Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[agangbern]

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.

Some secular grounds why contraception should remain immoral:

“*Contraception suppresses the natural outcome of sexual intercourse, and in so doing it has two immediate and devastating consequences.
“First, it engenders a casual attitude toward sexual relations. An action which, because of the possibility of conceiving a child, makes demands on the stability of the couple is stripped by contraception of its long-term meaning. The mutual commitment of a couple implied by the very nature of this intimate self-giving is now overshadowed by the fact that the most obvious (though not necessarily the most important) reason for that commitment has been eliminated. This clearly contributes to the rise of casual sex, and the rise of casual sex has enormous implications for psychological and emotional well-being, personal and public health, and social cohesion.
“Second, it shifts the emphasis in sexual relations from fruitfulness to pleasure. Naturally speaking, the sexual act finds its full meaning in both emotional intimacy and the promise of offspring. For human persons, sex is clearly oriented toward love and the creation of new life. By eliminating the possibility of new life and the permanent bonding it demands, contraception reduces the meaning of human sexuality to pleasure and, at best, a truncated or wounded sort of commitment. Moreover, if the meaning of human sexuality is primarily a meaning of pleasure, then any sexual act which brings pleasure is of equal value.
“Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their health improved. Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well. Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of contraception, and from its moral lies.” *opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20070723-78169/Why_is_contraception_wrong%3F

 

[Spock]

I will not quote your full post to preserve bandwidth.

Consider the following secular grounds why fornication and pre-marital sex should remain immoral.

Effects of Pre-marital sex:

Where do you draw the line with the label of “adolescent”? Nevertheless for too young people, who are emotionally immature, it would be advisable to abstain. I can agree with that, albeit with the caveat that it is not a good idea to generalize. People mature at a different age.

The risk of venerial diseases can be drastically reduced by using correct contraceptives. In those cases when it happenes, it is curable.

Fornication:

None of what you say here is valid in a general sense. It may be valid for a few, individual cases. As a matter of fact, having several relationships is usually beneficial. You learn what you like and learn what your partners like. Contrary to what the slogan in 1984 says: “Ignorance is NOT strength”. There is no instinct in us which would allow to know just what is the “best” for you or your partner.

Will continue with your other post…

 

[agangbern]

The risk of venerial diseases can be drastically reduced by using correct contraceptives. In those cases when it happenes, it is curable.

As far I know, AIDS is not yet curable,

None of what you say here is valid in a general sense. It may be valid for a few, individual cases. As a matter of fact, having several relationships is usually beneficial.

Yes, in one respect, having several relationships is usually beneficial. But when that relationship is coupled with fornication, the possible effect is more of damage than beneficial.

There is no instinct in us which would allow to know just what is the “best” for you or your partner.

So, if there is no instinct in us, to what then should we appeal? Appeal to reason? But then again, do we have a right to appeal to reason? Everyone has his own reason. What right would others have to impose their reason upon us? Or should we just leave everything to luck?

 

[Spock]

Some secular grounds why contraception should remain immoral:

I disagree with everything you say here. There is nothing wrong with pure pleasure seeking, for one. If you are not really hungry, and eat an ice-cream, it is not for nutritional purposes, rather for “pleasure-seeking”. What is wrong with that?

Sexuality is partially for procreation, and partially for pleasure. For humans and the higher apes the estrus is separated from the ability to have sex. For other animals sex is impossible outside the estrus. It is estimated that about 95% of all sexual activities is aimed toward pleasure.

But the main counter-argument is the Church’s teaching itself. The CC encourages NFP, which is just another contraceptive method. The aim of NFP is to avoid pregnancy. The CC says that the method is wrong, but not the intent.

“Statistically, couples who avoid contraception find that their marriages are strengthened, their happiness increased, and their health improved.

Total nonsense, there are no studies for that. Moreover, the fallacy of this sentence is that it confuses correlation with causation - if there would be a correlation, and there is none.

Contraception is a grave evil within marriage and has grave consequences not only within marriage but outside of marriage as well. Both individual couples and society as a whole will mature into deeper happiness by freeing themselves from the false promises of contraception, and from its moral lies.”

And that part is very revealing. The author of the article comes from the Philippines, and obviously a Catholic. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but such a newspaper article can hardly be called a secular study, can it?

 

[Spock]

As far I know, AIDS is not yet curable,

Yes, unfortunately that is right.

Yes, in one respect, having several relationships is usually beneficial. But when that relationship is coupled with fornication, the possible effect is more of damage than beneficial.

How do you know that? Why would it is be so?

So, if there is no instinct in us, to what then should we appeal? Appeal to reason? But then again, do we have a right to appeal to reason? Everyone has his own reason. What right would others have to impose their reason upon us? Or should we just leave everything to luck?

Testing! Careful testing. “Gnothi seauton” - know thyself. We are all different when it comes to stimuli Not to go into details, but some like it “gentle”, some like it “rough”, and you cannot predict who responds to what.

 

[agangbern]

How do you know that? Why would it is be so?

Try it. and then in later years, you can share your experience to your grandchildren. Unfortunately , the risk is great. We have those who have learned it, we can learn from them.

*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_t…ally&src=ansTT

---

 

[Spock]

Try it. and then in later years, you can share your experience to your grandchildren. Unfortunately , the risk is great. We have those who have learned it, we can learn from them.

*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_t…ally&src=ansTT

---

Sorry, you already posted this, and it is simply not true. Unfounded generalization, nothing else. Sex outside marriage (which is what “fornication” stands for, if I am not mistaken) can be committed and monogamous. And even if it is just a “one night stand” there is nothing inherently problematic about it.

I agree, however, that it can lead to problems. So what? Anything and everything can lead to problems if done in excess. What you advocate sounds like this: “It is possible that some people would use a steak knife to kill someone. Therefore let’s declare steak knives illegal, or immoral, because some people will misuse it.”

I asked for explanations which show that the non-Catholic usage of sex will be detrimental in every case, or in most cases. So far you only presented scenarios, which may be problematic in some cases. And that is not a convincing argument.

 

[agangbern]

Sorry, you already posted this, and it is simply not true. Unfounded generalization, nothing else. Sex outside marriage (which is what “fornication” stands for, if I am not mistaken) can be committed and monogamous. And even if it is just a “one night stand” there is nothing inherently problematic about it.

I agree, however, that it can lead to problems. So what? Anything and everything can lead to problems if done in excess. What you advocate sounds like this: “It is possible that some people would use a steak knife to kill someone. Therefore let’s declare steak knives illegal, or immoral, because some people will misuse it.”

I asked for explanations which show that the non-Catholic usage of sex will be detrimental in every case, or in most cases. So far you only presented scenarios, which may be problematic in some cases. And that is not a convincing argument.

I am now beginning to wonder: Do you think it is necessary that there should be a moral law in society? What is that moral law?

 

[Spock]

I am now beginning to wonder: Do you think it is necessary that there should be a moral law in society? What is that moral law?

I am not sure if this question is to be contemplated within this thread.

The common definition of “morality” is: “the written and unwritten rules of socially accepted behavior”. (You are, of course, free to disagree, and then we shall be at an impasse.) Some of these behaviors are codified into a legal system, others are not. Unfortunately, the codifed laws go far beyond the “necessary” limit (“necessary” here is another possible source for disagreement).

Yes, there is a need for a legal system, which is too bad. My favorite, but utopian society would be a total anarchy, where there is no need for laws, because everyone behaves reasonably toward everyone else. Where everyone adheres to the one and only “rule”: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.

But, I see no reason to get into this discussion here. I am still interested in a secular underpinning of Catholic sexual morality.

 

[agangbern]

I am not sure if this question is to be contemplated within this thread.

The question is contemplated in the thread as revised: Catholic sexual morality - indefensible on secular grounds?, because if you believe that morality is necessary for society, then you have no choice but to have an absolute basis for morality, a basis which do not depend on the individual whims of the inhabitants of the society. But secular basis are not absolutes, they change depending on various factors. What to me, for example, is sufficient secular basis for sexual morality may to you not sufficient at all. Therefore, as far I am concerned, sexual morality is defensible on secular grounds. But as far as you are concerned, it is not defensible. Where then would the discussion go? To each his own, because then you would have no right to impose your opinion upon me as I too would not have the same right. That indeed would lead to anarchy, because man is naturally self-centered (because of the fall), so that where ever he gets the opportunity to have greater power over another, the greater probability is he would take up the opportunity and “enslave” his neighbor. And that kind of society I don’t like to live in.

 

[RobbyS]

I am not sure if this question is to be contemplated within this thread.

The common definition of “morality” is: “the written and unwritten rules of socially accepted behavior”. (You are, of course, free to disagree, and then we shall be at an impasse.) Some of these behaviors are codified into a legal system, others are not. Unfortunately, the codifed laws go far beyond the “necessary” limit (“necessary” here is another possible source for disagreement).

Yes, there is a need for a legal system, which is too bad. My favorite, but utopian society would be a total anarchy, where there is no need for laws, because everyone behaves reasonably toward everyone else. Where everyone adheres to the one and only “rule”: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”.

But, I see no reason to get into this discussion here. I am still interested in a secular underpinning of Catholic sexual morality.

Why do you think that a society without law would be “anarchy.”(Hobbesian)?

 

[RobbyS]

The question is contemplated in the thread as revised: Catholic sexual morality - indefensible on secular grounds?, because if you believe that morality is necessary for society, then you have no choice but to have an absolute basis for morality, a basis which do not depend on the individual whims of the inhabitants of the society. But secular basis are not absolutes, they change depending on various factors. What to me, for example, is sufficient secular basis for sexual morality may to you not sufficient at all. Therefore, as far I am concerned, sexual morality is defensible on secular grounds. But as far as you are concerned, it is not defensible. Where then would the discussion go? To each his own, because then you would have no right to impose your opinion upon me as I too would not have the same right. That indeed would lead to anarchy, because man is naturally self-centered (because of the fall), so that where ever he gets the opportunity to have greater power over another, the greater probability is he would take up the opportunity and “enslave” his neighbor. And that kind of society I don’t like to live in.

Yes,it does depend of which anthropology one adheres to. I don’t concede that a Christian anthropology is any less “secular”(realistic) than the naturalistic one he seems to believe in, for I think it accurately describes how mankind behaves.

 

[Amdyn]

I have to say Pete, that not so long ago, I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly and piped up in my support of your position. Fortunately for me, I have been given the grace to investigate exactly what the Catholic church’s position is and seen the incredible wisdom within it.

The first refutation I could provide is the prophetic pronouncements (I like alliteration ) from Humanae Vitae. It stated in there, that once we remove the procreative aspect of sex, we will end up denigrating women (using them as sexual objects and not respecting them. Look around you to see the fruits of that one.), having those in power controlling people by controlling how many children they are allowed to birth (China) and the disintegration of the family (50% divorce rate certainly supports that)
ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P6HUMANA.HTM see Paragraph 17

I don’t know if you can call this a refutation. I will simply argue that prostitution and women being used as sexual objects occurred probably as far back as you care to go historically. In fact with all due respect I think women are on AVERAGE treated better than at any other time historically (its just my opinion - I can’t substantiate it). Is the family unit better than in the 1800’s ? Who knows - Point me to those studies - 50% divorce rate ? Which country ? Which community ? Is the catholic divorce rate any better there ? Those are the things we need to be comparing ! That is how we build a case.

My next refutation is population control. Take a look at the demise of Europe and Japan that is coming. This is completely based on low birth rates - alarming birth rates that have demographers saying the Europe we know will be gone in a generation because the natives are re-populating at way below replacement values. Fortunately for Muslims, they are reproducing at a healthy rate so will be taking Europe over in not too long. This is purely the demographers saying it and not a moral issue, but a purely pragmatic one. If you wish to limit your family, feel free to use NFP, but the overpopulation arguments right now don’t hold water.

I partly agree and partly disagree. Overpopulation is always taken as “the planet”. Why don’t you come to Africa and see the effects of overpopulation LOCALLY (I live there). Overpopulation on a LOCAL scale simply means “not enough resources to go around”. This can be equated right down to a family scale. Note that I am not SUPPORTING contraception as an argument for population control, merely indicating that it is NOT a refutation as you put it.

My third refutation is that you are asking “what good does it destroy” as if we don’t already know the answer. One of the reasons that abortion was allowed in Roe vs. Wade is because the assumption was you need to be able to do something if your birth control fails. So what do you do with your “unwanted fetus”, well of course you kill it. I would say millions of deaths per year is a pretty horrible answer of “what good does it destroy”.

I don’t support killing children. In fact I on a personal moral scale am VERY against it. That is abortion however - abortive contraceptives are also wrong. Condoms on the other hand are not abortive, and whilst I don’t use them, I think there is nothing wrong with them when looked at in the light of your third “refutation”.

Also, the Catholic position is the only one I have seen that is completely unified. The Church says that sexual intercourse is only valid within marriage. This means we don’t need to “hate” or marginalize those with homosexual tendencies. We simply apply the rules equally across all people. They cannot marry someone of the same gender and therefore should not have sexual encounters since by definition they would all be outside of marriage. We don’t condone between any unmarried persons and therefore it is egalitarian.

We revere God in all of us. We are all His creation so of course we should welcome more “creations” as much as we can. We revere these blessings called children and try to provide them with the most stable environment for their physical, emotional and psychological development - a family with a mother and father. Of course things happen that make that impossible, but that is the paradigm for which we strive. This entire position is a cohesive whole.

Not a defense as far as I can tell.

Since I grew up in the 70’s and 80’s, I have seen the fruits of your logic and it isn’t pretty. I beg you to prayerfully read Humanae Vitae and listen to Christopher West’s Naked without Shame which explains the Theology of the Body. It will change you - I know it did me.

I have read Humanae Vitae. The problem with this whole debate is that the water is muddy. Tell me which bits of Humanae Vitae are so illuminating ? What is it that Christopher West ACTUALLY says ?

 

[brentomistic]

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.

For me, I can’t see any benefit in picking any one “bad” behaviour and treating it in isolation when in the real world multiple “bad” behaviours are likely to contribute to a particular outcome. Also, an outcome is going to be measured differently depending on the observers frame of reference.

The U.S. divorce rate graph over the past 100+ years shows a general upwards trend. This would be of concern to someone who considers marriage to be an important institution for society. This would not be of concern to someone who considers marriage to be an outdated institution. How would you define what the ‘baseline’ is in the secular world?

 

[Spock]

The question is contemplated in the thread as revised: Catholic sexual morality - indefensible on secular grounds?, because if you believe that morality is necessary for society, then you have no choice but to have an absolute basis for morality, a basis which do not depend on the individual whims of the inhabitants of the society. But secular basis are not absolutes, they change depending on various factors. What to me, for example, is sufficient secular basis for sexual morality may to you not sufficient at all. Therefore, as far I am concerned, sexual morality is defensible on secular grounds. But as far as you are concerned, it is not defensible. Where then would the discussion go? To each his own, because then you would have no right to impose your opinion upon me as I too would not have the same right. That indeed would lead to anarchy, because man is naturally self-centered (because of the fall), so that where ever he gets the opportunity to have greater power over another, the greater probability is he would take up the opportunity and “enslave” his neighbor. And that kind of society I don’t like to live in.

I see why you wish to go into a general discussion of morality. Since sexual morality is a subset of general morality, it is useful to examine the whole picture. Well, I gave you the generally accepted definition of morality above. As expected, you disagree, though you disagree on theological and not secular grounds.

Morality is not absolute, but it is objective. It does not depend on the individual whim of any member of the society.

You say that “man is naturally self-centered (because of the fall)”, which I dispute. Not just because of the theological underpinning (“because of the fall”), but also because it is not correct. We are both individuals and social animals. Our optimal strategy is to be partially self-centered, and partially altruistic (in the broadest sense of the word). Selfishness is only problematic, if practised in excess. But then again, so is altruism, if carried to the extreme.

One example, why morality is not absolute. In today’s society cannibalism is considered immoral. However, if you recall the the story of the plane, which went down in the Andes and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism in order to survive, they were not condemned for their act. Extraordinary circumstances mitigated their actions, and the label “immoral” was not applied.

Where do we go from here?

 

[Spock]

The U.S. divorce rate graph over the past 100+ years shows a general upwards trend. This would be of concern to someone who considers marriage to be an important institution for society. This would not be of concern to someone who considers marriage to be an outdated institution. How would you define what the ‘baseline’ is in the secular world?

Marriage is a useful institution. However, divorce does not destroy the concept of marriage, it merely makes the existing marriages more stable and better. Observe that the second and third marriages are much better. Having an easy divorce makes sure that the couple will stay together if they are happy in their relationship.

Before divorce was easy to obtain, the marriages lasted longer. But were they “happier”? Or more satisfying? Statistics says otherwise. People had outside relationships, it was a quietly “overlooked” custom. Divorce made the marriage more honest. So, yes, even if one considers marriage as the “basic cell” of society, divorce is useful, because it makes the marriage more stable.

 

[agangbern]

Morality is not absolute, but it is objective. It does not depend on the individual whim of any member of the society.

Who shall set-up that objective morality? And by what authority shall he do it?

 

[agangbern]

So, yes, even if one considers marriage as the “basic cell” of society, divorce is useful, because it makes the marriage more stable.

Oh, the tool of destruction has been credited as the tool of stability. It is like saying, "Kill people so that people will live more". Anyway, you have a right to make your own opinion. Keep you opinion to yourself.

 

[agangbern]

One example, why morality is not absolute. In today’s society cannibalism is considered immoral. However, if you recall the the story of the plane, which went down in the Andes and the survivors had to resort to cannibalism in order to survive, they were not condemned for their act. Extraordinary circumstances mitigated their actions, and the label “immoral” was not applied.

The fact that there were people who ate human flesh in consequence of a plane crush is not a reason to conclude that morality is not absolute. It is not logical. For in the eyes of absolute moral law, what they did remained wrong, regardless of how civil or criminal law looks at their act.

 

[agangbern]

You say that “man is naturally self-centered (because of the fall)”, which I dispute. Not just because of the theological underpinning (“because of the fall”), but also because it is not correct. We are both individuals and social animals. Our **optimal strategy **is to be partially self-centered, and partially altruistic (in the broadest sense of the word). Selfishness is only problematic, if practised in excess. But then again, so is altruism, if carried to the extreme.

That optimal strategy is nice on paper. But when we observe actual life situations, most often and in many cases, it is self-centeredness that directs the man who does not respect absolute moral law. Consider, for example, the past experience of the blacks in the U.S. If man’s natural optimal strategy is to be partially self-centered and partially altruistic, how then did it not occur that the whites treated the blacks as their equal? That is an evidence that the optimal strategy is not natural to man. On the contrary, it is an evidence that man is naturally self-centered. It is his nature to seek first for his own, and when he has the opportunity to have greater power over another, he would take the opportunity and “enslave” the other.