Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?

[Spock]

Where is the variation in “all societies establish rules of conduct”? This seems be a consistent if not unanimous condition. Any variation is explainable by variation in the criteria for “good”.

The variation is in the actual rules of conduct. If there would be an “ingrained, or natural” set of behavioral patterns, the rules of condict would be very similar.

How many of these societies have (or had) true consensus? Americans certainly do not. Are penal, tax and traffic laws always accepted by everyone? If not, where is the consensus?

The concensus does not have to be verbally expressed. And we do not necessarily agree in all the details. Using your “tax” example, most people are not happy with the level of taxation, but we all agree that some level of taxation is necessary to cover the “common costs”.

Note: by consensus, I mean that even if you disagree you are willing to abide by the decision.

Indeed. Most people abide by the laws, even if they disagree in details. Some kind of speed limit makes very good sense, even if the actual, posted limits are frequently nonsensical.

Please explain what you mean by “self-sustaining”.

I am pretty sure it is quite obvious. As individuals, we try to maintain our existence, and as a species we try to propagate ourselves by procreation.

If maintenance is life’s purpose, why is there so little evidence of this in our population? How many are living with just subsistence levels of food, shelter and clothing? If as your postulate below, that we are to optimize our existence, why would we burden ourselves with any excess?

The ones, who live on a lower level usually still survive. Since we have some surplus, it is logical to share some of it, if for no other purpose than to feel “good” about oursleves (I am pretty cynical here).

Please explain how game-theory is involved, for I am unfamiliar with it. You will also have to provide me with convincing evidence that my life is a set of variables in a mathematical equation.

Ouch. That would take a few years. Here is a quick look into the subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory Sorry, I am not trying to be “hard to catch” here. I was lecturing on this subject, and it takes about 3 years to master this branch of math. Linear, non-linear programming (this refers to mathematical programming, not computer programming!), operations research, game theory are all part of it. Basically it is a formal examination of the decision making process, looking for optimal strategies in a complex environment.

How does living “peacefully with each other”, further the “purpose”? Why wouldn’t a ‘survival of the fittest strategy’ be more in tune with the “purpose”?

I am sure you would see that peaceful coexistence is much better than a war.

The question was purposely open ended in attempt to find some common ground. So far this seems to be a very daunting task.

Yes it is. As they say, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. However, I am a bit concerned. This is a very good line of analysis, most enjoyable, and hopefully fruitful. What I don’t see is where does it tie into the subject of the thread? Wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on the topic? I would not want to have the thread closed because we are digressing.

 

[davidv]

The variation is in the actual rules of conduct. If there would be an “ingrained, or natural” set of behavioral patterns, the rules of condict would be very similar.

The concensus does not have to be verbally expressed. And we do not necessarily agree in all the details. Using your “tax” example, most people are not happy with the level of taxation, but we all agree that some level of taxation is necessary to cover the “common costs”.

Indeed. Most people abide by the laws, even if they disagree in details. Some kind of speed limit makes very good sense, even if the actual, posted limits are frequently nonsensical.

I am pretty sure it is quite obvious. As individuals, we try to maintain our existence, and as a species we try to propagate ourselves by procreation.

The ones, who live on a lower level usually still survive. Since we have some surplus, it is logical to share some of it, if for no other purpose than to feel “good” about oursleves (I am pretty cynical here).

Ouch. That would take a few years. Here is a quick look into the subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory Sorry, I am not trying to be “hard to catch” here. I was lecturing on this subject, and it takes about 3 years to master this branch of math. Linear, non-linear programming (this refers to mathematical programming, not computer programming!), operations research, game theory are all part of it. Basically it is a formal examination of the decision making process, looking for optimal strategies in a complex environment.

I am sure you would see that peaceful coexistence is much better than a war.

Yes it is. As they say, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it. However, I am a bit concerned. This is a very good line of analysis, most enjoyable, and hopefully fruitful. What I don’t see is where does it tie into the subject of the thread? Wouldn’t it be better to concentrate on the topic? I would not want to have the thread closed because we are digressing.

I will only address this last point now.

At the risk of derailing any further fruitfulness, my line of questions is driven by my belief that morality, if it is to be sound and useful must be based on the human’s purpose. Those actions which are consistant with the purpose are moral, or neutral. Those actions that are contradictory to the purpose are immoral.

As a Catholic, fully accepting the Church’s teaching, I accept that my purpose for being transcends the physical world that I exist in now. So, your asking me to defend morality in secular terms is like asking me to score a three point basket at the NCAA tournament without touching the ball.

 

[Spock]

I will only address this last point now.

At the risk of derailing any further fruitfulness, my line of questions is driven by my belief that morality, if it is to be sound and useful must be based on the human’s purpose. Those actions which are consistant with the purpose are moral, or neutral. Those actions that are contradictory to the purpose are immoral.

That is certainly a good approach. Now, is there any reason to assume that all human endeavors or purposes (taken in a very broad sense, not just individual survival or the propagation of the species) are static, or are they dynamic (changing with time and circumstances)? If they are dynamic, and I think they are, then the moral behavior will stay objective, however they will change in accordance with the existing and prevailing purposes.

As a Catholic, fully accepting the Church’s teaching, I accept that my purpose for being transcends the physical world that I exist in now. So, your asking me to defend morality in secular terms is like asking me to score a three point basket at the NCAA tournament without touching the ball.

Nice way of putting it. Let’s change the rules… you can kick the ball, if you so choose.

As I said, if one accepts the authority of the Church, there are no problems. The Church says that “this” particular activity is immoral, and the case is closed. However, for everyone else the question stays open. I am simply interested in finding out if the rules can be substantiated on a different ground as well.

We have found one instance, where it can be done: in the case of adultery. The reasoning process might be slightly different, but we could agree that “cheating” on your partner (even if no marriage is present) should be considered incorrect, as long as the partners had an exclusive contract (either expressed or implied). So maybe, just maybe the other rules can also be substantiated on both religious and secular grounds.

 

[brentomistic]

I don’t think so. Conscience is a learned behavioral pattern. People in the stone age saw nothing wrong with cannibalism. People in medieval Japan saw nothing wrong with a samurai killing a lower class person for failing to bow deeply enough. In primitive times the old people were simply abandoned and left to die when food became scarce.

To say that “western sexuality” is somehow inherently wrong, and its prevalence is simply the result of suppressing a “natural” sexual behavior is a hypothesis. I don’t think you can substantiate that. But I am all ears. Do you have any secular arguments to support it? For example: “contraception”. That would be a nice starting point.

The interesting thing about Natural Law is that it was first written down by the Greeks (e.g. Aristotle). It existed prior to Catholicism but has been accepted and endorsed by Catholicism. Depending on your interpretation, you could even view Natural Law as falling within secularism.

Other people will take you to task on your comment regarding conscience simply being a learned behaviour pattern. To your examples about cannabilism, samurai killing etc you need to ask yourself whether every person in that community (including the mothers of the people being killed) truly felt in their conscience that this was ‘good’ despite the external moral framework saying it was. At the time of Jesus, the custom was for an adulterer to be stoned to death. Jesus asked those within the crowd who had not also done something wrong to throw the first stone. A great example of an appeal to conscience taking precedence over ‘the law’ - an external moral framework which did not resonate internally with the individuals concept of right and wrong.

Another important concept you need to think about is whether there is a ‘tug-of-war’ between good and evil and within your conscience, whether you want to strive towards evil or good. Do you want to strive towards good OR only be ‘just good enough’ to get by?

As a secularist investigating the concept of a ‘Natural Law’ which may have existed prior to any of the mainstream religions today, you might ask yourself whether you would find similar principles within different religions. Pre-marital sex is an accepted part of ‘Western Sexuality’. If you examined Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc would you find consistent teachings on pre-marital sex?

 

[Spock]

The interesting thing about Natural Law is that it was first written down by the Greeks (e.g. Aristotle). It existed prior to Catholicism but has been accepted and endorsed by Catholicism. Depending on your interpretation, you could even view Natural Law as falling within secularism.

I am sure. After all it is a very appealing concept. It would be nice if it existed, along with “natural rights”, etc… The trouble is that there is no evience that they exist. At least not to my knowledge.

Humans are not born with discursive thinking, they are born with the ability to think. Humans are not born with a language, they are born with the ability to speak. Not all of us are born with all sorts of wonderful abilities (musical talent, for example) no matter how great it were if we did. As a matter of fact, this is more of a strength than a weakness. Having an “empty” mind - so to speak - enables us to learn many different things. We are not like the insects, who are born with full knowedge, and unable to learn anything new.

Our brain at birth is very smooth, with learning we develop new paths and connections. The brain of an elephant is much larger, yet the elephant is very dumb compared to human. It is the complexity of the neural paths which allows us to find the difference between good and bad, between desirable and undesirable behavior.

Observe children. They are little brutes, they inflict pain on each other and on animals. They have not learned yet, they lack the innate ability to know that such behavior is wrong. If we really have a built-in, intenal “compass”, there would be no need to teach social behavior, all the teaching could be aimed at acquiring factual knowledge. It would be very useful not to waste such time and energy on teaching “how to behave”.

Other people will take you to task on your comment regarding conscience simply being a learned behaviour pattern. To your examples about cannabilism, samurai killing etc you need to ask yourself whether every person in that community (including the mothers of the people being killed) truly felt in their conscience that this was ‘good’ despite the external moral framework saying it was.

Why do you think that a 100% concensus would be needed? Also, how could the affected mother think the same way? Her emotions (nothing wrong with them!) would get in the way. Look at the parents of convicted monsters (serial killers, etc.) They will deny the overwhelming evidence against their offspring.

At the time of Jesus, the custom was for an adulterer to be stoned to death. Jesus asked those within the crowd who had not also done something wrong to throw the first stone. A great example of an appeal to conscience taking precedence over ‘the law’ - an external moral framework which did not resonate internally with the individuals concept of right and wrong.

It is a great story. But it would not work all the time in all the places. There are some people (psychopaths and sociopaths), who simply lack compassion, lack decency. Some enjoy inflicting suffering on others. Do you think that they were also born with natural decency, just suppressed it somehow?

Another important concept you need to think about is whether there is a ‘tug-of-war’ between good and evil and within your conscience, whether you want to strive towards evil or good. Do you want to strive towards good OR only be ‘just good enough’ to get by?

I think there is a tug-of-war. At least, I experienced it, though it would be foolish to generalize unto everyone else.

As a secularist investigating the concept of a ‘Natural Law’ which may have existed prior to any of the mainstream religions today, you might ask yourself whether you would find similar principles within different religions. Pre-marital sex is an accepted part of ‘Western Sexuality’. If you examined Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism etc would you find consistent teachings on pre-marital sex?

When talking about “pre-marital” sex, do you refer to teenager or adolescent sex? Or simply sex before marriage?

 

[davidv]

That is certainly a good approach. Now, is there any reason to assume that all human endeavors or purposes (taken in a very broad sense, not just individual survival or the propagation of the species) are static, or are they dynamic (changing with time and circumstances)? If they are dynamic, and I think they are, then the moral behavior will stay objective, however they will change in accordance with the existing and prevailing purposes.

I would suggest that what you call “human endeavors or purposes” are just hints and clues as to our true purpose. One way to discover the true purpose is to ask why. Why do we pursue a particular endeavor? Usually it is to satisfy some need or want. Where does this need or want come from?

Regarding static or dynamic, I say both. At the surface level they are very dynamic, depending on time of day, level of activity, position in a social group, age, level of health, etc. believe that at the end of the chain of why questions is the static need/desire to be happy. I believe every moral choice we make is an attempt to achieve this need/desire.

Nice way of putting it. Let’s change the rules… you can kick the ball, if you so choose.

As I said, if one accepts the authority of the Church, there are no problems. The Church says that “this” particular activity is immoral, and the case is closed.

This seems to imply that you believe that the Church’s rulings on the morality of actions are arbitrary. Do you believe this? If so, why?
However, for everyone else the question stays open. I am simply interested in finding out if the rules can be substantiated on a different ground as well.

We have found one instance, where it can be done: in the case of adultery. The reasoning process might be slightly different, but we could agree that “cheating” on your partner (even if no marriage is present) should be considered incorrect, as long as the partners had an exclusive contract (either expressed or implied). So maybe, just maybe the other rules can also be substantiated on both religious and secular grounds.

Can you relate this case, adultery, to my response above? Can you see how the original decision to “cheat” was a attempt to achieve happiness? It may have satisfied this need, but I believe this happiness was not very long-loved. Not only that, it probably resulted a number of consequences that caused much unhappiness.

 

[Spock]

I would suggest that what you call “human endeavors or purposes” are just hints and clues as to our true purpose. One way to discover the true purpose is to ask why. Why do we pursue a particular endeavor? Usually it is to satisfy some need or want. Where does this need or want come from?

Valid question. Some of them come from our biological existence (nourishment comes to mind). Some of them come our social existence (friendship would be an example). I cannot see one (and only one) purpose, as you seem to imply. Maybe I misread your intention.

Regarding static or dynamic, I say both. At the surface level they are very dynamic, depending on time of day, level of activity, position in a social group, age, level of health, etc. believe that at the end of the chain of why questions is the static need/desire to be happy. I believe every moral choice we make is an attempt to achieve this need/desire.

I agree.

This seems to imply that you believe that the Church’s rulings on the morality of actions are arbitrary. Do you believe this? If so, why?

Sorry, that was not my intention. No, I don’t think that the Church’s rulings are arbitrary. What I meant to express (and I did not do it clearly enough), that accepting the overall (catholic ) authority of the Church, there is no need for further justification.

Can you relate this case, adultery, to my response above? Can you see how the original decision to “cheat” was a attempt to achieve happiness? It may have satisfied this need, but I believe this happiness was not very long-loved. Not only that, it probably resulted a number of consequences that caused much unhappiness.

Yes, it is an attempt to achieve happiness. We also agree that it may or may not achieve that goal. Where the fundamental problem lies is that a unilateral dissolution of a contract is considered unacceptable. Which comes from the Inverse Golden Rule (do NOT do unto others, what you do NOT want them to do unto you). The Golden Rule, both in its direct and inverse format are a very good guiding line - generally accepted.

 

[davidv]

Valid question. Some of them come from our biological existence (nourishment comes to mind). Some of them come our social existence (friendship would be an example). I cannot see one (and only one) purpose, as you seem to imply. Maybe I misread your intention.

You did not misread my intention. So, let us ask the next “Why”. Why is “biological existence” preferable to non-existence? And, Why is “friendship” preferable to no friendship?

I am trying very hard to not ask leading questions, so call me on it you sense me doing so.

I agree.

Since we seem to agree that the desire for happiness is a universal motivator, the question must be asked: why do two people in nearly identical circumstances make nearly diametrically opposed moral choices, e.g., children from broken homes, one of whom choses to live a life of virtue in contrast to one who propagates the pattern of abuse?

Sorry, that was not my intention. No, I don’t think that the Church’s rulings are arbitrary. What I meant to express (and I did not do it clearly enough), that accepting the overall (catholic ) authority of the Church, there is no need for further justification.

Thank for that. For many of the Church’s teaching I have neither the resources nor the intellect to understand the rationale behind them. For those that I have, I have found the justification rational and believable. Based on that, I choose to trust them in the areas that I cannot or will understand.

Yes, it is an attempt to achieve happiness. We also agree that it may or may not achieve that goal. Where the fundamental problem lies is that a unilateral dissolution of a contract is considered unacceptable. Which comes from the Inverse Golden Rule (do NOT do unto others, what you do NOT want them to do unto you). The Golden Rule, both in its direct and inverse format are a very good guiding line - generally accepted.

It appears that even if this rule is “generally accepted”, it is all too frequently broken. I believe this is so because those who break the rule accept a near term happiness in place of a longer term greater happiness. Basically they are accepting a counterfeit for the real thing.

 

[Spock]

You did not misread my intention. So, let us ask the next “Why”. Why is biological existence" preferable to non-existence? And, Why is “friendship” preferable to no friendship?

I don’t think that existence is always preferable to nonexistence. People who see their life as miserable, and see no hope for improvement frequently attempt suicide. But, once we exist and as long as there is hope, we seem to hang on to dear life. “Dum spiro, spero”. The second one is pretty obvious. We agree that happiness is a universal goal, and friendship is part of that.

Since we seem to agree that the desire for happiness is a universal motivator, the question must be asked: why do two people in nearly identical circumstances make nearly diametrically opposed moral choices, e.g., children from broken homes, one of whom choses to live a life of virtue in contrast to one who propagates the pattern of abuse?

I wish I knew the answer. I bet the psychologists would like to know it, too. Though I am afraid, the phrase “in nearly identical circumstances” is misleading. We just don’t know how close those circumstances were. I wonder if you realize that this is a pretty good argument against a “built-in” moral compass.

Thank for that. For many of the Church’s teaching I have neither the resources nor the intellect to understand the rationale behind them. For those that I have, I have found the justification rational and believable. Based on that, I choose to trust them in the areas that I cannot or will understand.

That is sensible.

It appears that even if this rule is “generally accepted”, it is all too frequently broken. I believe this is so because those who break the rule accept a near term happiness in place of a longer term greater happiness. Basically they are accepting a counterfeit for the real thing.

How true. If only were more rational, and would contemplate both the short term and the long term consequences of our actions.

 

[brentomistic]

I am sure. After all it is a very appealing concept. It would be nice if it existed, along with “natural rights”, etc… The trouble is that there is no evience that they exist. At least not to my knowledge.

Humans are not born with discursive thinking, they are born with the ability to think. Humans are not born with a language, they are born with the ability to speak. Not all of us are born with all sorts of wonderful abilities (musical talent, for example) no matter how great it were if we did. As a matter of fact, this is more of a strength than a weakness. Having an “empty” mind - so to speak - enables us to learn many different things. We are not like the insects, who are born with full knowedge, and unable to learn anything new.

Our brain at birth is very smooth, with learning we develop new paths and connections. The brain of an elephant is much larger, yet the elephant is very dumb compared to human. It is the complexity of the neural paths which allows us to find the difference between good and bad, between desirable and undesirable behavior.

Observe children. They are little brutes, they inflict pain on each other and on animals. They have not learned yet, they lack the innate ability to know that such behavior is wrong. If we really have a built-in, intenal “compass”, there would be no need to teach social behavior, all the teaching could be aimed at acquiring factual knowledge. It would be very useful not to waste such time and energy on teaching “how to behave”.

Why do you think that a 100% concensus would be needed? Also, how could the affected mother think the same way? Her emotions (nothing wrong with them!) would get in the way. Look at the parents of convicted monsters (serial killers, etc.) They will deny the overwhelming evidence against their offspring.

It is a great story. But it would not work all the time in all the places. There are some people (psychopaths and sociopaths), who simply lack compassion, lack decency. Some enjoy inflicting suffering on others. Do you think that they were also born with natural decency, just suppressed it somehow?

I think there is a tug-of-war. At least, I experienced it, though it would be foolish to generalize unto everyone else.

When talking about “pre-marital” sex, do you refer to teenager or adolescent sex? Or simply sex before marriage?

Apparently the ‘golden rule’ e.g. do unto others as you would have them do unto you exists independently across a number of cultures, geographies and time periods. If you can see enough evidence for/make the leap to accept this as a universal principle you have found natural law.

Human beings have the ability to think and the ‘potential’ to develop their discursive thinking. This is what we are doing on this blog right now. Human beings are not robots (like insects) and have free will. Human beings have the capacity to do bood or bad things.

Think of a child having the ‘potential’ to grow and come to a fuller realization of their ‘internal moral compass.’ Keep in mind that the child/young adult will plateau in their growth at certain points.

Is there a difference between concience and emotions? The emotion of lust can cause a man to go against his conscience and commit adultery. The emotion of love for a son can cause a mother to go against her conscience regarding her son’s behaviour as a serial killer.

In the same way that not everyone is born with perfect physical characteristics, some are born with imperfect mental characteristics e.g. psychopaths and sociopaths. In British legal theory they refer to the ‘man on the clapham omnibus’ as a descriptor of the ‘average man.’

Rather than me give you a definition of pre-marital sex, it would be better for you to read the Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu definitions of pre-marital sex and see if you consider there to be sufficient similarity in the teaching. Keep in mind that these teachings come from different cultures, different geographies, different time periods and have all lasted for extensive periods of time. You may be able to find support here to add pre-marital sex as another defensible teaching - another ‘natural law’ to add to the ‘golden rule.’

 

[Spock]

Apparently the ‘golden rule’ e.g. do unto others as you would have them do unto you exists independently across a number of cultures, geographies and time periods. If you can see enough evidence for/make the leap to accept this as a universal principle you have found natural law.

I cannot agree 100%, though I agree somewhat. Indeed the golden rule seems to permeate across all the known human cultures. Of course that stems from the fact that we are social creatures, who must balance our individual desires and the desires of others. If you consider a hypothetical intelligent predatory race, then for those beings the golden rule would not hold.

Human beings have the ability to think and the ‘potential’ to develop their discursive thinking. This is what we are doing on this blog right now. Human beings are not robots (like insects) and have free will. Human beings have the capacity to do bood or bad things.

Think of a child having the ‘potential’ to grow and come to a fuller realization of their ‘internal moral compass.’ Keep in mind that the child/young adult will plateau in their growth at certain points.

Is there a difference between concience and emotions? The emotion of lust can cause a man to go against his conscience and commit adultery. The emotion of love for a son can cause a mother to go against her conscience regarding her son’s behaviour as a serial killer.

In the same way that not everyone is born with perfect physical characteristics, some are born with imperfect mental characteristics e.g. psychopaths and sociopaths. In British legal theory they refer to the ‘man on the clapham omnibus’ as a descriptor of the ‘average man.’

Yes, that is a fine analysis. It seemes to me that you consider those humans, who lack compassion (sociopaths and psychopaths) as “medically deficient” individuals - or maybe sub-humans? That might lead to a slippery slope.

Rather than me give you a definition of pre-marital sex, it would be better for you to read the Christian, Islamic, Judaic, Hindu definitions of pre-marital sex and see if you consider there to be sufficient similarity in the teaching. Keep in mind that these teachings come from different cultures, different geographies, different time periods and have all lasted for extensive periods of time. You may be able to find support here to add pre-marital sex as another defensible teaching - another ‘natural law’ to add to the ‘golden rule.’

I am afraid that to read across half a library’s worth of material would require more time than I am willing to invest, especially since I would not even know where to begin. If you have some pointers, that would be nice.

Now, since you did not specify the phrase “pre-marital sex”, I will have to do my best to consider all the possible meanings for this phrase and give individual answers.

1. If pre-marital means adolescents, who may have a properly developed physical ability to engage in a sexual relationship with a partner, even though they are emotionally underdeveloped, then I would say that such an activity is ill-advised. With emotionally underdeveloped people the risk of incorrect behavior, and hurting others is quite possible, and undesirable. We must keep in mind that emotional maturity varies from one individual to the next.
2. Same as above, but the sexual activity does not have have a partner (masturbation). I see nothing wrong with it. It hurts no one and cannot hurt anyone.
3. If pre-marital simply means sex (with or without a partner) outside marriage for an emotionally mature person, then again I see nothing wrong with it, provided of course that it rests on mutual consent.

I would not call this a “natural law”.

 

[davidv]

I cannot agree 100%, though I agree somewhat. Indeed the golden rule seems to permeate across all the known human cultures. Of course that stems from the fact that we are social creatures, who must balance our individual desires and the desires of others. If you consider a hypothetical intelligent predatory race, then for those beings the golden rule would not hold.

Yes, that is a fine analysis. It seemes to me that you consider those humans, who lack compassion (sociopaths and psychopaths) as “medically deficient” individuals - or maybe sub-humans? That might lead to a slippery slope.

I am afraid that to read across half a library’s worth of material would require more time than I am willing to invest, especially since I would not even know where to begin. If you have some pointers, that would be nice.

Now, since you did not specify the phrase “pre-marital sex”, I will have to do my best to consider all the possible meanings for this phrase and give individual answers.

1. If pre-marital means adolescents, who may have a properly developed physical ability to engage in a sexual relationship with a partner, even though they are emotionally underdeveloped, then I would say that such an activity is ill-advised. With emotionally underdeveloped people the risk of incorrect behavior, and hurting others is quite possible, and undesirable. We must keep in mind that emotional maturity varies from one individual to the next.
2. Same as above, but the sexual activity does not have have a partner (masturbation). I see nothing wrong with it. It hurts no one and cannot hurt anyone.
3. If pre-marital simply means sex (with or without a partner) outside marriage for an emotionally mature person, then again I see nothing wrong with it, provided of course that it rests on mutual consent.

I would not call this a “natural law”.

I find it very interesting that you have declared 1) unacceptable and 2) and 3) acceptable without connecting any of these declarations to what we had agreed upon as a primary motivator for human choices, happiness. Why is that?

 

[Spock]

I find it very interesting that you have declared 1) unacceptable and 2) and 3) acceptable without connecting any of these declarations to what we had agreed upon as a primary motivator for human choices, happiness. Why is that?

I think I can explain it with an analogy. No analogy is ever perfect, but this one looks quite good to me.

Let’s take another human pastime which offers a great deal of “happiness” - driving a car. Wisely, we do not allow adolescents under a certain age to drive (much as they want it), even though they are physically able to do so. In their immaturity they present a hazard to themselves and to others. Yet, there is nothing problematic to allow them to drive in a simulator. Over a certain age, when they are better equipped to make proper decisions they are free to drive.

 

[LittleBits]

Firstly, to the person who said that oxycotin is found in women; said hormone is found in men AND women, I am not sure what would make you think differently.
Secondly to ther person who said the verse "… if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off…’ implies something, I would like to know who told you what it meant. That is the problem going around in our Church (allreligions actually), people taking Bible verses and deciding what the imply, and forcing these opinions on other people. If that verse does refer to masturbation, what then of those who masturbate with their left hand, or anything else?
Lastly I would like to say, I rather agree with the author of this thread. It is said that sex is two-fold, to unite a couple, and to procreate… what then of thosr who simply don’t want children? Is that supposed to be sinful? Not everyone who gets married wants kids, or was meant to have kids. That doesn’t mean they can’t have sex. What would you say to a couiple consisting of a woman who had a full hysterectomy (for whatever reason), and a male who had testicular cancer and had to have both testicles removed? Needless to say, they can’t procreate, does that mean they can’t have sex?

 

[brentomistic]

The British anthropologist JD Unwin undertook a study of 80+ different cultures spanning multiple geographies and 5,000+ years of history in his 1930’s work “Sex and Culture.”

JD Unwin was NOT religious himself.

He identified three broad types of “worship/spirituality” exhibited by different human socieites at different stages of cultural progress or cultural regress.
1)zoistic e.g. superstition, paganism, new age
2)manistic e.g. ancestor worship, buddhism, hinduism
3)deistic e.g. worship of a deity as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam

He found that cultures rise and fall based upon the level of sexual opportunity. This was consistent across ALL cultures he studied without exception.

In short increase in fornication and adultery led to decline of the society/civilization. Decrease in fornication and adultery led to rise of the society/civilization.

Interestingly, societies which endorsed polygamy (Islamic) did not achieve the same levels of cultural progress as those societies which endorsed strict monogamy.

 

[tjm190]

In short increase in fornication and adultery led to decline of the society/civilization. Decrease in fornication and adultery led to rise of the society/civilization.

Correlation=causation?
Is it not equally likely that these things are a symptom of a collapse?

 

[brentomistic]

A particular society is strictly monogamous and values chastity during its ascent. The signs of decline are things which increase sexual opportunity: acceptance of divorce (e.g. no-fault divorce), increase in fornication, increase in adultery etc

His third major finding was that there was a time delay involved of 3 generations or approximately 100yrs from the point where the society begins to tolerate an increase in sexual opportunity to its collapse/revolution or defeat by a society/civilization which itself tolerates less sexual opportunity.

 

[Moontown_Rabbit]

Lately I have been reading about the lives of the early Desert Fathers. These monks went out into the Egyptian deserts sometime around 400 A.D. to practice extreme austerity (in Greek, acecis). They lived by themselves in huts and caves for twenty or thirty years, prayed a lot, practiced various mortifications and ate almost nothing. Towards the end of their lives some were eating only one meal a week. What was the result of all this? First of all they discovered Christ, not in some intellectually superficial way but through a real experience of God’s power and presence. Secondly many of them developed spiritual power in that they could cure pilgrims of illness, read people’s thoughts, and predict future events accurately. Thirdly they were able to provide pilgrims with penetrating spiritual advice and started additional communities of devoted monks.

What does all this have to do with Catholic sexual morality? These desert monks gave up all sexual activity as one of the first steps in their practice of acesis. If you want to discover God, who is spiritual, you must abandon the flesh. The Church in her wisdom does not ask monastic discipline from all her members, but it does ask celibacy of her priests and monks. Laymen, to whom the vocation of marriage is entrusted, cannot give up sexual relations for it is their honour to participate with God in the creation of human life. Yet laymen are instructed to temper their flesh, for the Church desires that they too should place the flesh below the spiritual. Fornication, masturbation, adultery and contraception place the flesh above the spiritual and deny those who practice these things the opportunity of spiritual advancement. What kind of Church would teach its lay members to follow a dangerous path and its religious members to follow a safe one? There is only one path, and that is Christ, and we cannot find our way if we cover our eyes with the blindfold of concupiscence. Many ignore the advice of the ages and fasten the blindfold firmly in place, thinking to protect themselves from injustice. In truth they protect themselves from the light of glory.

 

[brentomistic]

So to answer the question ‘Catholic sexual morality - indefensible?’ we could cite the scientific work of JD Unwin.

Catholic sexual morality which reduces sexual opportunity including:
-masturbation
-fornication
-contraception
-abortion
-monogamous marriage (no polygamy)
-no divorce
are defensible if you want the society/civilization you live in to grow and prosper.

However, in his analysis of Catholic Christian morality JD Unwin warns against two Catholic practices which were detrimental to the growth/rise of society.
-During the middle ages the most intelligent females were urged to become nuns, were therefore barren and were unable to convey their ‘mental energy’ to their offspring. This “missing generation” weakened the culture three generations later
-At one point the Catholic definition of “relatives” for which a marriage could be declared null and void was broader than just blood-relatives and included relatives by affinity. (This may have limited marital opportunities and the ability to produce offspring.)