Catholic Sexual Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crow_and_dove
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crow_and_dove said:
On that we quite agree.
Click to expand...
That’s good to know.

Some people deny it so persistently they would have us believe that human beings appear out of thin air rather than the union of a man and woman.

It is good we have common ground.
 
I can’t help but remember, as this seems to have veered off into judgements about whether or not intersex people are defective, Aristotle and his infamous assertion that women are defective males.

Did Aristotle hate women? Possibly, but there is another explanation. Aristotle rightly concluded that semen is the male contribution to the creation of offspring. He believed that women produced a similar substance that essentially competes with the male substance. If the male substance overcomes, as “intended”, a male child is born. But if the woman’s substance “interferes” with what is “intended”, a female child is born.

What is the point of mentioning this?

Aristotle wasn’t necessarily trying to put women beneath men in value. He just didn’t know about the ovum. As we learn, our views change. As we grow in knowledge, the truth becomes more available, not less. Some here have said that intersex indivuals must be defective. But what if they’re not? Do we not owe it to ourselves to at least consider the possibility? Do we not have an obligation to seek the truth, even if it changes how we view ourselves and our place in the world?
 
Crow_and_dove #144
Some here have said that intersex indivuals must be defective. But what if they’re not? Do we not owe it to ourselves to at least consider the possibility? Do we not have an obligation to seek the truth, even if it changes how we view ourselves and our place in the world?
Click to expand...
It is mere sanity that no sensible individual denies the Son of God who instituted marriage between one man and one woman and mandated “What God has joined together let no man put asunder.” [Mt. 19:6]. Listen to the Truth who is God.

Reality exists in understanding the meaning of true love
  1. The absurdity that God supports homosexual activity, is easily dispelled. When you are ready to listen and to follow Jesus, the Son of God, – and no other man even seriously claimed to be God – you will heed Him: “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15). Not only is this perversion condemned in the Old Testament (Gen 19) but more than once Saint Paul lists this sin among those which will exclude someone from Heaven.
    God was very clear: “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire . . .” (Jude 7).
  2. The alternative “possibilities” come from those who distort Christ’s teaching, reason and the natural moral law and replace them with feelings, likes, preferences and wishful thinking based on delusions.
  3. Not judging “what consenting adults do with each other” is the epitome of abandonment to chaos – the bane of today’s world. Every action is to be judged against truth.
 
Crow_and_dove said:
Who?
Click to expand...
Just read the boards and read the public discussion. The agenda for redefining marriage has an excruciatingly hard time admitting that human beings are born from the union of a man and woman. You are one of the few exceptions in your post above.
Crow_and_dove said:
I can’t help but remember, as this seems to have veered off into judgements about whether or not intersex people are defective, Aristotle and his infamous assertion that women are defective males.

Did Aristotle hate women? Possibly, but there is another explanation. Aristotle rightly concluded that semen is the male contribution to the creation of offspring. He believed that women produced a similar substance that essentially competes with the male substance. If the male substance overcomes, as “intended”, a male child is born. But if the woman’s substance “interferes” with what is “intended”, a female child is born.

What is the point of mentioning this?

Aristotle wasn’t necessarily trying to put women beneath men in value. He just didn’t know about the ovum. As we learn, our views change. As we grow in knowledge, the truth becomes more available, not less. Some here have said that intersex indivuals must be defective. But what if they’re not? Do we not owe it to ourselves to at least consider the possibility? Do we not have an obligation to seek the truth, even if it changes how we view ourselves and our place in the world?
Click to expand...
I’m not speaking for other posters, but judgment of people with alternative lifestyles or physical problems is not required to affirm the complementarity of man/woman. Judgementalism should be condemned, and our current Pope is pointing that out. The language with which we deal with people who struggle needs to change. That begins with affirming basic truth. The unique complementarity of man/woman does not detract from the human dignity of any person who struggles with it. Rather it affirms and adds to the dignity of all people, because it recognizes a basic truth. We can’t expect truth to reign in the midst of deception.

You seem to want to alter that truth by equating it with other things that it is not. You seem to want to “dumb it down” because people struggle with it.
You admit the unique complementarity of man/woman, then continue to say “Yes, but”. While Aristotle was ignorant of basic biology, was the truth about man/woman changed? No. The example you use disproves your point.

You are implying above that our growth in knowledge will bring us to a new truth apart from the complementarity of man/woman. That truth cannot be diminished, as it has been with us “from the beginning”. When Christ refers to “the beginning, male and female”, he is not inventing an abstract moral construct or casting judgment on people who struggle, he is observing and proclaiming the goodness of God’s creation, as is self evident.

If we can’t do that simple and basic thing, how can the full human dignity of any person be affirmed?
 
clem456 said:
Just read the boards and read the public discussion. The agenda for redefining marriage has an excruciatingly hard time admitting that human beings are born from the union of a man and woman. You are one of the few exceptions in your post above.

I’m not speaking for other posters, but judgment of people with alternative lifestyles or physical problems is not required to affirm the complementarity of man/woman. Judgementalism should be condemned, and our current Pope is pointing that out. The language with which we deal with people who struggle needs to change. That begins with affirming basic truth. The unique complementarity of man/woman does not detract from the human dignity of any person who struggles with it. Rather it affirms and adds to the dignity of all people, because it recognizes a basic truth. We can’t expect truth to reign in the midst of deception.

You seem to want to alter that truth by equating it with other things that it is not. You seem to want to “dumb it down” because people struggle with it.
You admit the unique complementarity of man/woman, then continue to say “Yes, but”. While Aristotle was ignorant of basic biology, was the truth about man/woman changed? No. The example you use disproves your point.

You are implying above that our growth in knowledge will bring us to a new truth apart from the complementarity of man/woman. That truth cannot be diminished, as it has been with us “from the beginning”. When Christ refers to “the beginning, male and female”, he is not inventing an abstract moral construct or casting judgment on people who struggle, he is observing and proclaiming the goodness of God’s creation, as is self evident.

If we can’t do that simple and basic thing, how can the full human dignity of any person be affirmed?
Click to expand...
I also feel we must affirm full human dignity, but I believe we cannot do so by denying full dignity to some number of God’s children. Indeed, the truth cannot be diminished, only our ignorance can obscure it. I regret giving the impression that I wanted to dumb down the truth, and such in impression reflects my failure to properly elucidate my point of view. I often fall short of my desire for eloquence, and I apologize for my lack of clarity and knowledge. The truth has indeed been with us since the beginning, but since the Fall our perception has been clouded by sin. I am not suggesting a new truth will be found, I am suggesting an original truth will be clarified in light of new data, and a limited understanding may be reevaluated in light of truth.
 
“Complementary” is an interesting concept. These last few days I have been trying to find it’s origin, but not without difficulty. I have not been able to find any reference to complementarianism, as the term is currently employed, earlier than about 25 years ago. Obviously the overarching concept of heteronormativity goes further back, but it doesn’t appear to be conceptualized in terms of complementarianism until relatively recently. Could anyone help me find earlier references?
 
Crow_and_dove said:
“Complementary” is an interesting concept. These last few days I have been trying to find it’s origin, but not without difficulty. I have not been able to find any reference to complementarianism, as the term is currently employed, earlier than about 25 years ago. Obviously the overarching concept of heteronormativity goes further back, but it doesn’t appear to be conceptualized in terms of complementarianism until relatively recently. Could anyone help me find earlier references?
Click to expand...
The word is not used but implied in the ~1000 BC writing of Genesis 5
Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created.
Click to expand...
 
Crow_and_dove said:
“Complementary” is an interesting concept. These last few days I have been trying to find it’s origin, but not without difficulty. I have not been able to find any reference to complementarianism, as the term is currently employed, earlier than about 25 years ago. Obviously the overarching concept of heteronormativity goes further back, but it doesn’t appear to be conceptualized in terms of complementarianism until relatively recently. Could anyone help me find earlier references?
Click to expand...
It’s origin? First of all, complementarity is not an interesting concept, it is an observation and description of a self evident reality. We are back to square one evidently. You claimed in prior posts that you affirm the unique complementarity of male/female and it’s role in human existence. Yet you don’t really want to affirm it, do you. Your post confirms that you want to relativize it by parsing the word to pieces.

It’s origins are revealed nature. Genesis speaks of it, Christ’s himself refers to Genesis. Pope Paul cited above.
John Paul 2 Theology of the Body has probably the most in depth treatment on the subject.
It seems we are chasing our tails over something that common sense reveals.

If you are truly interested in knowing what the Church proclaims about complementarity, start here.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm
This puts the issue in it’s proper and full context.
 
davidv said:
The word is not used but implied in the ~1000 BC writing of Genesis 5
Click to expand...
clem456 said:
It’s origin? First of all, complementarity is not an interesting concept, it is an observation and description of a self evident reality. We are back to square one evidently. You claimed in prior posts that you affirm the unique complementarity of male/female and it’s role in human existence. Yet you don’t really want to affirm it, do you. Your post confirms that you want to relativize it by parsing the word to pieces.

It’s origins are revealed nature. Genesis speaks of it, Christ’s himself refers to Genesis. Pope Paul cited above.
John Paul 2 Theology of the Body has probably the most in depth treatment on the subject.
It seems we are chasing our tails over something that common sense reveals.

If you are truly interested in knowing what the Church proclaims about complementarity, start here.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm
This puts the issue in it’s proper and full context.
Click to expand...
I apologize if I was unclear. The actual term and the concept it refers to are not the same thing. Wording changes over time, and I am curious when and why the term “complementarity” came about. Does it appear in Humanae vitae? If you could name an earlier source I would appreciate it.
 
clem456 said:
It’s origin? First of all, complementarity is not an interesting concept, it is an observation and description of a self evident reality. We are back to square one evidently. You claimed in prior posts that you affirm the unique complementarity of male/female and it’s role in human existence. Yet you don’t really want to affirm it, do you. Your post confirms that you want to relativize it by parsing the word to pieces.

It’s origins are revealed nature. Genesis speaks of it, Christ’s himself refers to Genesis. Pope Paul cited above.
John Paul 2 Theology of the Body has probably the most in depth treatment on the subject.
It seems we are chasing our tails over something that common sense reveals.

If you are truly interested in knowing what the Church proclaims about complementarity, start here.
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm
This puts the issue in it’s proper and full context.
Click to expand...
Exactly so. The origin of the idea of sexual complementarity is in the self evident fact that the human race is composed of males and females.
 
JimG said:
Exactly so. The origin of the idea of sexual complementarity is in the self evident fact that the human race is composed of males and females.
Click to expand...
I am glad that it is clear for you, but I am having some trouble understanding it clearly. I can see how my point of view would seem nonsensical to you, and I hope to explain myself better.

What is clear to me is this: Scripture does teach the concept we call complementarity - but we are using the word to mean (at least) two different things. When we talk about complementarity in terms of of functionality, as in roles based on giftedness, this is clearly pointing towards a universal truth that is illustrated both Scripturally and anecdotally. When complementarity is defined in terms of ontological hierarchy, I feel the evidence is far less clear and convincing. Conflating the two does little to justify the latter. Differences should be celebrated… but one wonders how natural the roles assigned based on those differences really are when they must be forced. When we assign people a place in an ontological hierarchy, are we, unintentionally or otherwise, replacing complementarity with patriarchy? If so, I do not believe we can call that “truth”, nor do Christ’s teachings support such a perspective.
Do you believe complementarity is defined as an ontological hierarchy?
 
Crow_and_dove said:
I apologize if I was unclear. The actual term and the concept it refers to are not the same thing. Wording changes over time, and I am curious when and why the term “complementarity” came about. Does it appear in Humanae vitae? If you could name an earlier source I would appreciate it.
Click to expand...
I have no idea when the word was first used.
 
Crow_and_dove said:
I am glad that it is clear for you, but I am having some trouble understanding it clearly. I can see how my point of view would seem nonsensical to you, and I hope to explain myself better.

What is clear to me is this: Scripture does teach the concept we call complementarity - but we are using the word to mean (at least) two different things. When we talk about complementarity in terms of of functionality, as in roles based on giftedness, this is clearly pointing towards a universal truth that is illustrated both Scripturally and anecdotally. When complementarity is defined in terms of ontological hierarchy, I feel the evidence is far less clear and convincing. Conflating the two does little to justify the latter. Differences should be celebrated… but one wonders how natural the roles assigned based on those differences really are when they must be forced. When we assign people a place in an ontological hierarchy, are we, unintentionally or otherwise, replacing complementarity with patriarchy? If so, I do not believe we can call that “truth”, nor do Christ’s teachings support such a perspective.
Do you believe complementarity is defined as an ontological hierarchy?
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that complementarity is an ontological hierarchy, because hierarchy has nothing to do with it. When it comes to sexual complementarity, it is simply a description of biological fact, so yes, it’s an ontological description referring to men and women which has been around since human being first noticed each other.

Complementarity can be used in a psychological sense, but I am not using it that way here.
 
JimG said:
I don’t believe that complementarity is an ontological hierarchy, because hierarchy has nothing to do with it. When it comes to sexual complementarity, it is simply a description of biological fact, so yes, it’s an ontological description referring to men and women which has been around since human being first noticed each other.

Complementarity can be used in a psychological sense, but I am not using it that way here.
Click to expand...
Could you please describe what sense you are using it in with more detail?
 
Crow_and_dove said:
I am glad that it is clear for you, but I am having some trouble understanding it clearly. I can see how my point of view would seem nonsensical to you, and I hope to explain myself better.

What is clear to me is this: Scripture does teach the concept we call complementarity - but we are using the word to mean (at least) two different things. When we talk about complementarity in terms of of functionality, as in roles based on giftedness, this is clearly pointing towards a universal truth that is illustrated both Scripturally and anecdotally. When complementarity is defined in terms of ontological hierarchy, I feel the evidence is far less clear and convincing. Conflating the two does little to justify the latter. Differences should be celebrated… but one wonders how natural the roles assigned based on those differences really are when they must be forced. When we assign people a place in an ontological hierarchy, are we, unintentionally or otherwise, replacing complementarity with patriarchy? If so, I do not believe we can call that “truth”, nor do Christ’s teachings support such a perspective.
Do you believe complementarity is defined as an ontological hierarchy?
Click to expand...
If you want the most in depth Catholic philosophy in this area this is must reading.
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2TBIND.HTM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top