies show that when young people engage in premarital sex, their academic performance declines and their social relationships with family and friends deteriorate. This is because adolescents are too immature to deal with the explosive sex drive and it tends to dominate their life

Some venereal diseases have no symptoms and many couples discover many years later that they became infertile because of these diseases. Infertility experts estimate that 80% of today’s infertility is due to venereal diseases contracted before they married.
Premarital sex runs the risk of conceiving illegitimate children. Numerous scientific studies show that the children of single mothers suffer psychologically and are less successful socially and academically than children from intact families. Above all, children need both their father and their mother. It is wrong to risk having children who will never have their father’s love, protection and care.

If you date and you don’t have sex, you can forget about that relationship when you stop dating. But if you have sex with those you date and then break up, the nature of sexual involvement creates strong, often unpleasant memories for your whole life. Every relationship you break up where you had intimate relations is like a mini-divorce. The psychological difficulties of these mini-divorces does damage to your character. Later, when you are married and go to bed with your beloved spouse, these unpleasant memories will accompany you.* unification.net/tfv/tenreasons.html

Fornication:

*You mean generally how? With religion aside and sicknesses, it causes, especially excessively, lack of importance of sex in future relationships. It devalues the actual act. It may even cause you to only look at the opposite sex for nothing but sex. Fornication can also make it very hard for you to be satisfied with one woman (and if continued, in your marriage as well) especially if you and the girl you are with have sex randomly and frequently. You get used to it and start to want to have more variety, if you will. It becomes a habit so much that even if you are not in the mood, just because the girl is in the mood, your mind tells you that since you have been doing it so much, you must “show up”.

For women, it makes them feel that sex is all they are really valued for. They therefore, in order to be accepted, embrace their sexual image and develop it further, bringing even more stigma and gossip on themselves. They also can start to think that having sex with a guy can make him fall for her and make him stay around. It is quite the reverse: having sex with a dude soon makes him not see you as serious material. It hastens him to label you as a free sex supply basically. Someone who he can simply see you when he is in the mood because the first thing he finds out about you is that you dont value yourself that much so why should he?* wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_possible_effects_of_fornication_generally&src=ansTT
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top