Catholic Sexual Morality

[Rau]

We have not had a trace of honest discussion then.

Your assertion of an agenda, as opposed to an ‘enquiring mind’, seems right to me. This has seemed likely (to me at least) from at least post #61 - the responses to posts along the lines of that one have been delayed, minimal and evasive.

The OP expressed the idea explicitly in Post #103 that God’s design incorporates more than 2 sexes but ignored all arguments to the contrary (eg. the reality of defects and disease), and evaded all attempts to solicit a rationale for such a view. Look at Post #108 and C&D’s comment on it in Post #134 - he essentially obfuscates by misrepresenting what was said.

C&D postulated some things in this thread that he could not successfully defend. It’s quite funny to read his declarations in post #177 as though these are his considered conclusions from the thread. Rather, they are, IMO, the case C&D sought to make from the outset.

 

[Rau]

…Complementarianism means much more than nothing. It is currently being used to

The complementary nature of man and woman is observable reality, and the unique relationship to which every living (and dead) person owes their existence.

• justify the ban on contraception and medical procedures that have the ability to save human lives… but (merely) women’s lives, so clearly how we rank people ontologically is a factor here in the pursuit of “valuing life”.

Which life-saving medical procedures do you have in mind?

• It is used to ban woman from full participation in the Church and tell half the human race that they do not reflect God as nearly as the other half does. This is inhuman, to say that Christ only lives in men, not in everyone.

The Church believes it has no authority to appoint women as Priests and notes Christ did not do so and that practice continued unchanged throughout history. The bolded portion is made up by you - you choose to give an historical fact that interpretation. Christ was born out a woman with no participation by a man. What do you make of that?

• It is also not internally consistent with Church teachings and practices. It is used to justify ostracism against not just gay Catholics, but all gay, transgendered, and intersex children of God.

Which teaching and practices? The Church ostracises no one. It calls everyone to be their best. It (which means us) undoubtedly lacks skills in interacting with a diversity of people.

• As currently employed, complementarianism seeks to justify patriarchy.

This repeats the male only priesthood issue I assume?

I cannot in good conscience support it, and neither science nor Scripture supports such a forced and artificial way of forming relationships or self-understanding.

Forced? Artificial? You haven’t mentioned pre-marital sex yet…so is this point to say that it is artificial to place marriage as a pre-requisite to sex?

The term could be salvaged, but not if it continues to force an ontological hierarchy on humankind. I don’t believe God ranks people that way.

It does not, God does not and the Church does not.

This then is the manifesto. Not supported by reasoned argument, or any pesky facts.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

? We have not had a trace of honest discussion then.
Your words:

The idea that male/female complementarity is against reason is against reason itself. When something self evident is denied, that is the definition of unreasonable.

Then why are you adding those things to the discussion? It is you that are adding them, no one else, from the very beginning of the thread. Who is threatened? It is you that insists on this agenda. Those other issues have nothing to do with male/female complementarity. Man and woman uniquely participate in human existence. “Non-Heteronormative” is simply a different issue. It’s like saying
“My body does not regulate metabolism well, I am cold. The sun does not provide warmth.”
It’s the same disingenuous reasoning.
None of these things threaten complementarity of male/female. Complementarity is simply an observation of what is.

Complementarity is a blessing. How is the observation that a man and woman are made for each other placing constraints on anyone?
Really and truly, what are you talking about?

Complete nonsense. Show us the money please.

It is you who are doing that by denying the self evident, and trying to conflate it with all sorts of extraneous issues. It doesn’t work, everyone sees your tactic for what it is. You demonstrated earlier that you don’t understand the word “ontology”, and you know this has nothing to do with ranking people. You know it, but don’t let it slow your agenda down.

But despite the evil that the Catholic Church engages in, your good conscience is leading you to a deacon for RCIA? Really? Pardon me for noticing the transparency of your disingenuousness.
After a couple of posts, and before being referenced to the Catechism and Theology of the Body, and to Scripture, some questions are understandable.
But the above is slander, and you should apologize. The Church does not say any of the things you are claiming. You know it doesn’t say them, and you are fooling no one.

The observation that a male and female complement one another supports a forced and artificial way of forming relationships? Really? Does that make any sense whatsoever?
Well thank God you’re here to do that, we wouldn’t want the ravings of a madman like Saint John Paul 2 to catch hold of humanity.


Your slanderous interpretation. It is you who insist on ranking human beings, no one else brought that up. You did.

I’m sorry for upsetting you. Perhaps you would like to define complementarity yourself? Perhaps complementarity has nothing to do with banning homosexual marriage, women’s ordination, or contraception, and I’ve been misinformed. I would very much like to be corrected if that is the case. As I stated in my opening post, I thought they were related, and that premise was not challenged if I recall correctly.

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry for upsetting you. Perhaps you would like to define complementarity yourself? Perhaps complementarity has nothing to do with banning homosexual marriage, women’s ordination, or contraception, and I’ve been misinformed. I would very much like to be corrected if that is the case. As I stated in my opening post, I thought they were related, and that premise was not challenged if I recall correctly.

Do you seek to make the observation that men and women are complementary to be the new evil?

 

[JimG]

I don’t see why the fact that there are two sexes is so controversial. It has been an observable fact since there have been human beings. Sexual complementarity means that men and women can come together to procreate, and thus civilization continues. There doesn’t have to be a word for it, but the fact is that male and female reproductive systems are complementary.

 

[Abu]

Rau #182
Christ was born out a woman with no participation by a man. What do you make of that?

Touché, excellent.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Do you seek to make the observation that men and women are complementary to be the new evil?

Hardly. But the term is being used to justify evil, in my opinion.

 

[Crown_of_Stars]

I’ve wondered lately, reading in so many of these sex-related threads (abortion, contraception, etc.) if the teachings on intimacy even between a married man and woman really were supposed to be so strict? In the Bible, were there things written on the exact ways a man and a woman (married, I understand, of course) are supposed to conduct their intimacy? I believe marriage and sex is sacred, and they go together. The Bible has clearly stated that. But all of the other little details of it that the Church has taught…were these rules actually ever in the Bible? All I really know which is in Scripture is that marriage and sex are sacred and intimacy is not meant to take place outside of the holy sacrament. Once again, I believe and understand this, because it is in the Bible. As for the rest of it…it’s only natural to wonder if some of it might be too strict.

This is the first time I’ve started to feel this way, and I don’t know if it could just be that I’ve been dwelling on it too much, or it could be Satan trying to plant doubts into my mind. I shouldn’t even be so concerned, being I am not married and in no danger (if it can be called that) of unwanted pregnancy. My advice to myself may be to just stay out of these marriage related threads. It wasn’t until now that I’ve started to almost turn more liberal in my thinking. And I feel it’s wrong.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Since I was accused of not knowing what the word “ontology” means:

Ontology is the philosophical study of the nature of being, becoming, existence, or reality, as well as the basic categories of being and their relations.

And for clarity, let’s define the word “hierarchy”:

a system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.

(Both from Wikipedia)

So I am referring, in previous posts, to ranking people based on the kind of being they are (i.e., men and women). I hope that clarifies what I am trying to say, for those interested.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I’ve wondered lately, reading in so many of these sex-related threads (abortion, contraception, etc.) if the teachings on intimacy even between a married man and woman really were supposed to be so strict? In the Bible, were there things written on the exact ways a man and a woman (married, I understand, of course) are supposed to conduct their intimacy? I believe marriage and sex is sacred, and they go together. The Bible has clearly stated that. But all of the other little details of it that the Church has taught…were these rules actually ever in the Bible? All I really know which is in Scripture is that marriage and sex are sacred and intimacy is not meant to take place outside of the holy sacrament. Once again, I believe and understand this, because it is in the Bible. As for the rest of it…it’s only natural to wonder if some of it might be too strict.

Actually, the Bible is far from clear. In the New Testament things get somewhat more consistent, but the Old Testament includes all kinds of “non-traditional” arrangements, many of which are not explicitly condemned. Which isn’t to say those arrangements are right or approved of just because they’re in the Bible.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I do feel I must protest the assertion made by clem456 that we have not had an honest discussion. I repeat, I never said the Church was mysogenistic. I said:

I perceive complementarity (at least as presented by Church officials) to be a marginally less offensive version of mysogeny, which is not something the God I pray to endorses…

My understanding was that individual Church officials are not synonymous with the Church Herself. Please do take the time to read my words before reacting emotionally. I have no agenda, only opinions and questions. I do not speak for anyone but myself. I do not expect to persuade anyone and have no personal investment in that outcome. But I do feel compelled to follow my conscience (which I am not done developing), and in being honest about where it leads me. I’m sorry if my opinions trouble you, but you needn’t be burdened by them unless that is what you wish.

I encourage you to challenge my views, but I do feel personal attacks are unnecessary and unhelpful.