Catholic Sexual Morality

[catholic1seeks]

Also, for what it’s worth to note, all of these issues (pre-marital sex, heteronormative perspective on marriage, contraception, and the ordination of women) relate to each other and are more or less based on the same principles. They kind of either all stand together or all fall together, to an extent.

It requires a foundation of belief in the two different sexes, equal but with different roles, who are ontologically “male” or “female” regardless of feelings or experiences of different people, and who are complementary to each other. On this basis, marriage can only be one way, defined in terms of sexual complementarity and procreation. The male priesthood is founded on the view that male and female are really distinct, and that marriage is only between male and female. Priests can only be male because they resemble Christ, who was male and is married to the Church, which the New Testament call his “bride.” So for example, if anyone in the Church were to admit that sexes aren’t distinct in the binary way, or that marriage does not require male and female complementarity only, then that would severely weaken the argument that only men can be priests.

Another example: If an individual believes that contraception is okay, that sex can take place without the willing openness to procreation, but believes same-sex couples are in the wrong, or that homosexual activity is wrong, then that person would be without foundation.

All this is to say that these positions really do rest on the traditional idea of complementarity between male and female.

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #80
The Church has not provided a great answer regarding the place of the gay person in Church. They are simply to lead celibate lives: That is the ultimate aim, advice, and teaching of current and official moral doctrine.

And who else has the authority that Christ gave His Church to teach all of His truths: “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16), and “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)?

The Catholic Church has taught clearly on the disorder that is homosexuality. The place of the homosexual/lesbian in the Church is identical to every other fallen human being – live as Christ teaches through His Church.

Fr Harvey establishes that homosexual behaviour is always condemned in the Scriptures,:
Gen 19:4-11; Lev 18:22, 20:13; Rom 1:26-27; 1 Cor 6:9-11; 1 Tim 1: 8-11, and Jude 7. The Truth About Homosexuality, Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., Ignatius, 1996, p 138].

There is “solid medical and scientific facts which place the “lifestyle” with behavioural problems like alcoholism and drug addiction.” A detailed review of the research has shown that the disorder itself is rooted in unhealthy emotions.

The disordered condition has been found, by those who wish to correct it, to respond well to reparative therapy. Studies show that homosexuals experience considerably higher levels of mental illness and substance abuse than heterosexuals. A detailed review of the research has shown that “no other group of comparable size in society experiences such intense and widespread pathology.”36
Note:
36. James E. Phelan, Neil Whitehead, Philip M. Sutton, “What Research Shows: NARTH’s Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality,” Journal of Human Sexuality Vol. 1, p. 93 (National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, 2009).

The chapter on *Women With Homosexual Orientation *gives many testimonies to the efficacy of reparative therapy and indicates that it is easier for many women to overcome their problem than men. The Truth About Homosexuality, Fr John A Harvey O.S.F.S., Ignatius, 1996].

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Deep breath. Here we go.

I’m considering converting to Catholicism. I will be talking to local priests and taking RCIA classes in due time, but I want to dig into some of the theological areas that I am wrestling with. I ask for your patience as I am still in the early stages of learning.

The teachings that worry me the most regard:

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women

Becoming a Catholic means that you submit your preferences to the teachings of the Church. You’ve expressed reservations, indicating you might not be ready to trust the wisdom of the Church that Christ established.

This is more like a Protestant way of thinking, and explains why Protestantism is so incorrigibly diverse and at war with itself.

If you want to be a Catholic, the best attitude to take is simply to trust the Lord that he has led the Catholic Church in its ministry of teaching a truthful gospel. Yes, by all means seek explanations, but consider the advice of St. Augustine: believe in order that you may understand, rather than understand that you may believe.

This is the frame of mind we should all be in when we approach to receive the Eucharist.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Becoming a Catholic means that you submit your preferences to the teachings of the Church. You’ve expressed reservations, indicating you might not be ready to trust the wisdom of the Church that Christ established.

This is more like a Protestant way of thinking, and explains why Protestantism is so incorrigibly diverse and at war with itself. .

Well I really don’t know what a “Protestant way of thinking” is, but last I checked Protestants are humans (and children of our Divine Parent too) and generally think as such for better or worse. The debates on these forums, and the disconnect between Catholic teachings vs the practice of the Catholic community leads me to suspect I am not the only one with questions.

I am certainly not ready. I never claimed otherwise. This is all new to me, and I will use what faculties God gave me to discern if I can serve Christ best as a Catholic. I will continue to question and pray until I am ready and able to trust fully.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Also, for what it’s worth to note, all of these issues (pre-marital sex, heteronormative perspective on marriage, contraception, and the ordination of women) relate to each other and are more or less based on the same principles. They kind of either all stand together or all fall together, to an extent.

It requires a foundation of belief in the two different sexes, equal but with different roles, who are ontologically “male” or “female” regardless of feelings or experiences of different people, and who are complementary to each other. On this basis, marriage can only be one way, defined in terms of sexual complementarity and procreation. The male priesthood is founded on the view that male and female are really distinct, and that marriage is only between male and female. Priests can only be male because they resemble Christ, who was male and is married to the Church, which the New Testament call his “bride.” So for example, if anyone in the Church were to admit that sexes aren’t distinct in the binary way, or that marriage does not require male and female complementarity only, then that would severely weaken the argument that only men can be priests.

Another example: If an individual believes that contraception is okay, that sex can take place without the willing openness to procreation, but believes same-sex couples are in the wrong, or that homosexual activity is wrong, then that person would be without foundation.

All this is to say that these positions really do rest on the traditional idea of complementarity between male and female.

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I’ve been trying, in my inarticulate way, to get at! So ultimately - I guess I should just blurt it out - if the foundation proved untrue, if Complementarianism had to be understood differently in light of scientific discoveries on the nature of humans and gender differentiation, would the result be a significant change in the “roles” we assign to people based in sex? If so… Would that be unspeakably terrible for the credibility of the teachings, or simply an understandable evolution based on increased understanding, much like other changes in the history of the faith?

 

[Rau]

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I’ve been trying, in my inarticulate way, to get at! So ultimately - I guess I should just blurt it out - if the foundation proved untrue, if Complementarianism had to be understood differently in light of scientific discoveries on the nature of humans and gender differentiation, would the result be a significant change in the “roles” we assign to people based in sex? If so… Would that be unspeakably terrible for the credibility of the teachings, or simply an understandable evolution based on increased understanding, much like other changes in the history of the faith?

Could you respond to post #61?

 

[clem456]

THANK YOU! This is exactly what I’ve been trying, in my inarticulate way, to get at! So ultimately - I guess I should just blurt it out - if the foundation proved untrue, if Complementarianism had to be understood differently in light of scientific discoveries on the nature of humans and gender differentiation, would the result be a significant change in the “roles” we assign to people based in sex? If so… Would that be unspeakably terrible for the credibility of the teachings, or simply an understandable evolution based on increased understanding, much like other changes in the history of the faith?

It’s striking, in this weekend’s Gospel Jn 1-:5-42 how many times we are encouraged “to look, to see, to hear, to come and see”. In short, the Gospel encourages us to use our senses and reason to observe what God reveals.

There seems to be an assumption running through this thread that Catholicism invents a belief about complementarity, and that this belief is subject to politicization. In other words, the Catholic proclamation of complementarity is subject to scientific opinion and/or popular consensus.

But the Church does not invent this idea. The Church sees, observes, and proclaims what God reveals. What does God reveal in this area?

Human beings.
What does it mean to be a being? It means “I Am”, “I exist”. God uses these very words to describe himself…“I Am”. We are made in his image, to say our own “I Am”. We have a rational soul, and a body.

The Catholic Church does not invent this as a peculiar belief, the Church simply observes and proclaims what is.
Human beings exist, and the only way that can come about is the complementarity of a man and woman.

Does anyone reading this see something different in the world around them? You can point to unusual cases of sexual differentiation, and that’s fine. But the reality of human existence remains. Does anyone observe that human beings come into existence any other way?

It is unreasonable to point to unusual cases as justification to deny a self evident reality. In effect, I have to construct my own unreasonable belief system, ignoring what is obvious in nature, to deny the unique role of man and woman in human existence.

So, the bottom line might be, that Catholic sexual morality points to the good that God reveals. It is not a man made construct designed to deny rights to others.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well I really don’t know what a “Protestant way of thinking” is, but last I checked Protestants are humans (and children of our Divine Parent too) and generally think as such for better or worse. The debates on these forums, and the disconnect between Catholic teachings vs the practice of the Catholic community leads me to suspect I am not the only one with questions.

I am certainly not ready. I never claimed otherwise. This is all new to me, and I will use what faculties God gave me to discern if I can serve Christ best as a Catholic. I will continue to question and pray until I am ready and able to trust fully.

You really should not confuse Catholic teaching with what many Catholics practice.

Judas practiced betrayal. That certainly did not bring into question God’s truth.

Peter practiced denying Jesus. Nor did that bring into question the teachings of Jesus.

 

[JimG]

Ultimately, sexual complementarity is not about ‘roles’ or about feelings. It is about anatomy and biology. Only a man and a woman can engage in marital sex. Only a man and a woman can procreate children. That is why civilization continues. (One might note that with the continuing drastic decline in total fertility rates around the world, continuance of civilization is no sure thing.)

 

[clem456]

Ultimately, sexual complementarity is not about ‘roles’ or about feelings. It is about anatomy and biology. Only a man and a woman can engage in marital sex. Only a man and a woman can procreate children. That is why civilization continues. (One might note that with the continuing drastic decline in total fertility rates around the world, continuance of civilization is no sure thing.)

Right.
I would just add that feelings, emotions, pleasure, all these also have a unique expression in the complementarity of a man and woman.
The physical cannot be separated from the spiritual, psychological, the unitive. All these things are integral to human sexuality
.
What we are witnessing today is Gnosticism, the denigration of physical realities.
The implications are disastrous.

Quoting Romans without getting into specific sexual matters:

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

  24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25**For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie**, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

While the passage goes on to address specific immorality, clearly deception and the denial of revealed truth is the foundation of it.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Why does the physical body trump any other means to define what a person is? The definition of sexual complementarity seems to be fixated on the phsyical alone. That is why it doesn’t matter if you are attracted to a man but are phsyically a man as well. The body has the final say so, as if only the physical complements really determine complementarity. Biologically, “the man is the key and the women is the lock.” In terms of procreation, yes that is true. Procreation requires certain biological, phsyical realities to take place. But what about other asepects of the person? As much as real as the external? Psychological realities are ultimately not important, it seems. They are disregarded. Of course feelings and emotions don’t determine truth; but in this case they are offer an important role. Some people do not feel that the opposite sex is his or her complement. A person is not just a body. And this discussion, as some people indicate, is not really about a new Gnosticism. The body is important; we live in the world with our body and act through our body. The body is not disregarded, but the critique here is that we are exalting the physical, the external biological alone over other key indicators of a person’s fulfillment. A man might, on the surface, be observed as belonging to a woman; this is the obvious biological fact. But the psychological reality does not always parallel the external, biological reality for every man or woman. So the issue boils down to the Church saying there is a binary existence of humanity, male and female who are made for each other, and that this is the natural order of things. Why do we only look towards the physical alone to determine this?

 

[clem456]

Why does the physical body trump any other means to define what a person is? The definition of sexual complementarity seems to be fixated on the phsyical alone.

Human beings are a unity of body and rational soul.
The physical does not “trump”, it is an integral part of what it means to be a person. You cannot fully acknowledge a person without giving full value to the physical presence.

This is why we feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Not because it makes us great spiritual people, but because we have an obligation to acknowledge our neighbor’s physical needs.

James points this out:

15If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that?

Go in peace is a spiritual exhortation. We may also pray for the needs of others. But it cannot be disconnected from the physical, because a human beings is a unity of body and rational soul.

So when considering the complementarity of a man and woman, the physical is an integral and necessary part of who they are.

 

[Rau]

Why does the physical body trump any other means to define what a person is? The definition of sexual complementarity seems to be fixated on the phsyical alone. That is why it doesn’t matter if you are attracted to a man but are phsyically a man as well. The body has the final say so, as if only the physical complements really determine complementarity. Biologically, “the man is the key and the women is the lock.” In terms of procreation, yes that is true. Procreation requires certain biological, phsyical realities to take place. But what about other asepects of the person? As much as real as the external? Psychological realities are ultimately not important, it seems. They are disregarded. Of course feelings and emotions don’t determine truth; but in this case they are offer an important role. Some people do not feel that the opposite sex is his or her complement. A person is not just a body. And this discussion, as some people indicate, is not really about a new Gnosticism. The body is important; we live in the world with our body and act through our body. The body is not disregarded, but the critique here is that we are exalting the physical, the external biological alone over other key indicators of a person’s fulfillment. A man might, on the surface, be observed as belonging to a woman; this is the obvious biological fact. But the psychological reality does not always parallel the external, biological reality for every man or woman. So the issue boils down to the Church saying there is a binary existence of humanity, male and female who are made for each other, and that this is the natural order of things. Why do we only look towards the physical alone to determine this?

There are elements of complementarity outside the physical. Persons become friends as a consequence (in part) of just that. All relations are not, and need not be, sexual.

But sexual partnership relies, unsurprisingly, on Being physically complementary. And while sex is bigger than procreation, we cannot but acknowledge that our procreative potential is bound up entirely with the other fruits of sex. This is particularly evident in men where sex delivers sperm. What our nature intends is evident. The desire for otherwise is a corruption.

 

[JimG]

Well, it seems that ever since the dawn of civilization and earlier, the human race has always been composed of men and women. As I mentioned before, that’s why the human race continues. Why is that a problem? The Church didn’t invent human nature.

 

[Rau]

Well, it seems that ever since the dawn of civilization and earlier, the human race has always been composed of men and women. As I mentioned before, that’s why the human race continues. Why is that a problem? The Church didn’t invent human nature.

The opposing view is not that the Church invented something. It is that the Church has not observed reality fully. My response is that the opposing view seeks out an unduly complex explanation, impossible to make sense of, when a far simpler one will do.

 

[clem456]

Well, it seems that ever since the dawn of civilization and earlier, the human race has always been composed of men and women. As I mentioned before, that’s why the human race continues. Why is that a problem? The Church didn’t invent human nature.

This is important to remember when assertions are made that Catholic morality is just outdated religious opinion that has yet to catch up with enlightened minds.

The case for the union of a man and woman requires no statement of morality, no scripture, and no Catholic Church teaching, and no noticing of others’ sin.

Scripture, tradition, morality, simply affirm what is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

This is important to remember when assertions are made that Catholic morality is just outdated religious opinion that has yet to catch up with enlightened minds.

The case for the union of a man and woman requires no statement of morality, no scripture, and no Catholic Church teaching, and no noticing of others’ sin.

Scripture, tradition, morality, simply affirm what is.

Aristotle and Plato also affirmed what is the norm of human sexuality.

In fact, you will have to search long and hard to find a major philosopher throughout history who has made the case for sodomy, never mind same-sex marriage.

Only in the perverse times in which we live has the idea even been entertained, and it is a vindication of Chesterton’s famous remark that he had long since grown weary of people who thought that what you believed on Thursday must be better than what you believed on Tuesday.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

More evidence of the need to combat same-sex marriage.

lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

 

[catholic1seeks]

The opposing view is not that the Church invented something. It is that the Church has not observed reality fully. My response is that the opposing view seeks out an unduly complex explanation, impossible to make sense of, when a far simpler one will do.

Thank you, Rau, this is helpful. As a Catholic, I want to believe fully that the Church corresponds to the truth, that it shares and proclaims the truth, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I do not want to say that the Church invents its truth. I see the dangers of thinking the Church can just change beliefs on a whim. I know Matthew 16:18 well. The Church is built on a solid foundation. Having said all of this, I think the Church must develop its doctrine in these matters. It is not enough to say that human nature is a certain when, simultaneously, many humans in reality don’t experience it that way. When a certain doctrine of human nature does not actually correspond to all humans, then I think it’s safe to say the Church has not yet grasped all of reality on the issue.

I want to get back to this thread later. I am on my phone now.

 

[JimG]

Anatomy and biology is pretty much universal. It is true that in the realm of feelings and emotion, not many things are common to ALL humans. Feelings, emotions, personal dispositions, likes and dislikes vary widely.

None of that matters when it comes to marriage. One is either capable of marital intercourse or not, a precondition being sexual complementarity. Not everyone is called to marriage. And there is no natural law enshrining that one must marry one’s ‘soulmate,’ whatever that may mean. Alleged measurements of compatibility offered by some matchmaking sites leave out the one that is indispensable—a commitment to the good of the spouse until death, no matter the state of one’s feelings.