Explicity post: sex pre-vatican II

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Please, everyone ignore Ron Conte. He doesn’t understand moral theology. He uses nonsensical definitions of a “moral act.”

It is ludicrous and indefensible to treat something like foreplay as a “separate” act.

If I murder someone with a handgun, “aiming” and “squeezing the trigger” are not two separate acts, but by his logic, they would be.

There are no magisterial documents teaching the idea that married couples may engage in non-procreative or non-unitive sexual acts, as long as these acts are used for the purpose of foreplay, or as long as the husband climaxes only in natural intercourse.

They don’t address them because they aren’t individual sexual acts of their own like you seem to think. You’re just wrong on this.

(And if they are individual sexual acts, then yes, we have a problem. But no one is trying to justify pure oral sex here.)

Besides, “the Church doesn’t say X is okay” is a terrible, terrible argument. It’s not true that we’re forbidden to do literally anything that the Church doesn’t explicitly authorize. The burden of proof is on the one claiming an act’s immorality. One can say, “the Church doesn’t say X is sinful, so it’s probably okay,” but one cannot say, “Well, the Church has never given the ok to this behavior, so it’s probably wrong.”

Your position is like that of the “Church of Christ” Protestants who believe that the use of musical instruments in church is wrong, because the Bible doesn’t say we can use them.

Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that only the climax of the husband is restricted to natural intercourse, and not also the climax of the wife. The moral law applies equally to both the husband and the wife.

A woman’s climax is not causally, organically linked to the generation of new human life. A man’s climax is.

The older Catholics I have talked to seem to agree with this assessment. In my experience its only younger and/or more liberal Catholics that say that the Church has always taught that sex is meant to be both procreative AND unitive, and that taking pleasure in the activity is not necessarily sinful.

Regardless of emphasis, which I admit has been corrupted from time to time, Church teaching has always had both “procreative” and “unitive” on that list.

I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation. It can be argued that their views did not represent the official teaching of the Church, but saying that such material simply did not exist is untrue.

Fair enough. Still, it’s not enough to say that such material doesn’t represent the official teaching of the Church. Published in the decade before Vatican II, Wojtyla’s well-known book Love and Responsibility really blows the whole “anti-sex” stereotype right out of the water. And that was in the fifties, for crying out loud…

I think that the Laundries are a good illustration of the Catholic Church (as an institution) acting in an anti-sex and anti-women fashion, because unlike many of the recent Church scandals, the people behind it were not violating canon or state law. The Magdalene Laundries were running the way that they were supposed to.

This was Catholic Church policy (at least in Ireland).

As others have indicated, it’s simply inaccurate to say that “the Magdalene Laundries were running the way that they were supposed to.” And the people behind them were violating the universal moral law. If canon law didn’t prohibit such abuse, that’s simply because it likely didn’t anticipate such cruel absurdity.

And yes, I’m dead serious. Upon even a slightly more vigorous historical and ecclesiastical analysis, these stereotypical perspectives on Catholic teaching and policy inevitably turn out to be oversimplifications at best, and outright ignorance and obfuscation at worst.

Heck, just a few days ago a poster quoted an older document which confused him because he wasn’t familiar with the terminology. He asked if it really was teaching that immodestly dressed women bear part of the blame for being raped. All the Catholics - who were familiar with the terminology - could plainly see that rape wasn’t even on the document writer’s radar. It just required a little clearing up.

None of this absolves the Church of responsibility for such abuse, but perceptions of the Church as power-hungry, corrupt, and sexually abusive - and I’m not accusing you of this perspective, Atheist; you’ve admirably stuck to specifics - are wildly inaccurate. Even if this weren’t about truth, it would still remain the case that the Church has done and continues to do so much good for the world through the countless Catholic charities, schools, hospitals, etc. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church needs to take responsibility for abuse of any kind and should immediately and brutally expose and crush it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

All horrible sins committed by members of the church, but what does that have to do with the church teaching prior to vatican II being that sex was only for procreation. Nothiing at all.

You exact post was
“I have read material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation”. And all you come up with are these horror stories. Have a good day, sir.

I was thinking of examples of the Church showing revulsion towards sex and contempt for women. The Magdalene Laundries seem to qualify.

Even the current Pope has admitted that the abuse and corruption in Catholic run industrial schools and workhouses in Ireland was more than a few bad apples.

You can read the Pope’s comments on the Vatican’s own site here:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Please, everyone ignore Ron Conte. He doesn’t understand moral theology. He uses nonsensical definitions of a “moral act.”

It is ludicrous and indefensible to treat something like foreplay as a “separate” act.

If I murder someone with a handgun, “aiming” and “squeezing the trigger” are not two separate acts, but by his logic, they would be.

They don’t address them because they aren’t individual sexual acts of their own like you seem to think. You’re just wrong on this.

(And if they are individual sexual acts, then yes, we have a problem. But no one is trying to justify pure oral sex here.)

Besides, “the Church doesn’t say X is okay” is a terrible, terrible argument. It’s not true that we’re forbidden to do literally anything that the Church doesn’t explicitly authorize. The burden of proof is on the one claiming an act’s immorality. One can say, “the Church doesn’t say X is sinful, so it’s probably okay,” but one cannot say, “Well, the Church has never given the ok to this behavior, so it’s probably wrong.”

Your position is like that of the “Church of Christ” Protestants who believe that the use of musical instruments in church is wrong, because the Bible doesn’t say we can use them.

A woman’s climax is not causally, organically linked to the generation of new human life. A man’s climax is.

Regardless of emphasis, which I admit has been corrupted from time to time, Church teaching has always had both “procreative” and “unitive” on that list.

Fair enough. Still, it’s not enough to say that such material doesn’t represent the official teaching of the Church. Published in the decade before Vatican II, Wojtyla’s well-known book Love and Responsibility really blows the whole “anti-sex” stereotype right out of the water. And that was in the fifties, for crying out loud…

As others have indicated, it’s simply inaccurate to say that “the Magdalene Laundries were running the way that they were supposed to.” And the people behind them were violating the universal moral law. If canon law didn’t prohibit such abuse, that’s simply because it likely didn’t anticipate such cruel absurdity.

And yes, I’m dead serious. Upon even a slightly more vigorous historical and ecclesiastical analysis, these stereotypical perspectives on Catholic teaching and policy inevitably turn out to be oversimplifications at best, and outright ignorance and obfuscation at worst.

Heck, just a few days ago a poster quoted an older document which confused him because he wasn’t familiar with the terminology. He asked if it really was teaching that immodestly dressed women bear part of the blame for being raped. All the Catholics - who were familiar with the terminology - could plainly see that rape wasn’t even on the document writer’s radar. It just required a little clearing up.

None of this absolves the Church of responsibility for such abuse, but perceptions of the Church as power-hungry, corrupt, and sexually abusive - and I’m not accusing you of this perspective, Atheist; you’ve admirably stuck to specifics - are wildly inaccurate. Even if this weren’t about truth, it would still remain the case that the Church has done and continues to do so much good for the world through the countless Catholic charities, schools, hospitals, etc. Nonetheless, the Catholic Church needs to take responsibility for abuse of any kind and should immediately and brutally expose and crush it.

To be perfectly honest, I have always thought that it was a bit ridiculous for celibate men, who have taken an oath to never get married or have children, and are members of an all male priesthood, to be giving advice to normal men and women on sex and marriage.

The fact that such people make the rules for lay Catholics when it comes to these subjects seem to indicate that the Church doesn’t think experience matters when it comes to understanding or properly regulating human behavior.

Its all too easy to imagine individual priests being motivated by jealousy or envy towards their male parishioners (who can get married, have sex, and even reproduce) when they have condemned the evils of lust (even in the marriage bed) over and over again.

Even if a priest has nothing but good intentions, his vows and mindset require him to see any sexual thoughts or contact he has as bad. How can he imagine or relate to any kind of positive sex life for a married man?, let alone a married woman?

 

[tafan]

I was thinking of examples of the Church showing revulsion towards sex and contempt for women. The Magdalene Laundries seem to qualify.

Even the current Pope has admitted that the abuse and corruption in Catholic run industrial schools and workhouses in Ireland was more than a few bad apples.

You can read the Pope’s comments on the Vatican’s own site here:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20100319_church-ireland_en.html

Sorry, not “material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation” which you claim to have read. If you mispoke on your claim of theological reading, thats ok, simply admit it.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

First of all, AngryAtheist, I want to thank you for dealing in specificity. To bring up the Magdalene Laundries is to make a real point. You did that instead of dealing in insulting and vapid caricatures. So thank you.

And yes, I think Catholics have to admit that there’s a crisis concerning such abuse - whatever its form - in the Catholic Church of post-Christian Europe and North America.

People may disagree about why, and some naive - or malicious? - detractors may lay the blame on the most nonsensical of causes, but you’ve not done so. Once again, thank you.

To be perfectly honest, I have always thought that it was a bit ridiculous for celibate men, who have taken an oath to never get married or have children, and are members of an all male priesthood, to be giving advice to normal men and women on sex and marriage.

Many nonbelievers or even Protestant Christians feel that way at first. But I guarantee you that there’s nothing ridiculous about it at all. One doesn’t have to have had sex in order to understand the nature, origins of, and possibilities inherent in the human desire for love and intimacy (and yes, of course that includes sexual desire).

I guarantee you that if you were to pick up - and this is just one example - a copy of Love and Responsibility, which was written by Karol Wojtyla when he was a priest in the 1950s, I guarantee you that you would see for yourself, in practical and specific ways, just how sensitive, wise, and perceptive these celibate men can be about sex. And that example is pre-theology of the body, so I haven’t even pulled out the big guns.

The fact that such people make the rules for lay Catholics when it comes to these subjects seem to indicate that the Church doesn’t think experience matters when it comes to understanding or properly regulating human behavior.

It is not they who make the rules - they simply pass on the rules that have been handed on to them, from generation to generation. It is Christian teaching from Scripture and Tradition that defines the Church’s sexual ethics.

And I definitely think they have a high regard for experience. I’m still relatively young - I’m in my 20s - but my experience growing up was marked by a vibrant youth culture of passionate Catholic Christianity, and many of my friends have found living the deep truths embedded in chastity has only made them better, happier, and closer to Christ. Those who made a late commitment to living virtuously and patiently wish they had begun living this way sooner, and they now carry themselves with greater dignity and confidence than they did before.

I know that it’s hard to live Catholic teaching on human sexuality. The Church asks for a lot of sacrifice, but this truly is the only way - in these matters - to avoid the pain of living within the system of a culture of utility and death.

Catholics who live these teachings find great freedom in their refusal to treat each other as sexual objects, and even the most hated Church teaching on sex - its condemnation of contraception - frees spouses to live the very meaning of human sexuality joyfully and passionately.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that our experience of trying our best to live out these teachings, in cooperation with God’s grace, is one that is liberating and satisfying - quite the opposite of what the world expects. And I’m not surprised that this has been my experience of Catholic teaching, when my investigation into the theology of the body unearthed gold mines of wisdom undreamed of and untapped by the modern secular world.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Its all too easy to imagine individual priests being motivated by jealousy or envy towards their male parishioners (who can get married, have sex, and even reproduce) when they have condemned the evils of lust (even in the marriage bed) over and over again.

I’m certain this is not the case. After all, no one forced them to take a vow of celibacy or become priests. It was their choice, and they knew what they were signing up for.

Of course, there may be an unhappy or envious priest out there. But such is definitely not the norm. Again, maybe I’m biased by my experience of the spiritually successful Catholic community in my city, but all the priests I know are absolutely on fire for the Lord and are filled with passion, joy, and love. I can even think of one or two whose joy escapes my comprehension; these few, I have little doubt, are truly saints living among us.

I know that that doesn’t make sense to modern, secular ears. Sometimes it doesn’t even make sense to me. But the reality is there before me, and I have observed it all my life. G.K. Chesterton - a Catholic convert and married man - once said that though he personally saw little value in celibacy, he was humble enough to accept that the world was wiser than he, for almost all cultures and religions value it on some level - from Catholic religious orders, to Hindu brahmins, to Buddhist monks.

Priests don’t reject their sexuality or their desire for love; they live it out on a higher, more celestial level, one that quite rightly defies the comprehension of which purely earthly parameters are capable.

Even if a priest has nothing but good intentions, his vows and mindset require him to see any sexual thoughts or contact he has as bad. How can he imagine or relate to any kind of positive sex life for a married man?, let alone a married woman?

I don’t think your first statement is quite right. Certainly, he would consider immoral any sexual activity or lustful/impure thoughts, but a priest is not expected to suddenly transform into an asexual being. Of course he will, even as a priest, find women attractive. It may be a paradoxical assertion to say that a priest can certainly relate to and imagine positive, marital sexuality, but it is only the weight of concupiscence which renders such a claim implausible.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Argh, my second reply went over to a new page. Atheist, be sure not to miss my first reply on the bottom of page 3.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I’m certain this is not the case. After all, no one forced them to take a vow of celibacy or become priests. It was their choice, and they knew what they were signing up for.

Of course, there may be an unhappy or envious priest out there. But such is definitely not the norm. Again, maybe I’m biased by my experience of the spiritually successful Catholic community in my city, but all the priests I know are absolutely on fire for the Lord and are filled with passion, joy, and love. I can even think of one or two whose joy escapes my comprehension; these few, I have little doubt, are truly saints living among us.

I know that that doesn’t make sense to modern, secular ears. Sometimes it doesn’t even make sense to me. But the reality is there before me, and I have observed it all my life. G.K. Chesterton - a Catholic convert and married man - once said that though he personally saw little value in celibacy, he was humble enough to accept that the world was wiser than he, for almost all cultures and religions value it on some level - from Catholic religious orders, to Hindu brahmins, to Buddhist monks.

Priests don’t reject their sexuality or their desire for love; they live it out on a higher, more celestial level, one that quite rightly defies the comprehension of which purely earthly parameters are capable.

I don’t think your first statement is quite right. Certainly, he would consider immoral any sexual activity or lustful/impure thoughts, but a priest is not expected to suddenly transform into an asexual being. Of course he will, even as a priest, find women attractive. It may be a paradoxical assertion to say that a priest can certainly relate to and imagine positive, marital sexuality, but it is only the weight of concupiscence which renders such a claim implausible.

Sorry its taken me so long to respond.

I had to go somewhere without internet access for the weekend.

As for the idea that all priests have chosen their vocation willingly, that appears to be more or less true. But there have been efforts in the past to recruit young boys for the priesthood, boys who were too young to really understand what they were getting into.

The best example is probably Ireland, where there were programs in the mid to late 20th Century to recruit boys as young as 13 for theological training. This theological training was boys only and put these teenagers on the ‘fast track’ to the priesthood.

it also separated these boys from the company of girls (as the programs were meant to). The idea was to remove the lads from temptation and keep them ‘pure’ before joining the priesthood.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Sorry, not “material written by Catholic theologians prior to Vatican II that essentially says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation” which you claim to have read. If you mispoke on your claim of theological reading, thats ok, simply admit it.

I will be honest, I read a great deal of theological material when I was in college taking religion classes. But I graduated 5 years ago, and I no longer have most of those books on religion.

Still, your demand is reasonable.

So, quotes or material written by Catholic theologians or authorities supporting my postion hm?

Why don’t I start with a recent (by historical standards) quote:

“In public meetings, never allow women to take the word, however respectable or pious they may seem. If on a specific occasion bishops consider it opportune to permit a meeting for women by themselves, these may not speak except under the presidency and supervision of high ecclesiastical personalities.”

-Pope Pius X

 

[RB2]

As an outsider I would like to say that it appears that prior to Vatican II what is described above was the ideal. Sex was only for procreation (within marriage) and was to be enjoyed as little as possible.

The older Catholics I have talked to seem to agree with this assessment. In my experience its only younger and/or more liberal Catholics that say that the Church has always taught that sex is meant to be both procreative AND unitive, and that taking pleasure in the activity is not necessarily sinful.

The original poster had a specific question.
Your limited readings representing insufficient markers of information coming from a an atheist perspective are no help in the apologetics/moral theology forum. Even being Catholic but not well versed and up to date is of no help either.

In addition, perhaps dredging up everything tangentially related to sex in the Catholic Church in another more related thread would be more appropriate

 

[tafan]

I will be honest, I read a great deal of theological material when I was in college taking religion classes. But I graduated 5 years ago, and I no longer have most of those books on religion.

Still, your demand is reasonable.

So, quotes or material written by Catholic theologians or authorities supporting my postion hm?

Why don’t I start with a recent (by historical standards) quote:

“In public meetings, never allow women to take the word, however respectable or pious they may seem. If on a specific occasion bishops consider it opportune to permit a meeting for women by themselves, these may not speak except under the presidency and supervision of high ecclesiastical personalities.”

-Pope Pius X

And where is Pope Pius X saying that “says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation” (quote being your initial claim).? Maybe my reading skills are not so great anymore, but I don’t see it.

 

[newbetx]

I will be honest, I read a great deal of theological material when I was in college taking religion classes. But I graduated 5 years ago, and I no longer have most of those books on religion.

Still, your demand is reasonable.

So, quotes or material written by Catholic theologians or authorities supporting my postion hm?

Why don’t I start with a recent (by historical standards) quote:

“In public meetings, never allow women to take the word, however respectable or pious they may seem. If on a specific occasion bishops consider it opportune to permit a meeting for women by themselves, these may not speak except under the presidency and supervision of high ecclesiastical personalities.”

-Pope Pius X

And where is Pope Pius X saying that “says that the only good sex is marital sex for the sole purpose of procreation” (quote being your initial claim).? Maybe my reading skills are not so great anymore, but I don’t see it.

I think he was trying to show, within his perspective, where something “wrong” was uttered by someone in the church with authority to show that what ever it was that he was saying before must be wrong too, because this is “wrong.”

Everything that is uttered by someone in the church, even the Pope, is not necessarily 100% correct, nor dogma. What makes anything correct is the proper background upon which it is based.

Like back in the day when they didn’t understand biology and men had “seed.” Just because that particular concept was wrong does not throw out either some of the conclusions, nor the basis of the conclusions. More understanding is needed. Where we get into trouble is taking any teaching at face value and then refuting it based upon the words used. Like taking something out of context. Our church fathers didn’t get it all right all the time. There is so much to learn and understand. When it gets back to the basis for the teaching, and following the logical path to the conclusion, with all the supporting documentation, then it will make sense. At least that’s my experience and I’m not easily convinced based on “because so and so said so.”

But one does have to have a basis. If the basis is good, and solid, then conclusions based upon it is good, too. And the foundation will be set for a rock solid construct.

I think his example was to show how “demeaning” the church is to women. Since many don’t understand the basis for the differences of women and men, then this looks absurd to the outside world (and those inside that don’t or won’t try to understand.) I know it did to me at one time, but slowly, I came to understand it’s not about bias, it’s about duty and position. Not in a way that reduces a person’s dignity but in ways that we have opportunities to excel due to our differences, not our sameness.

 

[tafan]

newbetx:

I think he was trying to show, within his perspective, where something “wrong” was uttered by someone in the church with authority to show that what ever it was that he was saying before must be wrong too, because this is “wrong.”

Makes no sense to me. He made a very specific claim, I gave examples which ran directly counter to his claim, he goes off on complete tangents.

I think his example was to show how “demeaning” the church is to women. Since many don’t understand the basis for the differences of women and men, then this looks absurd to the outside world (and those inside that don’t or won’t try to understand.) I know it did to me at one time, but slowly, I came to understand it’s not about bias, it’s about duty and position. Not in a way that reduces a person’s dignity but in ways that we have opportunities to excel due to our differences, not our sameness.

I have no idea the context of his quote by Pius X, but on honest evaluation of the evidence shows that the church has never been demeaning to women, at least relative to the rest of society. From the very beginning, many women have ben canonized. It is in Catholic contuntries that women were granted rights of inheritance and nobility in the middle ages. It is in the Catholic church that women were allowed to be abbesses in control of, sometimes vast, amounts of land. It is in the Catholic Church, that my great aunt was a hospital administrator in the 1940s or 50s, in a time when in a seculare hospital it would have been completely the domain of women. It is the Catholic countries that women were protected by the disastrous consequences of divorces for centuries. It is the Catholic Church that condemns the horrid exploitation of women so common in todays society. One out-of-context quote by Pius X does nothing to negate these facts. Continually, throughout history, the treatment of women by the Catholic Church has far exceeded the treatment of women be the standards of the time.

But I digress, back to the point of the thread and AngryAithiest’s initial point…

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think he was trying to show, within his perspective, where something “wrong” was uttered by someone in the church with authority to show that what ever it was that he was saying before must be wrong too, because this is “wrong.”

Everything that is uttered by someone in the church, even the Pope, is not necessarily 100% correct, nor dogma. What makes anything correct is the proper background upon which it is based.

Like back in the day when they didn’t understand biology and men had “seed.” Just because that particular concept was wrong does not throw out either some of the conclusions, nor the basis of the conclusions. More understanding is needed. Where we get into trouble is taking any teaching at face value and then refuting it based upon the words used. Like taking something out of context. Our church fathers didn’t get it all right all the time. There is so much to learn and understand. When it gets back to the basis for the teaching, and following the logical path to the conclusion, with all the supporting documentation, then it will make sense. At least that’s my experience and I’m not easily convinced based on “because so and so said so.”

But one does have to have a basis. If the basis is good, and solid, then conclusions based upon it is good, too. And the foundation will be set for a rock solid construct.

I think his example was to show how “demeaning” the church is to women. Since many don’t understand the basis for the differences of women and men, then this looks absurd to the outside world (and those inside that don’t or won’t try to understand.) I know it did to me at one time, but slowly, I came to understand it’s not about bias, it’s about duty and position. Not in a way that reduces a person’s dignity but in ways that we have opportunities to excel due to our differences, not our sameness.

More or less, sorry for being unclear.

The thing is, Catholic theologians often seem to talk about sex and women as one and the same (at least prior to the 20th century). This is not surprising, since so many of them were celibate priests or monks living in all male communities.

Here are some statements by Catholic authorities and theologians that illustrate what I was trying to say:

Nothing so casts down the manly mind from it’s height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state.

-Saint Augustine.

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.

-Thomas Aquinas

Woman is the gate of the devil, the road to iniquity, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous species.

-Saint Jerome

Woman is a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly fascination, and a painted ill.

-Saint John Chrysostom

To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.

-Saint Odo of Cluny

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I think his example was to show how “demeaning” the church is to women. Since many don’t understand the basis for the differences of women and men, then this looks absurd to the outside world (and those inside that don’t or won’t try to understand.) I know it did to me at one time, but slowly, I came to understand it’s not about bias, it’s about duty and position. Not in a way that reduces a person’s dignity but in ways that we have opportunities to excel due to our differences, not our sameness.

The bias is concerning duty and position.

To put it simply, hierarchy matters.

If I am working as a low level employee for a large corporation then the CEO and I might have equal worth as human beings, but as employees of the corporation the CEO is more important. This is not discrimination or bigotry, its just statement of fact. Any accomplishments or mistakes I make as an employee will have relatively little impact on the company as a whole, but if the CEO makes a mistake it can ruin the company.

The same principal applies to any hierarchy relating to men and women.

If the man is in charge because he more closely reflects the ‘Image of God’ than women then he is more important. Putting women near the bottom of the societal hierarchy, above only children.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

AngryAthiest, I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to agree with you on many of your points. The church’s members and even leaders at times simply does not have a good record for respect to women. At times, it has been guilty of horrific crimes against the sanctity of feminism. Time and again we see women thrown under the cultural bus, and men accuse them of all wrong. It happens on these boards constantly, where men come on here and tell women that they should be wearing burquas and anything less is sinful because it causes them to lust without stopping to think that maybe they shouldn’t be lusting (and for those of you thinking I am making this up, just do a simple search. It’s out there). I am pouring out my heart here as a devoted catholic woman to tell you that at times I DO feel as though many people in my church see me as barely more than a baby-making factory, and that my place is at my husband’s feet, wearing a bedsheet so as not to show any sign of sexuality (like, OMG, the bumps on my chest)

Where we part though is assigning blame. I love my Lord Jesus and his Church with all my heart. While Jesus is free from sin, the members of his church are not. Popes, bishops, parishoners, deacons…all of them make error, and ALL of them sin, and do so on a fairly regular basis. However, the status of “church” functions as that of a family. People within the family may make mistakes, but it doesn’t make the family “bad” or “wrong.” People misinterpret scripture constantly. It doesn’t invalidate teachings, or truth.

See, I believe all the church’s teachings. In my experience, Jesus and his Church teaches that women are to be revered at all times. A godly and supportive woman is better than gold, and her steadfastness is what holds a family together. Heck, when given commands as to how to love one another, men are told to love and value their wives to the point of being ready to die for them even IF THEY ARE UNFAITHFUL. The church defends this by upholding scripture.

So, while I believe that sin and error has led to some pretty bad opinions of women made by peope who won’t take responsibility for their own sexuality and try to shift blame, I believe that the church, scripture, and God is right. And he used a woman to be the Mother of God. It was a woman who taught Christ. I see a system that is built to revere women, respect them, and admire them for their beauty but never to lust after them and turn them into objects. People aren’t perfect, and many fall in this idea, but it doesn’t invalidate anything that is central to church teaching.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

AngryAthiest, I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to agree with you on many of your points. The church’s members and even leaders at times simply does not have a good record for respect to women. At times, it has been guilty of horrific crimes against the sanctity of feminism. Time and again we see women thrown under the cultural bus, and men accuse them of all wrong. It happens on these boards constantly, where men come on here and tell women that they should be wearing burquas and anything less is sinful because it causes them to lust without stopping to think that maybe they shouldn’t be lusting (and for those of you thinking I am making this up, just do a simple search. It’s out there). I am pouring out my heart here as a devoted catholic woman to tell you that at times I DO feel as though many people in my church see me as barely more than a baby-making factory, and that my place is at my husband’s feet, wearing a bedsheet so as not to show any sign of sexuality (like, OMG, the bumps on my chest)

Where we part though is assigning blame. I love my Lord Jesus and his Church with all my heart. While Jesus is free from sin, the members of his church are not. Popes, bishops, parishoners, deacons…all of them make error, and ALL of them sin, and do so on a fairly regular basis. However, the status of “church” functions as that of a family. People within the family may make mistakes, but it doesn’t make the family “bad” or “wrong.” People misinterpret scripture constantly. It doesn’t invalidate teachings, or truth.

See, I believe all the church’s teachings. In my experience, Jesus and his Church teaches that women are to be revered at all times. A godly and supportive woman is better than gold, and her steadfastness is what holds a family together. Heck, when given commands as to how to love one another, men are told to love and value their wives to the point of being ready to die for them even IF THEY ARE UNFAITHFUL. The church defends this by upholding scripture.

So, while I believe that sin and error has led to some pretty bad opinions of women made by peope who won’t take responsibility for their own sexuality and try to shift blame, I believe that the church, scripture, and God is right. And he used a woman to be the Mother of God. It was a woman who taught Christ. I see a system that is built to revere women, respect them, and admire them for their beauty but never to lust after them and turn them into objects. People aren’t perfect, and many fall in this idea, but it doesn’t invalidate anything that is central to church teaching.

We come from very different perspectives Whitacre_Girl.

My experience with organized religion has for the most part been bad.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Sorry its taken me so long to respond.

I had to go somewhere without internet access for the weekend.

No problem.

As for the idea that all priests have chosen their vocation willingly, that appears to be more or less true. But there have been efforts in the past to recruit young boys for the priesthood, boys who were too young to really understand what they were getting into.

I’d be very surprised if any kind of obligation to go all the way was placed on those boys. In pre-Vatican II but post-Trent days, when the Church still had minor orders, there was no binding obligation or even expectation to go all the way until one reached the order of sub-deacon.

A lot of people even today make the mistake of assuming that “going to seminary” is some kind of commitment. It’s not. Seminaries include hardcore discernment processes, and choosing to go to one is in no way a signal to a man’s bishop that that man’s future is set in stone.

Also, concerning the Church and women: I don’t want to get into a quote-throwing contest, so I’ll simply say that what matters is the lived experience of men and women who choose to follow Christ will all their heart in the context of the Church that He established.

Misogyny of various unsavory flavors has indeed deeply infiltrated the thinking of even the Church’s leaders at various times, but the joy found in living out the good news of Jesus Christ is incomparably greater. And the Church has always had strong women who take a stand for Christ and for truth: St. Mary Magdalene, St. Monica, St. Catherine of Siena (who helped end the Avignon papacy!), St. Joan of Arc (she blows sexist stereotypes right out of the water), St. Gianna Molla, etc. - not to mention a certain Mary of Nazareth who exercised considerable influence over our Lord himself.

This doesn’t negate or rectify the sexism of which many Catholics in history are guilty - even today. But it does show that the Catholic Church is very far from a monolith of misogyny.

AngryAthiest, I’ve been following this thread for a while now, and I have to agree with you on many of your points. The church’s members and even leaders at times simply does not have a good record for respect to women. At times, it has been guilty of horrific crimes against the sanctity of feminism. Time and again we see women thrown under the cultural bus, and men accuse them of all wrong. It happens on these boards constantly, where men come on here and tell women that they should be wearing burquas and anything less is sinful because it causes them to lust without stopping to think that maybe they shouldn’t be lusting (and for those of you thinking I am making this up, just do a simple search. It’s out there). I am pouring out my heart here as a devoted catholic woman to tell you that at times I DO feel as though many people in my church see me as barely more than a baby-making factory, and that my place is at my husband’s feet, wearing a bedsheet so as not to show any sign of sexuality (like, OMG, the bumps on my chest)

Where we part though is assigning blame. I love my Lord Jesus and his Church with all my heart. While Jesus is free from sin, the members of his church are not. Popes, bishops, parishoners, deacons…all of them make error, and ALL of them sin, and do so on a fairly regular basis.

Sin and error have led to some pretty bad opinions of women made by people who won’t take responsibility for their own sexuality and try to shift blame, I believe that the church, scripture, and God is right. And he used a woman to be the Mother of God. It was a woman who taught Christ. I see a system that is built to revere women, respect them, and admire them for their beauty but never to lust after them and turn them into objects. People aren’t perfect, and many fall in this idea, but it doesn’t invalidate anything that is central to church teaching.

Whitacre Girl, I’m glad you decided to say what you said. (Forgive me, the character limit precluded my quoting your whole reply) It helped me put this all in perspective, too. God bless you. I know I can’t speak for others, but I want to say nonetheless that I’m sorry indeed that many of my fellow men throw blame-shifting garbage at you and make such burdensome and unjust demands.

And I know you’re not exaggerating; I’ve seen it myself.

We come from very different perspectives Whitacre_Girl.

My experience with organized religion has for the most part been bad.

This may indeed come down to precisely that - different experiences. Mine, like Whitacre_Girl’s, has been - as I said - overwhelmingly positive, because I’ve never experienced “organized religion” outside the context of a relationship with the living Christ. I think that’s really what makes all the difference.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

We come from very different perspectives Whitacre_Girl.

My experience with organized religion has for the most part been bad.

I am incredibly sorry this has happened. However, I can say that speaking purely qualitatively on the organized religion side of things, my experience has been rather unpleasant. I am part of it though, because while I believe many in the system are deeply flawed, I believe the system itself is not and therefore you can make of it what you want to get out of it. Mainly pertaining to God.

How a priest treats me does not change how God feels about me. What a pope says that is culturally influenced (not ex cathedra) that declares things that are harmful does not change God’s everlasting and righteous law.

Men can sneer at me all they want, and women can snub me all they want – they don’t speak for Jesus who loves us all completely and perfectly.

Whitacre Girl, I’m glad you decided to say what you said. (Forgive me, the character limit precluded my quoting your whole reply) It helped me put this all in perspective, too. God bless you. I know I can’t speak for others, but I want to say nonetheless that I’m sorry indeed that many of my fellow men throw blame-shifting garbage at you and make such burdensome and unjust demands.

And I know you’re not exaggerating; I’ve seen it myself.

Thank you for your kind words. May God bless you too. Men such as yourself and my husband truly shine the light for men in this world.

 

[Bookcat]

Context…and take the writers and their writings as a whole…and of course yes…some things are “cultureal”

Nothing so casts down the manly mind from it’s height as the fondling of women and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state.

-Saint Augustine.

SO? This is not against women or sex…it is just a statement that those who sin in this way…are well in a bad way. And even in marriage…it is not unreasonable to say that the marital act does effect the person in a way that makes the mind etc less suited for contemplation etc…hence Paul said that the married…while they have even the obligation to engage in marital relations…can set time aside for a special time devoted to prayer…this is just an observation of the reality of the intense effect that relations has on a person…and it seems that in particular it effects men in this way…more than women…again just another realtiy

As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active power of the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of a woman comes from defect in the active power.

-Thomas Aquinas

He would be the first to correct both the translation and the idea here…based on an aspect of bad data etc

Woman is the gate of the devil, the road to iniquity, the sting of the scorpion, in a word, a dangerous species.

-Saint Jerome

Yet …he had many women whom he directed and whom he wrote wonderful letters too…but yes…it is true…if you want to cause a man to sin…a woman can be in this way a gate etc…for man is weak…and well since the fall…he has tended to approach women in the wrong way…hence they became one of the “best ways” for him to fall…not against women per se…and it points to the weakness of men…it tis also a way of writing…

Woman is a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a desirable calamity, a domestic peril, a deadly fascination, and a painted ill.

-Saint John Chrysostom

yes…so?? he could turn around and write the same about men and war and murder etc…again it is the way of writing…note that he wrote so glowingly of marriage too! take note out of context!

Yes there are varied quotes from him…I recall that much of the ones which would be less flattering…were from his youth…as he matured…things became more for your liking

He called the woman “gold” …and here is a great quote:

St. John Chrysostom suggests that young husbands should say to their wives: I have taken you in my arms, and I love you, and I prefer you to my life itself. For the present life is nothing, and my most ardent dream is to spend it with you in such a way that we may be assured of not being separated in the life reserved for us… I place your love above all things, and nothing would be more bitter or painful to me than to be of a different mind than you. (§ 2365 CCC)

To embrace a woman is to embrace a sack of manure.

-Saint Odo of Clunycontext context context…if a monk leaves his monastery and vows and commits a mortal sin by embracing a woman it is yes…worse than embracing a sack of manure…

In pulling out quotes…people often forget context…one needs often such to understand the quotes…not only the context of the times…but of the persons life etc…

Did some Christians over time have some mistaken ideas or can their writings be taken out of context…yes.

Oh and by the way it was the CHURCH that really was the movement that raised the view of women over all…and I am not just talking about the 20th century…it began in the 1st!