condoms vs nfp. what's really the dif??

[Thoughtfulone]

How unthoughtful that a teaching from an Ecumenical Council which refers to the Encyclical *Casti Connubii *should be cavalierly dismissed as “Church leaders to misinterpret a passage in the Bible according to its own personal opinion and agenda.” How unthoughtful not to know that even non-infallible doctrine requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect.” (Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium *25).
Further, the definitive doctrine against contraception in *Cast Connubii *is infallible.

From Vatican II itself, we know that all Catholic consciences must always be conformed to that divine law interpreted by the Magisterium and submissive to the Magisterium.
For such dissenters:
“must always be conformed to” means “must always obey” the divine law.
“submissive” allows of no wriggling out of the obligation to follow the doctrine of the Magisterium

From Vatican II (Gaudiem et Spes)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. (#50).

“Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law.(14) (#51)

Footnote 14 includes: Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Casti Connubii: AAS 22 (1930):*Casti Connubii *infallibly defines contraception as a grave sin:
“54. But no reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good. Since, therefore, the conjugal act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.

“55. Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness that the Divine Majesty regards with greatest detestation this horrible crime and at times has punished it with death. As St. Augustine notes, “Intercourse even with one’s legitimate wife is unlawful and wicked where the conception of the offspring is prevented. Onan, the son of Juda, did this and the Lord killed him for it.” [45]

“56. Since, therefore, openly departing from the uninterrupted Christian tradition some recently have judged it possible solemnly to declare another doctrine regarding this question, the Catholic Church, to whom God has entrusted the defense of the integrity and purity of morals, standing erect in the midst of the moral ruin which surrounds her, in order that she may preserve the chastity of the nuptial union from being defiled by this foul stain, raises her voice in token of her divine ambassadorship and through Our mouth proclaims anew: any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.”

Firstly, whether or not the Church’s position on contraception is infallible is a hotly debated topic, even among theologians.

Secondly, that was not the point of my post. The point of my post was that the Church misinterpreted the story of Onan, that’s all. The Church may very well say that contraception is wrong, but using the Onan story to support that stance is incorrect. THAT was my point, and a valid one.

Notice that neither Pope John Paul 2 in his writings nor the current Catechism uses the Onan story as evidence that contraception is wrong. There is a good reason for this.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Thoughtfulone, regarding your post 164:

You have mischaracterized Paul and Augustine, friend. Paul appears to have chosen celibacy as a practical matter, which he alludes to briefly. Naturally the apostolic mission of the early Church was extremely demanding on commitment, time, and the sheer physicality of the travel. A workable marriage was pretty incompatible with his 24/7 occupations (which included being a tent-maker as a steady source of income, as well as evangelizing); taking himself as an example he therefore ‘recommended’ celibacy to his brothers with a similar itinerant and sacrificial lifestyle, but acknowledged that celibacy is not for everyone, given the power of the sex drive.

Augustine was by no means repelled by sex. He was one lusty guy who thoroughly enjoyed sex (too much so ) Today we would classify him as having a “sexual addiciton.” His later “repulsion,” if you can call it that, was to his inordinate attachment to his licentious lifestyle which had been consuming him and ultimately left him by his own admission “restless,” incomplete. What he did – or we could say what God did, with Augustine’s cooperation – was to transform this physical passion into an equally consuming passion for God.

I get your point about the obsessiveness of some Catholic lay people. Many times such people are overly scrupulous about non-sexual matters as well. Some people over-extend and over-internalize the Church’s regulatory categories to a preoccupation with categories and self-consciousness about any area which the Church regulates.

I’m not addressing your assertion that the difference between NFP and barrier methods is “splitting hairs,” but whether you believe it is or is not, the above three points which I refute in your post do not have the support that would justify a theory that the RCC encourages people to regard sex as “dirty” and base.

Paul’s characterization of sex and marriage seems pretty bleak when he tells people that the only reason to get married is if you can’t keep it in your pants.

And sure, Augustine had all his fun earlier in life and then turned around and for quite some time believed that sex was evil unless strictly for procreation. He relaxed this view somewhat later, but let’s face it, the damage was done. The Church’s view of sex is based largely on prior Augustinian characterizations.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Straight Dope - really? Nice opinion - little substance. Here, I can do that too:
“Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) wrote extensively about sexual subjects; his thinking dominated Christian teaching for centuries. First, he taught that sex was reserved for marriage and that lust could enter marriage, making lustful sex sinful just as it is outside of marriage. Second, he commented on the intrinsic beauty of sex within marriage.”
See, no citations, no references - man, this is easy!!!

I cited the primary source. For the sources contributing to the actial article, look it up, they are right there. Here, I’ll do it for you!

David Biale, Eros and the Jew (1992)

Vern L. Bullough, Sexual Variance in Society and History (1976)

Peter Gardella, Innocent Ecstasy (1985)

Nahum M. Sarna, Torah Commentary: Genesis (1989)

 

[mark_a]

I’m sure you have noticed what this does psychologically to the average Catholic as is evidenced by posts such as: “I had an erotic dream about my husband; is this a sin?” and “I got aroused while washing myself in the shower; is this a sin?” and “I accidentally climaxed early not inside my wife; is this a sin?”

Sadly, the average Catholic is as uniformed about actual Catholic teaching as you describe.

Perhaps you’d get more mileage from the the poor job the Church is doing in eduacting her people. From what I’ve observed, kids of parents (not just Catholics either) who are open to life are themselves much more open to life.

 

[Vico]

…
Notice that neither Pope John Paul 2 in his writings nor the current Catechism uses the Onan story as evidence that contraception is wrong. There is a good reason for this.

It is pertinent to contraception. First we know what the act of Onan is also known as onanism. In Merriam-Webster we have:

Onanism, noun
1 : masturbation
2 : coitus interruptus
3 : self-gratification

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church covers onanism as a lack of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love, also the issue with contraception.

2370 … Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. …

2353 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2352

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I’d love to see your evidence for this, though I’m not surprised by your presenting this. I expect you’ll pull out the “Paul is misogynistic” card next!

All you have to do is read what Paul has to say about marriage. Straight from the horse’s mouth. The only reason to get married is if you can’t keep it in your pants.

DOn’t know what you’ve read or where you get your info, but your opinion is ill-formed. Yeah - darn that Jesus guy for telling us lust is a sin. I’m sure you feel He’s wrong on many other issues as well.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

It is pertinent to contraception. First we know what the act of Onan is also known as onanism. In Merriam-Webster we have:

Onanism, noun
1 : masturbation
2 : coitus interruptus
3 : self-gratification

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church covers onanism as a lack of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love, also the issue with contraception.

2370 … Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. …

2353 By *masturbation *is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm#2352

Yes, all of what you cite above is a misinterpretation by the CC (even the derived dictionary definition), which is why the CCC doesn’t cite Onanism as evidence for the wrongness of contraception. They are distancing themselves from it because every modern scholar of scripture knows the evidence doesn’t support it. The Church now uses the constant traditional teaching of the magisterium as the primary evidence for the teaching (which, ironically, was originally based on the story of Onan). The Church now also uses the analogy of the Trinity and the marital union to support her position, shifting directions from a scriptural basis, since that basis is weak.

 

[Vico]

Yes, all of what you cite above is a misinterpretation by the CC (even the derived dictionary definition), which is why the CCC doesn’t cite Onanism as evidence for the wrongness of contraception. They are distancing themselves from it because every modern scholar of scripture knows the evidence doesn’t support it. The Church now uses the constant traditional teaching of the magisterium as the primary evidence for the teaching (which, ironically, was originally based on the story of Onan). The Church now also uses the analogy of the Trinity and the marital union to support her position, shifting directions from a scriptural basis, since that basis is weak.

Yes Onan was obligated to give a child to Tamar and did not want to give his deceased brother a child, so he used coitus interruptus contraception. Not giving his deceased brother a child was not a capital offense! The Church has taken his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, and this is the current teaching also. The explanations of dogma develop over time, which is normal. Contraception means deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation, per the English dictionary (Merriam-Webster). The Church excludes abstinance from this term.

The Church uses Humanae Vitae (HV) 14 and 16 and Familiaris Consortio (FC) 32 as the references for contraception in the Catechism. And FC item 32 refers also to HV 12, 13, 14, and Gaudium et Spies 51, which in turn, item 51 refers to Casti Canubii. Casti Canubii does refer to Onan in Genesis. The act of masturbation is prohibited for the same reason as contraception.

wf-f.org/FamCons.html

As Casti Connubii stated in regard to the marital act: “those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (item 54), "Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness … " in the act of Onan, exercising just such a frustration of natural power and purpose (item 55).

“Marital relations even with a lawful wife, are unlawful and degrading when the conception of a child is deliberately frustrated. This was the sin of Onan, and God struck him dead because of it.” – Saint Augustine

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Yes Onan was obligated to give a child to Tamar and did not want to give his deceased brother a child, so he used coitus interruptus contraception. Not giving his deceased brother a child was not a capital offense! The Church has taken his objective behavior of masturbation and coitus interruptus as sinful, and this is the current teaching also. The explanations of dogma develop over time, which is normal. Contraception means deliberate prevention of conception or impregnation, per the English dictionary (Merriam-Webster). The Church excludes abstinance from this term.

The Church uses Humanae Vitae (HV) 14 and 16 and Familiaris Consortio (FC) 32 as the references for contraception in the Catechism. And FC item 32 refers also to HV 12, 13, 14, and Gaudium et Spies 51, which in turn, item 51 refers to Casti Canubii. Casti Canubii does refer to Onan in Genesis. The act of masturbation is prohibited for the same reason as contraception.

wf-f.org/FamCons.html

As Casti Connubii stated in regard to the marital act: “those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shameful and intrinsically vicious.” (item 54), "Small wonder, therefore, if Holy Writ bears witness … " in the act of Onan, exercising just such a frustration of natural power and purpose (item 55).

“Marital relations even with a lawful wife, are unlawful and degrading when the conception of a child is deliberately frustrated. This was the sin of Onan, and God struck him dead because of it.” – Saint Augustine

All misinterpretations. Jewish scholars affirm this. The Jews of the time did not interpret it this way and it was THEIR law.

Of course it’s fine that the Church says these things are sinful and I agree that this is the teaching, but misinterpreting scripture to justify it is not o.k.

Also, let’s look at the actual text:

“So when Onan went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground,** lest he give offspring to his brother**. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.” (Gen. 38, 9-10, RSV)

The qualifier here is key also. Basically, he lied to Tamar, essentially raped her, and spilled his seed SO AS NOT TO GIVE HIS BROTHER A CHILD. That is the key. This alone would **** God off (the raping and breaking the law and all), but the key lies in Matthew.

Tamar is one of 4 women mentioned in Jesus’ lineage. By “pulling out”, he was compromising the possible birth of the Messiah.

In the context of the birth of the Messiah, along with ancient Hebrew understanding of the text, does not logically allow a leap from this to “contraception and masturbation=straight to hell”.

 

[Debora123]

I’ll have to go with T-one on this. None of the “Sex and Marriage” Catholic books I’ve read have ever referenced Onan in any way whatsoever to explain why contraception is wrong. Amongst these sources includes Christopher West, Mary Beth Bonacci, and TOTB.



It’s always been some weird mystical stuff about the trinity and about accepting each other’s fertility.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Church’s view of sex is based largely on prior Augustinian characterizations.

Whoa. The Church’s view of sex is a composite, by no means dominated by Augustine’s writings. It includes all of scripture and the entire sacred tradition from the Patristics onward, even through the 20th century. There’s a lot of sifting to do there, because some of that thinking was less affirming of the human body and more dualistic than other elements. I will grant you an important point, though, T-1, in that “the medium is the message.” Sex, being highly affective rather than rationalistic, is not an impulse sufficiently explained and approached by strictly left-brained methodologies.

You and I have discussed this before: the Church is highly structured, rationalistic, and hierarchical in her explanations, but that does not mean that she subscribes to an anachronistic worldview of soul versus body, or a view that sex is simply a necessary evil which is strictly functional. The way that theology (some of it) is written is so “constructivist” that it may imply that message to you, but I think this is a narrow view. Sex can only be intellectualized so far, and I think this is partly what you are reacting to: what appears to be overly analytical language about a non-rationalistic human activity.

As to Paul and Augustine, as a literature student you should know better. Both of them wrote an awful lot. Their various writings had various purposes. As with other authors throughout time, some of their writing was of the more spontaneous and personal variety, some of it was more ‘deliberate’ and thought-out. Some of it was what we could call ‘in process.’ I don’t want to derail the thread; that’s not the topic here, but one does have to consider audience and culture when evaluating writing, and the church --or her better theologians-- do try to do that. Paul was on a mission. The guy was consumed with evangelism. I would not call his epistles a developed sexual theology or marital theology. He was largely focused on salvation theology, redemption theology, the theology of grace, and the character of the Christian community (liturgy and virtue) in conformity with the message of Jesus.

That said, continue with the thread subject…

 

[cfrancis]

I cited the primary source. For the sources contributing to the actial article, look it up, they are right there. Here, I’ll do it for you!

David Biale, Eros and the Jew (1992)

Vern L. Bullough, Sexual Variance in Society and History (1976)

Peter Gardella, Innocent Ecstasy (1985)

Nahum M. Sarna, Torah Commentary: Genesis (1989)

Wow - I thought your source referenced Aquinas yet there is not a writing of his, or Augustine’s, in the list of their sources. Sure would be nice if one could get their hands on some writings of either Augustine or Aquinas…oh wait, they can! Wonder why your source didn’t want to go straight to them??? Perhaps it’s because neither Aquinas nor Augustine fit into your source’s agenda.

 

[Vico]

All misinterpretations. Jewish scholars affirm this. The Jews of the time did not interpret it this way and it was THEIR law.

Of course it’s fine that the Church says these things are sinful and I agree that this is the teaching, but misinterpreting scripture to justify it is not o.k.

Also, let’s look at the actual text:

“So when Onan went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground,** lest he give offspring to his brother**. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, and he slew him also.” (Gen. 38, 9-10, RSV)

The qualifier here is key also. Basically, he lied to Tamar, essentially raped her, and spilled his seed SO AS NOT TO GIVE HIS BROTHER A CHILD. That is the key. This alone would **** God off (the raping and breaking the law and all), but the key lies in Matthew.

Tamar is one of 4 women mentioned in Jesus’ lineage. By “pulling out”, he was compromising the possible birth of the Messiah.

In the context of the birth of the Messiah, along with ancient Hebrew understanding of the text, does not logically allow a leap from this to “contraception and masturbation=straight to hell”.

The ancient Hebrew law, it was not a captial offense, only shameful, to not fulfil his duty to his brother, the Levirate marriage law (yibbum). So it does not make sense that it would be the motive to not to give his brother a child that was the offense to God, rather the objective action.

 

[cfrancis]

All you have to do is read what Paul has to say about marriage. Straight from the horse’s mouth. The only reason to get married is if you can’t keep it in your pants.

I guess you’ve read less of Paul than I have, because his description of sex and marriage in Ephesians 5 is anything but what you desribe. But I understand why you need to twist Paul’s words, as it’s the only way to rationalize your position.

Not at all. It’s how people twist what Jesus said that irritates me. Tell me how one, lusting after one’s wife, can commit adultery against one’s wife. You can’t, because it’s not possible, because lust necessarily involves someone you are not married to. Jesus never intended for this to be used as a warning to people’s relationships with their spouses. It’s obvious.

Wow - that’s what you call “creative theology”! Please, by all means, provide a source that limits lust to “someone you are not married to.” I’d love to see it!
Yet again, I understand why you need to twist this as well, to rationalize your position.
What you propose, it appears, is that either husband or wife can use each other, as they would use any other tool.

sigh No, I am not saying that NFP is not effective. I said that if a married couple does not wish to have children, they have to at least try to have them anyway. Tell me I’m wrong.

You are wrong. They have to be open to the possibility.

The Church is the one pulling out the “natural law” argument, not me. I think sex can be extremely spiritual and beautiful, and I think there are many ways to express your love for your spouse that don’t involve an obsessive-compulsive need to place sperm in a vagina at all costs.

“Natural Law” hasn’t been mentioned. You simply equate sex with any other bodily function. And you are right, there are many ways to express love to your spouse without sex, or the obsessive-compulsive need to gratify yourself by using your spouse as an orgasm-producer that you propose.

 

[Vico]

Got a link to the entire article?

Mark A,

I didn’t see anybody post a link to where the article came from. It was written by Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, Cecil Adam’s online “auxiliary”. Cecil Adams is, according to the site, “the world’s smartest human being”. The list of general sources is given there, and the article is signed by “Dex”, and said to be edited by Ed Zotti, but there are no page references.

straightdope.com/columns/read/2205/what-exactly-was-the-sin-of-onan

 

[cfrancis]

I’ll have to go with T-one on this. None of the “Sex and Marriage” Catholic books I’ve read have ever referenced Onan in any way whatsoever to explain why contraception is wrong. Amongst these sources includes Christopher West, Mary Beth Bonacci, and TOTB.



It’s always been some weird mystical stuff about the trinity and about accepting each other’s fertility.

Just the first book I pulled off my shelf: “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West (revised edition, copyright 2000, 2004), p118:

“Nowhere does the Bible say, ‘Thou shall not use contraception.’ But it does say we’re creates in the image and likeness of God as male and female (see Gn 1:27). It does say ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Gn 1:28). It does say that God slew Onan for ‘spilling his seed on the ground’ (Gn38:9-10).10”

“Weird mystical stuff”??? [warning, sarcasm ensues] Good thing there’s no “weird mystical stuff” like God becoming man by being born of a virgin; or a dead God coming back to life; or some bread and wine being turned into that God’s Body and Blood…

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I guess you’ve read less of Paul than I have, because his description of sex and marriage in Ephesians 5 is anything but what you desribe. But I understand why you need to twist Paul’s words, as it’s the only way to rationalize your position.

Yes, his description of marriage in Ephesians 5 is certainly more in line with my own beliefs than the way he describes it elsewhere. Again, I was not twisting his words, they are right there in black and white, as they are in Ephesians 5. 2 totally different sentiments. Although, Paul is very clear in Ephesians 5 that in his discussion of husband and wife, he is speaking analogously about Christ and His Church.

Wow - that’s what you call “creative theology”! Please, by all means, provide a source that limits lust to “someone you are not married to.” I’d love to see it!
Yet again, I understand why you need to twist this as well, to rationalize your position.
What you propose, it appears, is that either husband or wife can use each other, as they would use any other tool.

Haha. Don’t push your own hangups and disgusting views of sex onto me. Nice try. I think there are thousands of ways to show love to one’s spouse every day. I also think that sex can be a wonderful and beautiful thing, and that each person is different in his/her tastes and turn-ons and that sex doesn’t have to be some paint-by-numbers, by-the book activity every single time. Not to get too graphic, but there are some sexual activities in which one spouse is so focused on the other’s pleasure that the act itself becomes completely and totally selfish with zero concern for one’s own physical pleasure, which in turn pleases that spouse immensely. The Church would call this “disordered” and sinful though, which is of course one of the main reasons why the Madonna/whore complex is absolutely rampant among Catholic men.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Whoa. The Church’s view of sex is a composite, by no means dominated by Augustine’s writings. It includes all of scripture and the entire sacred tradition from the Patristics onward, even through the 20th century. There’s a lot of sifting to do there, because some of that thinking was less affirming of the human body and more dualistic than other elements. I will grant you an important point, though, T-1, in that “the medium is the message.” Sex, being highly affective rather than rationalistic, is not an impulse sufficiently explained and approached by strictly left-brained methodologies.

You and I have discussed this before: the Church is highly structured, rationalistic, and hierarchical in her explanations, but that does not mean that she subscribes to an anachronistic worldview of soul versus body, or a view that sex is simply a necessary evil which is strictly functional. The way that theology (some of it) is written is so “constructivist” that it may imply that message to you, but I think this is a narrow view. Sex can only be intellectualized so far, and I think this is partly what you are reacting to: what appears to be overly analytical language about a non-rationalistic human activity.

As to Paul and Augustine, as a literature student you should know better. Both of them wrote an awful lot. Their various writings had various purposes. As with other authors throughout time, some of their writing was of the more spontaneous and personal variety, some of it was more ‘deliberate’ and thought-out. Some of it was what we could call ‘in process.’ I don’t want to derail the thread; that’s not the topic here, but one does have to consider audience and culture when evaluating writing, and the church --or her better theologians-- do try to do that. Paul was on a mission. The guy was consumed with evangelism. I would not call his epistles a developed sexual theology or marital theology. He was largely focused on salvation theology, redemption theology, the theology of grace, and the character of the Christian community (liturgy and virtue) in conformity with the message of Jesus.

That said, continue with the thread subject…

O.K., so I was oversimplifying a bit. You are right about the Church being very structured and rationalistic. This pretty much takes any spontaneity or creativity out of sex, that’s for sure

As to Paul and Augustine, Paul thought the world was about to end at any possible second, as did all of the early Church fathers, so you have Paul going around saying “Don’t marry” (I mean, really, why bother if the apocalypse is right around the corner?) and you have other Church fathers saying “Have 12,000 kids, they won’t be around long anyway!”

This is one of the problems I have with these early teachings. Your perspective changes a bit when you think a giant fireball could hit the Earth any second.

As for Augustine, he had some personal problems. like many born-again Christians, he seems to have replaced one addiction (sex) for another (religion). Of course this made him a very holy man, but it also skewed many of his views as well.

 

[Elizabeth502]

O.K., so I was oversimplifying a bit. You are right about the Church being very structured and rationalistic. This pretty much takes any spontaneity or creativity out of sex, that’s for sure

…as does over-explaining, which is another unfortunate tendency, as does over-repeating.

Over-explaining tends to diminish the value of the subject being explained; its effect is simultaneously to complicate and reduce the subject: that’s just a psychological phenomenon. (Hence, we are told in Confession, for example, not to over-explain, as that tends to reduce the import of the sin – our awareness of the gravity, and the priest’s focus on it as well. We are to be simple, forthright, not concern ourselves with the backstory as much as the frontstory.)

The secondary effect of over-explaining is that the listener may draw an unconscious message that something desperately needs explanation for the purpose of “controlling” it. That’s not what the Church intends by that, but it’s possible that that’s an effect.

Excessive repetition leads to tuning out. This is why in advertising, for example, a company looks to wearout analysis to determine when a campaign has lost its effectiveness, and the company is actually losing money due to spending on overplay.

This is one of the problems I have with these early teachings. Your perspective changes a bit when you think a giant fireball could hit the Earth any second.

And that’s precisely why Paul is only one of countless components of RCC sexual morality.

As for Augustine, he had some personal problems. like many born-again Christians, he seems to have replaced one addiction (sex) for another (religion). Of course this made him a very holy man, but it also skewed many of his views as well.

Wait. Are you saying that Sainthood is a pathological condition? Most of the Saints could be called ‘extremists,’ and they were taken for deluded or crazy in many cases. But the term “addiction” is of a different category, denoting a disorder. Most of the Saints were mystics (and with more than one experience), which confirmed their radical love and radical orientation. But radical love (Sainthood) is what all the laity are called to, certainly what Jesus called all of his disciples to, and by extension, us. Radical love is not addiction and does not necessarily indicate “personal problems.”

(Yes, Augustine was a person of extremes, as was Paul. Comes with the territory for a passionate person.)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Wait. Are you saying that Sainthood is a pathological condition? Most of the Saints could be called ‘extremists,’ and they were taken for deluded or crazy in many cases. But the term “addiction” is of a different category, denoting a disorder. Most of the Saints were mystics (and with more than one experience), which confirmed their radical love and radical orientation. But radical love (Sainthood) is what all the laity are called to, certainly what Jesus called all of his disciples to, and by extension, us. Radical love is not addiction and does not necessarily indicate “personal problems.”

(Yes, Augustine was a person of extremes, as was Paul. Comes with the territory for a passionate person.)

No, I’m not saying that for sainthood in general, but I have seen MANY people who had a misspent youth and who were drug addicts or alcoholics who became born again. They often seem to get the same “high” out of religion that they used to get from sex, drugs, alcohol, etc. It often seems that they simply trade one addiction for another.

Of course, if someone has an actual mystical experience, their newfound fervor is explicable, but I think it is something to watch out for.

You also have men who are simply holy, such as Pope John Paul, who are generally humble and don’t feel the need to go to massive extremes, but are content to live a life of faith and devotion.