Do Catholics have a repressed attitude of sex?

[cargopilot]

Island Oak:

Would you be referring to the Catholics with just 5 kids instead of 8? Yeah, probably the “repressed-Catholic-guilt/sexuality” thing at work!!

:clapping:

 

[Mijoy2]

Just my 2 cents.

I don’t think Catholics have a repressed attitude about sex. I think Catholic doctrine regarding sex makes a great deal of sense. However it is not always immediately apparent…to say the least.

Having said this, I do question why God designed us with such an apparent misbalanced desire towards sex. Misbalanced in that the desire far exceeds the premise of the reason we desire sex.

I don’t understand why the desire is to intense, and so insatiable, by design.

 

[jman507]

YinYangMom:

Originally Posted by cynic
Not really relevant or anything to do with porn, but this is typical of a repressed attitude by people obsessed with sin. What does ‘one with God’ mean? why does it have to be put into some ridicuous analogy like “sexual desire is really about desire for God” Er, no it isn’t, it’s about desire for the other person. Catholics still can’t accept that, so using language like this, talking about it in impersonal ways such as “offering your body up to God to become co-creators with him” - that kind thing is just another way of saying sex is dirty. Behind it lies the idea that worldly attachments are evil, including to your wife or husband. God isn’t just top of the list, he’s ALL that’s on the list, thus even in marriage all this icky personal stuff has no place, instead it has to be turned into something clean by changing it into worship.(sarcasm)

One would have to be overly Augustianian and Platonist to think that. The Catholic Church would refute this. The world is not evil, God called it good. It is us who are fallen that are broken. In that brokeness we are tempted to bring in inapproprait worldly attachments. If all worldly attachments where bad, then I guess the Eucharist would be bad too.

You gotta love it, on one hand the Church is criticized for repress sex too much, then on the other hand the Church is criticized for promoting sex too much with wanting people to have too many children.

 

[Ghosty]

While the Church later decided that it was not a sacrament they did continue to believe that it was a renewal of the marital vows.

I think you meant this, but I just want to clarify that sex is a direct part of the Sacrament of Matrimony. No sex, no Sacrament. It’s not just a renewal, and it’s not the Sacrament in and of itself, but it is significant enough that if a person isn’t able to sexually function, espescially a male, they are not considered to be eligable for the Sacrament of Matrimony. It’s as much a part of Matrimony as water is for Baptism.

As for the topic of the thread, I don’t think that talking about God in relation to sex shows repression at all. You have no idea what goes on in Catholic bedrooms, but I can tell by what you’re saying that you think it’s some uneasy, awkward thing, rather than sweaty, passionate romance that leaves people feeling like they’ve run a hundred miles to jump into a pool of chocolate pudding and whipped cream. Most faithful, practicing Catholic couples are MUCH more likely than the average non-Catholics to fall into the latter category rather than the former.

Besides, everyone seems to yell “Oh God!” during sex, even seculars. Ever wonder if maybe Catholics are on to something?

 

[mosher]

Ghosty:

I think you meant this, but I just want to clarify that sex is a direct part of the Sacrament of Matrimony. No sex, no Sacrament. It’s not just a renewal, and it’s not the Sacrament in and of itself, but it is significant enough that if a person isn’t able to sexually function, espescially a male, they are not considered to be eligable for the Sacrament of Matrimony. It’s as much a part of Matrimony as water is for Baptism.

As for the topic of the thread, I don’t think that talking about God in relation to sex shows repression at all. You have no idea what goes on in Catholic bedrooms, but I can tell by what you’re saying that you think it’s some uneasy, awkward thing, rather than sweaty, passionate romance that leaves people feeling like they’ve run a hundred miles to jump into a pool of chocolate pudding and whipped cream. Most faithful, practicing Catholic couples are MUCH more likely than the average non-Catholics to fall into the latter category rather than the former.

Besides, everyone seems to yell “Oh God!” during sex, even seculars. Ever wonder if maybe Catholics are on to something?

Of course … I was addressing post Sacrament.

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

but why we need to direct our thoughts to that in every moment is hard to see, and also quite impossible if things are to …happen. Maybe a tendency to do that is based on unease?

It’s not so much that we need to direct our thoughts to God in every moment as much as it is that we are called to direct our thoughts to God in every moment.

It’s the entire reason we exist on this earth. To know God, to love God, to serve Him. We are not here to do whatever we want just because it feels good to us.

 

[buffalo]

cargopilot:

Sure, many Catholics DO have a repressed attitude of sex. We are the guilt kings. We take guilt and shame to a fine art form. :tsktsk: But, is that really bad?

My wife and I both, to different degrees, have a repressed attitude of sex. We both grew up that way. She more so than me, but I think we’ll both admit, it can be a little fun when you blend a little guilt and shame into the marital mix. Even though we both fully know that there is nothing wrong with the marital act, still she has a tendency to think we’re doing something bad and shameful.

So, rather than feeling guilty about being ‘stuck’ with that ingrained feeling of guilt, why not just have some fun with it? Sort of make it a little game?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif Or would that be too shameful?

Repressed? I don’t like the word. Sex is a base animal instinct. The marital embrace is quite a positive thing and should be of high value.

Theology of the Body

 

[cynic]

YinYangMom:

It’s not so much that we need to direct our thoughts to God in every moment as much as it is that we are called to direct our thoughts to God in every moment.

It’s the entire reason we exist on this earth. To know God, to love God, to serve Him. We are not here to do whatever we want just because it feels good to us.

I don’t agree with this entirely. God made Eve for Adam, Adam was made for Eve. You learn to love through God, but you’re saying you should only love God, that we are here solely to glorify our creator…

 

[Journeyman]

I don’t think that Catholics who understand the Church’s teachings on sex have repressed attitudes towards sex in the least. However, if you don’t see the tie-in between sex within marriage and he deepest mysteries of God read the last half of Ephesians 5. What does St. Paul mean when he writes ““For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church;”?

Also, although heavy reading, the Theology of the Body is a must read.

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

I don’t agree with this entirely. God made Eve for Adam, Adam was made for Eve. You learn to love through God, but you’re saying you should only love God, that we are here solely to glorify our creator…

God did not make Eve to please Adam.
He made her to complete him.
Together they are humanity.
God could have made each of us out of the earth and each man’s rib but He chose to share His joy in creation by allowing humanity to participate in it completely.
Thus male and female were drawn to each other according to God’s will and they were able to populate the earth.
Each time married couples open themselves completely to God’s will, thus allowing Him to continue bringing new life into the world, they are glorifying Him.

What greater love is there than to lay down one’s life for another? That’s what the marital embrace is all about…man and woman give up their lives by bringing new life into the world. Any parent can tell you, no matter how well they’ve laid out their plans for their future - even accounting for children - once that little one enters the picture, those plans change. Mostly for the better, as God only knows what we truly need in life, we only think we do…and through that life we find out how off the mark our plans were.

 

[Ghosty]

Of course … I was addressing post Sacrament.

Right, but my point is that the Sacrament doesn’t “take” until the sex act. You can have the marriage vows in front of a priest and audience, drive away in a “Just Married” vehicle, get to your vacation location and never have sex: in this case you have not had the Sacrament of Marriage. It’s not a matter of before or after the Sacrament, it’s a matter of during and part of the Sacrament. Sex after the first time is like blessing yourself with Holy Water as you enter the Church in commemoration of the Sacrament of Baptism

 

[cynic]

YinYangMom:

God did not make Eve to please Adam.
He made her to complete him.
Together they are humanity.
God could have made each of us out of the earth and each man’s rib but He chose to share His joy in creation by allowing humanity to participate in it completely.
Thus male and female were drawn to each other according to God’s will and they were able to populate the earth.
Each time married couples open themselves completely to God’s will, thus allowing Him to continue bringing new life into the world, they are glorifying Him.

What greater love is there than to lay down one’s life for another? That’s what the marital embrace is all about…man and woman give up their lives by bringing new life into the world. Any parent can tell you, no matter how well they’ve laid out their plans for their future - even accounting for children - once that little one enters the picture, those plans change. Mostly for the better, as God only knows what we truly need in life, we only think we do…and through that life we find out how off the mark our plans were.

so it’s totally about reproduction from your perspective. That’s all its about, there is no other meaning to it, not even a secondary value. Well at least that’s clear. No sex after 50, no NFP. The whole co-creator thing is fine, but I think overstating it, or talking as if that is all there should be, it’s a way of avoiding acknowedging personal feelings between husband and wife, attraction that can’t be put directly into the worship context.

 

[Topher]

Of course the Church does NOT have a repressed attitude about sex. Read “Theology of the Body” and “Love and Responsibility”. Both were written by the late Holy Father, and both are so explicit that I would not be able to quote some passages from them on this forum.

 

[YinYangMom]

cynic:

so it’s totally about reproduction from your perspective. That’s all its about, there is no other meaning to it, not even a secondary value. Well at least that’s clear. No sex after 50, no NFP. The whole co-creator thing is fine, but I think overstating it, or talking as if that is all there should be, it’s a way of avoiding acknowedging personal feelings between husband and wife, attraction that can’t be put directly into the worship context.

Of course there is another level. Sex is unitive and procreative.
There is sex after 50 since the marital embrace is a renewal of one’s vows. It’s saying over and over again that I give myself completely to you tonight as I did the first night we were married, I trust you completely, and praise God for bringing you into my life.

But it isn’t, “Ooh, baby, I feel frisky tonight, c’mon over so I can show you how much I love you”. That is using one’s partner as an outlet for hormonal urges and isn’t an expression of love, but lust.

Makes no difference whether or not a child comes from either embrace, that’s God’s call. The difference is the motivation for wanting to be together and the inclusion of God in the act itself.

 

[cynic]

YinYangMom:

Of course there is another level. Sex is unitive and procreative.
There is sex after 50 since the marital embrace is a renewal of one’s vows. It’s saying over and over again that I give myself completely to you tonight as I did the first night we were married, I trust you completely, and praise God for bringing you into my life.

But it isn’t, “Ooh, baby, I feel frisky tonight, c’mon over so I can show you how much I love you”. That is using one’s partner as an outlet for hormonal urges and isn’t an expression of love, but lust.

.

can’t that be the same thing? you may aswell just say " I trust you completely, and praise God for bringing you into my life". Why not just renew the vows then? If you want to reduce all desire to an “outlet for hormonal urges” that 's up to you, what is exactly wrong with “c’mon over so I can show you how much I love you”?

 

[cynic]

Quote:
Originally Posted by YinYangMom
*

When a single person decides to marry, they are inviting another person to join them in expressing their love for God. They are acknowledging that God sent this person to them so that together, as one, they can share in God’s love for humanity by offering themselves to Him in order to bring new life into the world. They empty themselves completely to God each time they embrace so that God may act through their union.

.

---

I just read this from a post of yours. You are welcome to your impersonal views with regards to marriage and love. One person (of the same faith) is pretty much as good as the next then, since love is an expression directly made to God, not another. Personal attachments are to be avoided. Intimacy only with our creator. The other person a means to this. Would you say this to your husand or wife?
“I love you only because I ought to, with no affection for you individually”

 

[jman507]

cynic:

Quote:
Originally Posted by YinYangMom
**

When a single person decides to marry, they are inviting another person to join them in expressing their love for God. They are acknowledging that God sent this person to them so that together, as one, they can share in God’s love for humanity by offering themselves to Him in order to bring new life into the world. They empty themselves completely to God each time they embrace so that God may act through their union.

.

I just read this from a post of yours. You are welcome to your impersonal views with regards to marriage and love. One person (of the same faith) is pretty much as good as the next then, since love is an expression directly made to God, not another. Personal attachments are to be avoided. Intimacy only with our creator. The other person a means to this. Would you say this to your husand or wife?
“I love you only because I ought to, with no affection for you individually”

Yes, but this personal attachment is one that has been blessed by God, through the marriage. If you believe that marriage is a sacrament and the view of it from the Bible, the two become of one. You honor God, by honoring the vow, you also love this neighbor as you’d love yourself. It would become an improper attachment if say the spouse dies and one cannot forgive God for taking the person away. That is not to say there will be saddness and disapointment, for part of that person died.

Just because you love someone as you ought, does not mean some how you could love that person in a better love. Are you trying to say that it’d be better if you ought to not love your spouse? That’d be crazy though one reason to love your spouse is because that spouse is supposed to have a special relationship with you, since two become one. If you want to do what you ought, then it might not be so virtuous. Chances are though you will not always feel like you want to love your spouse. When you love the spouse in those conditions it becomes virtuous.

You can have affection for that person individually while still staying in complete intimacy with the Creator, because that type of relationship has been blessed. If your using the spouce just for your pleasure, then your getting into lust. You neither honor the spouse nor God.

 

[buffalo]

YinYangMom:

Of course there is another level. Sex is unitive and procreative.
There is sex after 50 since the marital embrace is a renewal of one’s vows. It’s saying over and over again that I give myself completely to you tonight as I did the first night we were married, I trust you completely, and praise God for bringing you into my life.

But it isn’t, “Ooh, baby, I feel frisky tonight, c’mon over so I can show you how much I love you”. That is using one’s partner as an outlet for hormonal urges and isn’t an expression of love, but lust.

Makes no difference whether or not a child comes from either embrace, that’s God’s call. The difference is the motivation for wanting to be together and the inclusion of God in the act itself.

Excellent!! :bowdown2:

 

[buffalo]

cynic:

can’t that be the same thing? you may aswell just say " I trust you completely, and praise God for bringing you into my life". Why not just renew the vows then? If you want to reduce all desire to an “outlet for hormonal urges” that 's up to you, what is exactly wrong with “c’mon over so I can show you how much I love you”?

The marital embrace is a benefit of true love, not a requirement. Objectifying a women for sexual relase only is an insult to her dignity and internal beauty.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Penny Plain:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes chicken salad is just chicken salad.

George Carlin once called a cigar by a different name, as I recall.