From consent to morality

[ThinkingSapien]

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

The impulsive to engage in sexual activity is insofar as I understand it not driven by logic. You may get to the point of having success in getting some one to evaluate a logical argument or hypothetical situation a certain way but as human behaviour goes that doesn’t mean that the person will act in accordance with their own analysis.

For example, let’s say that a person wants to loose weight. There is a slice of chocolate cake in the fridge. The person will better move towards their weight goal by not eating the cake. The person knows that not eating the cake will better contribute towards future happiness and concludes eating the cake is not what should be done to loose weight, and yet the person eats the cake knowing that he or she will feel bad about it later.

The logic and hypotheticals may be ineffective because they may lack personal meaning or personal value. What personal incentive is there for the students to not have sex? To avoid social diseases? Not having to experience burning urination or frothy discharges is something that’s of personal value. But it’s also something whose risk can be reduced through the use of condoms. And between condoms and other contraceptives* risk of pregnancy can be significantly reduced. So those both erode away at the incentives for not engaging in sexual behaviour. I know these measures don’t make STDs and unexpected conceptions impossible, but their impact on perceivably reducing the physical risks can be significant. If the students understand these risk and are willing to take on those risk in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction then unless they subscribe to the same doctrine as you there’s not much of a foundation on which to convince them. It won’t be sufficient just for the student to identify themselves as a Christian given the wide spectrum of beliefs that people that call themselves by that name hold (ex: some Christians don’t believe that Jesus Christ really existed, some do) which is why I say “doctrine” instead of “religion.”

I’m projecting my own experience at college into this situation, but when I was in college the student population was pretty diverse. In many of my classes citizens of my country were the minority. If your college is as diverse the students may already follow other religions and other doctrines. Concentrating on managing their sexual behaviour may be putting the cart before the horse. Instead of targeting a change in their sexual behaviour*** it may be helpful (but still not sufficient) to demonstrate that your doctrine is true** and forget about the sex all together. If your doctrine can be convincingly demonstrated to the students to be true then adjustments in behaviour may follow.

• • I understand this is not the course of actions that the Catholic Church would encourage. But keep in mind we are talking about groups of people that may not limit their behaviour according to the Catholic Church.

** - full disclosure, as of yet I’m not convinced that it is.

*** - my personal opinion is that if they can engage in it in a way to avoids harm than it’s not really a moral issue (masturbation is far from being a moral issue to me also) but as I have indicated above I don’t subscribe to the same doctrine.

 

[Shike]

I ask you: how does the practice of non-conception-oriented, but still mutually agreed upon sex “affects” you?

Well that’s fine if they are married. Not every act of intercourse results in conception.

It happens in the privacy of the bedroom of a married and Catholic couple, who decide that they would rather not have children at that particular moment, but still wish to express their mutual love by performing a “non-vaginal” sex.

Okay, now this is a different issue than above. At least two of the detrimental effects are an increase in selfishness and an increase in estrangement from the spouse. A strictly materialist view would seem to fail to account for these effects, so I don’t know how much good it will do to explain some of the reasons behind this.

But I think that we can see some of the effects of the contraceptive-sex mentality today in the prevalence of divorce and marital infidelity that was not as prevalent 50 years ago.

I think that the 6 million Jews, gypsys and other assorted “lower cast” people who were exterminated in the Holocaust would vehemently agree that killing Hitler would have been an excellent idea. And I agree with them.

Good luck using utilitarian principles to get this end result without also getting the opposite. I am not saying there wasn’t a time when taking Hitler out would have been justified, just that you really won’t be able to unambiguously do it with utilitarian principles.

 

[Shike]

The impulsive to engage in sexual activity is insofar as I understand it not driven by logic. You may get to the point of having success in getting some one to evaluate a logical argument or hypothetical situation a certain way but as human behaviour goes that doesn’t mean that the person will act in accordance with their own analysis.

I agree. You will find some of the philosophical anthropology of the Church to say as much. By chance have you read the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle? There are some pretty good insights in that work with regards to philosophical anthropology that agree with the very point you mentioned.

If the students understand these risk and are willing to take on those risk in the pursuit of sexual satisfaction then unless they subscribe to the same doctrine as you there’s not much of a foundation on which to convince them.

Well I don’t think that’s really true. I don’t think doctrine has to play a role. Traditional sexual morality has a long philosophical tradition and can be well-defended. (side note: the bigger problem is getting younger people to see that living isn’t pointless; if they fall into that view, than it really doesn’t matter what negative consequences there are, they will probably do it anyway).

*** - my personal opinion is that if they can engage in it in a way to avoids harm than it’s not really a moral issue (masturbation is far from being a moral issue to me also) but as I have indicated above I don’t subscribe to the same doctrine.

I didn’t quote it, but thanks for the full disclosure. It is a breathe of fresh air that needs to carry over into the world of academia.

But concerning the above quote, that is precisely what is at issue. The natural law tradition in philosophy would say that an act such as masturbation frustrates the inherent function of the genitals. And when natural law is contradicted, then bad things happen because we start to actively destroy our nature.

I agree that in today’s culture it’s harder to see that such scenarios would be detrimental to the person. Basically such an act would turn the person inward more and more, increasing selfishness and skewing the person’s view on what is the good, the true, and the beautiful. Not to mention that people become addicted and can’t stop even if they wanted to.

And one of my points in this thread is that when an individual is hurt, then we often experience the effects of it. To name just one outcome, if someone becomes more selfish, it affects all of their future actions.

But good points. Thank you for sharing.
Ciao,
Michael

 

[Spock]

Okay, now this is a different issue than above. At least two of the detrimental effects are an increase in selfishness and an increase in estrangement from the spouse. A strictly materialist view would seem to fail to account for these effects, so I don’t know how much good it will do to explain some of the reasons behind this.

Of course you should be aware that there is absolutely no reason to assume either selfishness of estrangement. Where does such an assumption come from? To eliminate the possibility of pregnancy has no effect on the “unitive” part of sex, actually it may even be beneficial, since the couple does not have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy. And of course the result is the same if the couple is not married, or not Catholic, or maybe even the same gender. To give and receive pure pleasure, not tainted with unwanted side effect is obviously preferable, more unitive than having to worry about an unwanted outcome, and infinitely more preferable to the frustration caused by abstinence. As the old saying goes: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

But I think that we can see some of the effects of the contraceptive-sex mentality today in the prevalence of divorce and marital infidelity that was not as prevalent 50 years ago.

There is no evidence of more infidelity today. It may be more visible, but our forefathers were just as promiscuous as the people today - except they also lied about it. If you would study the mores of the Victorian era, you would be aware of it.

The divorce ratio is definitely up, but again, there is no reason to view it in a negative light. An honest divorce, where the partners stay friends, and do not poison the mind of the possible children much better than being stuck in a hateful relationship. And if there are no children, why should they stay together, if they turn out to be incompatible? There are no secular reasons, only relgious ones, and I am aware of them, and discard them as nonsense.

Good luck using utilitarian principles to get this end result without also getting the opposite. I am not saying there wasn’t a time when taking Hitler out would have been justified, just that you really won’t be able to unambiguously do it with utilitarian principles.

Why not? If there are two choices, where in one you must elimeinate one person to save 10 and in the other you must eliminate 10 people to save 1, the choice is obvious: choose the lesser harm.

 

[Shike]

Of course you should be aware that there is absolutely no reason to assume either selfishness of estrangement.

I’m not assuming it.

Where does such an assumption come from?

It’s not an assumption. And it comes from a view of the human person that sees more than mere atoms but has a very important formal element.

To eliminate the possibility of pregnancy has no effect on the “unitive” part of sex, actually it may even be beneficial, since the couple does not have to worry about an unwanted pregnancy.

Actually it does. But to clarify, the particular way which removes the possibility of pregnancy you are alluding to would be artificial contraception. In that case, it subverts the natural law, rendering the act selfish (even though we often like to tell ourselves otherwise).

I don’t think you accept formal or final causality so there’s not much point going into it, me and you.

As the old saying goes: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is chastity”.

Well, I never heard of that saying. But it’s a silly one. It probably conflates chastity with mere abstinence as well.

There is no evidence of more infidelity today.

I will accept that; it seems like statistics on the subject are hard to come by. Though it could be argued that divorce figures are a part of the infidelity numbers, not just because of probabilities, but because of natural law.

The divorce ratio is definitely up, but again, there is no reason to view it in a negative light.

The more divorce the better! Just kidding.

An honest divorce, where the partners stay friends, and do not poison the mind of the possible children much better than being stuck in a hateful relationship.

And what would be best of all is if the parents loved each other and loved their children and didn’t get a divorce.

And if there are no children, why should they stay together, if they turn out to be incompatible? There are no secular reasons, only relgious ones, and I am aware of them, and discard them as nonsense.

That is a pretty strong statement saying that there are no secular reasons. Natural law philosophy would have something to say on the matter.

Why not? If there are two choices, where in one you must elimeinate one person to save 10 and in the other you must eliminate 10 people to save 1, the choice is obvious: choose the lesser harm.

Explain why this scenario is necessarily a utilitarian one. It isn’t.

 

[Spock]

It’s not an assumption. And it comes from a view of the human person that sees more than mere atoms but has a very important formal element.

So? What role does that play in your assumption that non-procreative sex leads to selfishness and estrangement?

Actually it does. But to clarify, the particular way which removes the possibility of pregnancy you are alluding to would be artificial contraception.

No, that is only one of the possibilities. I am not necessarily talking pills and condoms, I am also talking about non-vaginal intercourse.

In that case, it subverts the natural law, rendering the act selfish (even though we often like to tell ourselves otherwise).

1. There is no “natural law”. 2) It does not lead to selfishness. The partners mutually concentrate on each other - which is the very opposite of selfish behavior.

I don’t think you accept formal or final causality so there’s not much point going into it, me and you.

Wise decision.

Well, I never heard of that saying. But it’s a silly one. It probably conflates chastity with mere abstinence as well.

They are the same. Both are unnatural.

I will accept that; it seems like statistics on the subject are hard to come by. Though it could be argued that divorce figures are a part of the infidelity numbers, not just because of probabilities, but because of natural law.

Still no natural law.

The more divorce the better! Just kidding.

Not exactly. Better a peaceful divorce than a stormy and hated relationship, which definitely does damage everyone involved.

And what would be best of all is if the parents loved each other and loved their children and didn’t get a divorce.

Of course it would. It also would be best if every pregnancy would be eagerly anticipated, and every child would be loved. It also would be best if there were no diseases, if there would be no famine, if there would be no poverty… etc… Face reality, it does not happen. Since there is no optimal solution, we need to settle for sub-optimal one, and that happens to be a smooth, quick divorce - with hopefully the friendship preserved, even if the passion is now gone.

That is a pretty strong statement saying that there are no secular reasons. Natural law philosophy would have something to say on the matter.

Still no natural law.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Actually it does. But to clarify, the particular way which removes the possibility of pregnancy you are alluding to would be artificial contraception. In that case, it subverts the natural law, rendering the act selfish (even though we often like to tell ourselves otherwise).
.

An umbrella disrupts the natural flow of water. An air plane is an unnatural form of transportation. Wearing braces disrupts the natural growth pattern of my teeth. Painting my deck slows the natural decomposition of the wood that composes it. At what point does avoiding and disrupting the natural become something that should not be done?

 

[Sair]

Still no natural law.

The only natural law, I would suggest, is physical law - and that is hardly circumvented by our intervening in the reproductive process.

If it were, we would be violating natural law every time we performed artificial insemination upon a breeding cow, for example. I’ve never seen the Church speak out against such practices. Is the claim that natural law - according to Catholic philosophy - applies only to humans? That seems rather odd to me.

 

[Shike]

An umbrella disrupts the natural flow of water. An air plane is an unnatural form of transportation. Wearing braces disrupts the natural growth pattern of my teeth. Painting my deck slows the natural decomposition of the wood that composes it. At what point does avoiding and disrupting the natural become something that should not be done?

These are objections usually brought up to show the ridiculousness of natural law. However, they miss the boat.

First, we are concerned with the human person. Second, an organ used for a purpose other than its natural function is not the same as it being used contrary to its purpose. The usual silly objection is using things such as sunglasses or earplugs. But in order to actually be contrary to the organs’ purposes, one would have to damage their eyes or ears, not just modify how they perceive.

I recommend a book to familiarize yourself on the topic: The Line Through the Heart by J. Budziszewski.

 

[Shike]

No, that is only one of the possibilities. I am not necessarily talking pills and condoms, I am also talking about non-vaginal intercourse.

Well, okay. But in this case it makes no difference.

1. There is no “natural law”. 2) It does not lead to selfishness. The partners mutually concentrate on each other - which is the very opposite of selfish behavior.

With regards to #1, so says you. And with regards to #2, two things: one, it seems very possible for two people to be selfish together as there is a bigger world out there. And two, in such a case they actually would be individually selfish because they are not giving their total selves to each other because of the contradiction present due to natural law.

They are the same. Both are unnatural.

So what is natural is good? That sounds interesting.
Anyways, it is good that we all now know your definition of chastity and abstinence. But please realize that in the tradition of the Catholic Church, that is not what chastity means. So don’t get your definitions confused with other people’s definitions.

Not exactly. Better a peaceful divorce than a stormy and hated relationship, which definitely does damage everyone involved.

Horrible damage either way.

Face reality, it does not happen. Since there is no optimal solution, we need to settle for sub-optimal one, and that happens to be a smooth, quick divorce - with hopefully the friendship preserved, even if the passion is now gone.

Fine, but don’t call it good.
And if that’s your reason why people should get married and continue to be married, namely passion, then you are in for a rude awakening (or had a rude awakening). I’m not meaning to be disrespectful here.

Thank you for your participation in the thread.

 

[Simpleton]

I’m sure you’ve all heard the argument, “If X and Y are doing Z, and all involved are of sound mind and consent to the activity in progress, we don’t have the right to evaluate the morality of Z.”

I’d like to know what logical arguments and hypothetical scenarios you would suggest to combat this notion succinctly and effectively. It goes against traditional Christian sexual ethics in particular, and at this secular university knowing how best to respond to this proposition is vital for bringing people to the light of a coherent moral system, especially a Christian one.

God bless,
T.

If married Man X meets up with another married Woman Y and they both of sound mind consent to having sex Z, then does this mean their spouses do not have the right to evaluate the morality of Z? Boy if that was the case then there would be a lot of happy cheaters out there.

Let’s just use a slightly different version of this excellent argument: “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. In other words, if it does not affect you, it is none of your business.

In order for this to be a valid argument you would have to prove that there are certain actions which individuals can do that do not have the ability to directly or indirectly affect others around them in the present time or in the future.

Not necessarily. It could be beneficial. But either way, if someone makes a decision about his own life (call it suicide), then society should acknowledge his right to take an exit. If that person asks someone else to perform a mercy killing then it is their own business. Society should have no say-so in the matter.

Should society also be happy that their tax dollars are going to be used to clean up the mess when it’s all said and done? Should society be happy that the unpaid debts of one person’s estate are now going to be transferred to the group and that unnecessary expenses will now be accrued, expenses that wouldn’t have existed if the one person stuck around and paid what they owed?

Actually you need to look at the greater picture. It is not a “murder” if that act is mutually agreed upon. Murder is the illegal taking of some other human’s life without his consent.

Nazi’s used the same logic.

The legality of an act is not the source of its morality since no human (as you advocated earlier)has the right to impose a moral outlook on the actions of another human. We also cannot logically conclude that we have the authority to assign a morality towards our own actions since we tend tojustify our own actions in order to consider ourselves “good” people. It seems the only way morality can be applied to the actions ofmankind is if the source for it was both above mankind and indispensable to mankind’s existence.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien;8365623:

An umbrella disrupts the natural flow of water. …At what point does avoiding and disrupting the natural become something that should not be done?

These are objections usually brought up to show the ridiculousness of natural law. However, they miss the boat.

It wasn’t an objection. I was trying to figure out how you determine where to draw the line on when interfering with nature becomes something that one should not do. “Testing” an idea or philosophy is not the same as objecting to it and can lead to information that further defines the idea. Though the results of such testing can lead to objections being raised.

For example, Spock started drawing his line with the phrase “The right of my fist ends where your begins.” If I wanted his line defined better I might present a scenario where there may be justification to do something that seems contrary to this partial defined rule. And that could lead to him further qualifying his position.

 

[Shike]

It wasn’t an objection. I was trying to figure out how you determine where to draw the line on when interfering with nature becomes something that one should not do. “Testing” an idea or philosophy is not the same as objecting to it and can lead to information that further defines the idea. Though the results of such testing can lead to objections being raised.

Fine.

Does my post help clarify in some way your understanding of natural law? I showed the difference between doing something other than what something is for versus doing something contrary to what something is for.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Fine.

Does my post help clarify in some way your understanding of natural law? I showed the difference between doing something other than what something is for versus doing something contrary to what something is for.

I’ve actually been thinking about it for a while. I think I have an understanding for where you are coming from (not that I agree, but I want to set that disagreement aside). I’m thinking of some various situations that some of my friends and associates are in that may or may not be considered violations.

I am making an assumption in thinking about these though. THe assumption is that if ones well being or quality of life would be seriously compromised as a result of letting things go their natural course than it intervention is not considered a violation. Is this correct? For example, a female with endometriosis or fibroids may take oral contraceptives or have her uterus removed if the pain and discomfort from her condition is too much to bare (I had one friend/coworker that used to miss work because of this condition). Technically that is going against nature, but would it be a violation of natural law?

Also if some one is unable to produce children then is it considered a violation if she or he engages in sex? If the person had their body voluntarily modified to prevent conception (which for the sake of discussion I won’t challenge the modification being a potential violation of natural law) then would that make the person ineligible for sex?

 

[Shike]

I am making an assumption in thinking about these though. THe assumption is that if ones well being or quality of life would be seriously compromised as a result of letting things go their natural course than it intervention is not considered a violation. Is this correct? For example, a female with endometriosis or fibroids may take oral contraceptives or have her uterus removed if the pain and discomfort from her condition is too much to bare (I had one friend/coworker that used to miss work because of this condition). Technically that is going against nature, but would it be a violation of natural law?

This is a good question. If I understand what you are asking, then perhaps having such an operation is not against natural law. Why? Because you are trying to correct a disorder. It doesn’t seem like endometriosis or fibroids is how things are supposed to work. It might be a case of the lesser of two evils.

Also if some one is unable to produce children then is it considered a violation if she or he engages in sex?

I think you would have to spell out the circumstances a bit because I could see it going either way depending what you mean. Can I assume they are married? What degree of impossibility can be given to them not conceiving and for what reason?

If the person had their body voluntarily modified to prevent conception (which for the sake of discussion I won’t challenge the modification being a potential violation of natural law) then would that make the person ineligible for sex?

Putting aside the wrongful modification, I’m not sure there would be a problem. It might depend on how severe the modification was, like one spouse’s removal of genitals. If I am not mistaken, after a wife, for instance, got her tubes tied, intercourse would not be against the natural law (leaving aside the wrongful modification). But there could be more drastic modifications that would change the situation.

Good questions. It’s an area that I am not 100% sure on, mostly because of a lot of possible circumstances that would need to be spelled out. But also because I’m more familiar with some of the mainstream scenarios like premarital sex, masturbation, and others.

 

[Spock]

In order for this to be a valid argument you would have to prove that there are certain actions which individuals can do that do not have the ability to directly or indirectly affect others around them in the present time or in the future.

One of these years you should present a method of how to prove a purely negative proposition. I will be happy to entertain your problem at that time. In the meantime I state that whatever two people do in the privacy of their bedroom (and you are NOT aware of what they do there) makes absolutely no difference to you. Please read the little joke I presented in my first post to this thread. If you don’t like what they do, do not climb up on the top of your wardrobe, and do not grab you curtain rod, and do not peek into their bedroom. Whatever they do there is none of your f***ing business.

 

[Spock]

With regards to #1, so says you.

And zillions of others, who consider the idea of “natural law” nonsensical. But I am open… explain where that “natural law” comes from and how are we aware of it. And, no, there is no “natural law” inscribed unto our “hearts”… this idiotic euphemism should be discarded.

And with regards to #2, two things: one, it seems very possible for two people to be selfish together as there is a bigger world out there.

No, it does not. These people are as unselfish as they can be. They concentrate on the other one, this is the pinnacle of unselfish behavior. I cannot know, but I can suspect that you did not participate in such an “evil and disgusting” experiment and as such I don’t think that you qualify to make a value-judgment about such wonderful and unselfish practices.

And two, in such a case they actually would be individually selfish because they are not giving their total selves to each other because of the contradiction present due to natural law.

Why would be the acceptance of pregnancy constitute a higher level of “giving themselves”?? I am curious.

Anyways, it is good that we all now know your definition of chastity and abstinence. But please realize that in the tradition of the Catholic Church, that is not what chastity means. So don’t get your definitions confused with other people’s definitions.

Chastity IS abstinence. If the CC happens to define them differently (which is a huge IF), then it is wrong.

Horrible damage either way.

The damamge is there. But not to the same extent.

Fine, but don’t call it good.

I am not calling it “good”… I am calling it the lesser of “evils”.

And if that’s your reason why people should get married and continue to be married, namely passion, then you are in for a rude awakening (or had a rude awakening). I’m not meaning to be disrespectful here.

No, but you are not paying attention to what I said. I am saying that to stay married in a bad, unloving relationship is MUCH worse than a civilized divorce.

 

[Shike]

And zillions of others, who consider the idea of “natural law” nonsensical. But I am open… explain where that “natural law” comes from and how are we aware of it. And, no, there is no “natural law” inscribed unto our “hearts”… this idiotic euphemism should be discarded.

It deals with real essences and final causality. If you wish to dismiss or question these ideas then the progression of the discussion should go here rather than natural law.

No, it does not. These people are as unselfish as they can be. They concentrate on the other one, this is the pinnacle of unselfish behavior.

You don’t see how in theory two people could focus on each other and be selfish? It may be that these two love birds were ignoring someone in dire straights outside their door. Therefore, it might be better to revise your definition of selfishness, or at the least the one you imply by your response.

Basically, there are higher order goods above mere consent that need to be taken into account for a truly moral picture.

I cannot know, but I can suspect that you did not participate in such an “evil and disgusting” experiment and as such I don’t think that you qualify to make a value-judgment about such wonderful and unselfish practices.

First, one doesn’t necessarily have to experience something to know that it is wrong. Second, I don’t wish to get personal.

Why would be the acceptance of pregnancy constitute a higher level of “giving themselves”?? I am curious.

It’s not about an acceptance of pregnancy. It’s about not being inherently against pregnancy, as artificial contraception is intrinsically oriented by definition, though perhaps not always in practice. It’s obvious that naturally, not every act of intercourse is supposed to result in conception.

Chastity IS abstinence. If the CC happens to define them differently (which is a huge IF), then it is wrong.

Well okay. Can you back up why someone would actually be wrong if they defined the word ‘chastity’ other than you do? Hmm.

There is a tradition of using the word synonymously with abstinence. But there is also the usage I find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: # 2337. Hopefully you will be more open to the word when you hear it in Catholic contexts.

I am not calling it “good”… I am calling it the lesser of “evils”.

I will drop the point for now. There are deeper issues to attend to. I am glad, for now, that we can agree that it is at least “evil”.

 

[Spock]

It deals with real essences and final causality. If you wish to dismiss or question these ideas then the progression of the discussion should go here rather than natural law.

No, the idea of “natural law” - a supposedly inborn set of moral rules is nonsense. It is not an assumption that such laws do not exist, it is a scientific fact. Humans are not born with with factual knowledge (unlike insects), we are born with the ability to learn. Our brain has a propensity to learn, especially languages, which is the basis of all the subsequent developments. It is not something “I say”, it is what all the biologists discovered about us.

We really are a “tabula rasa”, an empty slate at birth. The fact that many believers think otherwise, and they keep on insisting that we have a “moral code” or “natural law” — “inscribed” unto our heart only shows their ignorance. And when they are enlightened about their incorrect preconception, and they refuse to learn, well, that only reflects on them. It is one thing to keep on believing is angels and demons and other assorted nonsense, which cannot be “disproven”, but it is quite another to keep on believing stuff, which has already been shown to be false. That kind of intentional ignorance is inexcusable.

You don’t see how in theory two people could focus on each other and be selfish? It may be that these two love birds were ignoring someone in dire straights outside their door. Therefore, it might be better to revise your definition of selfishness, or at the least the one you imply by your response.

You are changing the parameters. The scenario was talking about ONE thing only: two loving people in the privacy of their home expressing their love toward each other which excludes even the possibility of pregnancy. You said that such practice is selfish and inherently harmful to the people and to others. Kindly stick with the stipulated scenario, if you wish to be taken seriously. I was hoping that you are willing to talk about the question itself without trying to drag unconnected and irrelevant sidetracks into it.

Basically, there are higher order goods above mere consent that need to be taken into account for a truly moral picture.

Not in this case. I am only interested in the particular scenario, nothing else.

It’s not about an acceptance of pregnancy. It’s about not being inherently against pregnancy, as artificial contraception is intrinsically oriented by definition, though perhaps not always in practice. It’s obvious that naturally, not every act of intercourse is supposed to result in conception.

So what is “giving oneself fully”? It seems to be a pompous, but empty phrase to me.

Well okay. Can you back up why someone would actually be wrong if they defined the word ‘chastity’ other than you do? Hmm.

**There is a tradition of using the word synonymously with abstinence. **But there is also the usage I find in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: # 2337. Hopefully you will be more open to the word when you hear it in Catholic contexts.

I went and read your link:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

It is complete gobbledegook to me. I use the word “chastity” and “abstinence” in a synonymous manner. If it makes you happy, I will rephrase the original quote: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is abstinence”. Is that better?

 

[Sair]

I use the word “chastity” and “abstinence” in a synonymous manner. If it makes you happy, I will rephrase the original quote: “Of all the sexual perversions the most unnatural one is abstinence”. Is that better?

It seems to me that the Church has a very narrow and very externalised definition of chastity - namely, engaging in sex only within the context of church-sanctioned marriage. It is not apparent to many believers that sex can be non-abusive without this context.

Sex is both a powerful instinct and an expression of acceptance, the means of procreation and a means by which strong social bonds are formed and reinforced. There are many ways in which this can be abused - by treating it as a source of transitory gratification independent of friendship, or as a commodity to be bought and sold, for example. Unfortunately, the Church has chosen to remove the abuse of sex from a personal context and place it in an authoritarian context - one must not have sexual intimacy of any kind without divine sanction, nor without the willingness to procreate (whether the latter is practical at the time or not).

Chastity, even according to the church definition you quote, is an acceptance of sexual expression as part and parcel of the whole of a person, and the practice of sexual intimacy in the context of loving friendship. Again, unfortunately, the Church fails to accept sexuality without artificial limits, and consequently distorts the attitudes of believers towards sex.