Good News About Sex and Marriage...what is the deal with this book?

[bingbang]

That’s precisely why you should read the book. It may help you to better understand the Catholic Church’s perspective on the matter.

I understand the church’s view I believe. I have read probably hundreds of explanations and none of them really make sense to me. My morality is based on what is in my heart, not what is said in the Bible or by the church. Homosexuality and birth control are two things that are only bad when looking at them from a religious perspective. IMO, anything that cannot be argued against morally without bringing God, the Bible, or religion in general into the argument probably isn’t bad.

 

[Joe_5859]

I understand the church’s view I believe. I have read probably hundreds of explanations and none of them really make sense to me. My morality is based on what is in my heart, not what is said in the Bible or by the church. Homosexuality and birth control are two things that are only bad when looking at them from a religious perspective. IMO, anything that cannot be argued against morally without bringing God, the Bible, or religion in general into the argument probably isn’t bad.

One can argue about the immorality of homosexual acts and artificial contraception using reason alone. All one has to do is take a look at the natural moral law. Many Catholics (and even many Church documents) make use of the natural law in formulating their position, but that doens’t make it “religious” per se.

I won’t attempt to do that here as that is a different topic for a different thread, but I just toss it out there as something to look for if you are so inclined.

 

[bingbang]

One can argue about the immorality of homosexual acts and artificial contraception using reason alone. All one has to do is take a look at the natural moral law. Many Catholics (and even many Church documents) make use of the natural law in formulating their position, but that doens’t make it “religious” per se.

I won’t attempt to do that here as that is a different topic for a different thread, but I just toss it out there as something to look for if you are so inclined.

This is what I got from wikipedia:

Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one’s motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues.

I don’t see how homosexuality or birth control conflicts with that. I do see how there could be logical moral problems with abortion though. That is one thing that you don’t need to use religion to argue against.

 

[manualman]

Though I don’t agree at all when he talks about a gay person potentially being able to change his orientation. That alone was enough to make me reject the book.

You don’t believe that sanctification necessarily leads to the gradual lessening of concupiscence?? Isn’t that what you are saying?

 

[Joe_5859]

This is what I got from wikipedia:

Natural moral law is concerned with both exterior and interior acts, also known as action and motive. Simply doing the right thing is not enough; to be truly moral one’s motive must be right as well. For example, helping an old lady across the road (good exterior act) to impress someone (bad interior act) is wrong. However, good intentions don’t always lead to good actions. The motive must coincide with the cardinal or theological virtues.

I don’t see how homosexuality or birth control conflicts with that. I do see how there could be logical moral problems with abortion though. That is one thing that you don’t need to use religion to argue against.

Well, that’s just one component. There’s a bit more to the natural law than just that. It’s basically concerned with conforming to reality, to the way things really are. Thus, in the above examples, homosexual acts and artificial contraception violate the reality of what sexual acts entail.

That’s a bit of a simplified way to articulate it, but I just wanted to convey the general idea.

 

[bingbang]

Well, that’s just one component. There’s a bit more to the natural law than just that. It’s basically concerned with conforming to reality, to the way things really are. Thus, in the above examples, homosexual acts and artificial contraception violate the reality of what sexual acts entail.

That’s a bit of a simplified way to articulate it, but I just wanted to convey the general idea.

Every link about natural law mentions thomas aquinas, so it can’t be completely secular. Also what about prosthetics and hearing aids? They violate the reality of someone not being able to hear and someone not having a limb. What about fertility drugs? They violate the reality of someone not being able to have kids. What about adoption? Someone else raising a stranger’s baby certainly violates natural law.

 

[Joe_5859]

Every link about natural law mentions thomas aquinas, so it can’t be completely secular. Also what about prosthetics and hearing aids? They violate the reality of someone not being able to hear and someone not having a limb. What about fertility drugs? They violate the reality of someone not being able to have kids. What about adoption? Someone else raising a stranger’s baby certainly violates natural law.

Yes, Thomas Aquinas famously formulated many things about the natural law. That does not mean that it is therefore “religious.” Aquinas was a great philosopher and is respected as such even by non-religious people.

Those are good questions, but I fear I do not have the time at the moment to properly articulate the necessary distinctions and give you the type of answer your questions deserve.

 

[Agrippa]

And don’t forget, these links – along with those that give the other side of the story – are available here:

headlinebistro.com/hb/en/news/jp2_theologyofbody.html

Germain Grisez is an excellent orthodox theologian who writes coherently about these issues. His work, in part, can be found here:

twotlj.org/G-2-9-E.html

 

[ironband]

Also what about prosthetics and hearing aids? They violate the reality of someone not being able to hear and someone not having a limb. What about fertility drugs? They violate the reality of someone not being able to have kids. What about adoption? Someone else raising a stranger’s baby certainly violates natural law.

The thing is, the hearing aid helps the ear to do what it was intended to do, which is hear.

The prosthetic allows the person to do (albeit imperfectly) what they should be able to do with their limbs, which is grasp things, move things, walk, etc.

Fertility drugs, if they restore the ovary’s ability to release eggs, are not in themselves bad. But use of selective abortion to reduce the number of children when said drugs result in the release of multiple eggs is problematic.

Adoption helps the child adopted to grow with (hopefully) loving parents, to learn from them, and to do what the child is made to do, which is to grow and learn.

But Contraception prevents the ovary/uterus/sperm (depending on the method) from doing what it is intended to do.

Homosexual acts likewise take the purpose of the organs in question and utilize them against their design.

In short, a treatment/device which restores function to something damaged or non-functional is consistent with natural law.

A treatment/device which hampers or eliminates the function of something which is perfectly healthy is not.

 

[valient_Lucy]

You don’t believe that sanctification necessarily leads to the gradual lessening of concupiscence?? Isn’t that what you are saying?

I believe that, as a gay person grows in sanctification, he will be better able to live a celibate life. But to tell a gay person that growing in holiness will lead to him becoming straight is irresponsible. The Church doesn’t demand that a gay person change his orientation. She demands that the gay person live chastely.

My mom and I were once discussing whether or not gay people could become straight. She thought they could. I asked her, “Would you want me to marry a man who said he used to be gay?” She was silent for a long time, and she finally said “No.”

Perhaps you believe that we will all become perfect sinless and lack even the slightest attachment to sin before we die. I don’t. I believe in purgatory. And I believe it exists for a reason.

 

[manualman]

So Lucy, you don’t believe that Grace can sanctify a believer to the point of reducing or even eliminating concupiscence until after the believer is dead?

I think you misunderstand Purgatory. Grace is available to us RIGHT NOW. God offers us the gift of being remade and it starts in this lifetime. For most of us, it may not be finished until purgatory, I’m with you there. But that is no excuse for disbelieving that God can and does make saints on earth that don’t even NEED purgatory before entering heaven. We’re ALL called to be saints. Purgatory is manifestation of God’s mercy because so few are able to utterly say yes to Him in all things before death.

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion is more homophobic that most fundamentalists: you seem to be saying that homosexual inclinations are so deeply rooted that God can’t even begin to fix the disordered inclination until after people are dead. Hope you ponder that some more.

You raise an interesting point about “former gays” though. Personally, I think the issue is very similar to alcoholism. You rarely meet a “former alcoholic.” Even if he hasn’t drank in 40 years and has no remaining inclination towards it, the guy probably still calls himself a recovering alcoholic. For him it is about avoiding even the occasion of sin. Perhaps that is what you were driving towards?

 

[valient_Lucy]

So Lucy, you don’t believe that Grace can sanctify a believer to the point of reducing or even eliminating concupiscence until after the believer is dead?

Sure, God’s grace can do that, but that doesn’t mean it will do that.

I think you misunderstand Purgatory. Grace is available to us RIGHT NOW. God offers us the gift of being remade and it starts in this lifetime. For most of us, it may not be finished until purgatory, I’m with you there.

Exactly. It starts on earth, but for the vast majority of us, it will not be finished. Is it possible that there is a man living now who has reached such a degree of holiness that he could watch pornographic movies for a whole day and never once be tempted to lust? Sure, it’s possible. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

But that is no excuse for disbelieving that God can and does make saints on earth that don’t even NEED purgatory before entering heaven. We’re ALL called to be saints. Purgatory is manifestation of God’s mercy because so few are able to utterly say yes to Him in all things before death.

Exactly. Very few of us will be completely perfected before we are dead and have gone through purgatory, gay or straight. Perhaps there are some people who are so holy the Church has given them permission to forgo sacramental confession, because they never commit even the slightest venial sin. However, I would certainly not bet even one red cent on that.

Taking your logic to its logical conclusion is more homophobic that most fundamentalists: you seem to be saying that homosexual inclinations are so deeply rooted that God can’t even begin to fix the disordered inclination until after people are dead. Hope you ponder that some more.

Actually, it’s far less homophobic than that, and it actually places gays on the same level as straight people. Imagine telling a teenage boy that, in order to be pure, he has to stop feeling sexually attracted to girls until he is married to one. Or a priest or nun that, in order to be pure, they have to stop feeling sexual desires entirely. Is it possible that this happens to some people, due to their outstanding holiness? Sure. All things are possible with God. But this would be the exception, rather than the rule. Furthermore, it places an unrealistic burden on an individual, forcing them not only to act and think in a certain way, but to feel a certain way as well.
I had that discussion with my mom once. She asked me if I thought that God could completely remove a gay person’s desire. I said sure. I told her about a legend of St. Benedict I read once, where he supposedly upon seeing a girl dance, threw himself into a patch of thorns. The legend says that God was so impressed with his action, he removed all sexual desire from him. Mom and I both agreed that God could do that, but we also agreed that 5 million teenage boys could do the same thing, and they would still desire women.
It is cruel beyond measure to tell a gay person that, in order to be holy, they have to stop feeling certain temptations. It is far kinder to tell them, “Worry about your actions and thoughts, let God worry about your feelings.”

You raise an interesting point about “former gays” though. Personally, I think the issue is very similar to alcoholism. You rarely meet a “former alcoholic.” Even if he hasn’t drank in 40 years and has no remaining inclination towards it, the guy probably still calls himself a recovering alcoholic. For him it is about avoiding even the occasion of sin. Perhaps that is what you were driving towards?

Exactly. There are no “former alcoholics,” or “former drug addicts.” It’s the same thing for all of us. We’re all “recovering sinners,” not “former sinners,” gay, straight, bi, or whatever.

 

[valient_Lucy]

West, in my opinion, takes the exaltation of sexuality found in secular society and adapts it to Catholicism by exalting sex within marriage. Certainly, marital relations is one of the goods of marriage. But there are many other goods and many higher goods in marriage, beyond the mere physical sexual act; these receive much less attention from West.

Due to the influence of secular society, many Catholics give excessive importance to marital relations and to sexual pleasure within marriage. West’s message plays to this bias, and so it is very popular. Many Catholics read West, but few read the actual TOB lecture series by JP2.

I have to agree with this. His work, to paraphrase someone else, seems less to Christianize sexuality than to sexualize Christianity. Catholicism is not a pagan phallic cult, and sex within marriage is not temple prostitute worship, regardless of what some Catholics would like to believe. ** I’m not saying that this what he believes**, but that Catholics have totally absorbed the secular culture.

There was another thread where a woman said that her neice was given the following advice before her marriage. “Why worry about sex? You’ll only have sex once on your wedding night, and after that only when you want children, so only another two or three times. Why worry about getting anything out of it? It’s not a woman’s place to demand pleasure.” Catholics were horrified at this advice, which surprised me. There’s nothing in this advice that is incompatible with Catholic teaching. I wonder if they would have the same outrage if the woman had been advised to get an IUD before her wedding. I’m not saying the advice was good, but her advice didn’t recommend anything sinful. ** I’d rather have Catholics get that advice then to be advised to use contraception**.

Catholics care more about the persuit of pleasure than the persuit of holiness.

 

[manualman]

Sorry Lucy, but I disagree. You find nothing reprehensible or sinful in the statement you quoted!?! I guess I can understand now your distaste for West. That attitude you see nothing wrong with has never been an official part of catholic theology or teaching, but HAS at times held a place in the general populace who mistakenly thought that their prudery was piety.

God is perfect, obviously, so the devil has a tough time making him look bad. His best trick is to trick christians into cultivating a distorted sense of virtue rather than the real thing. Then he (Satan) can point at the christians and truthfully say “Look how screwed up those folks are! Why would you want to be like THAT?”

THIS is West’s point in his infamous reference to Hugh Hefner. Hefner found such a ready market in otherwise decent people partially because he said out loud what many of them long suspected: sex is a whole lot more than merely a duty to be performed in order to have children. Of course, Hefner’s approach was far worse in the opposite direction, but that is the NATURE of deception, isn’t it?

I would also contend it is a form of sin if you were to reject the goodness and pleasure of food altogether and consume ONLY a gruel formulated to contain all the nutrients a human needs, but with no taste or texture. Asceticism has a place, but only when properly directed. Asceticism is only healthy when what is given up for God is still considered good and desirable. God made us physical beings and GOD is the one who made sex (and food) to be both functional and pleasurable. Some folks act like the pleasure comes from hell or something…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Sorry Lucy, but I disagree. You find nothing reprehensible or sinful in the statement you quoted!?!

Reprehensible? Yes. Prehsitoric? Yes. Sinful? No. I challenge you to find anything sinful in her statement. I hate tomatoes, perhaps I’m sinning by hating tomatoes!

I guess I can understand now your distaste for West. That attitude you see nothing wrong with has never been an official part of catholic theology or teaching, but HAS at times held a place in the general populace who mistakenly thought that their prudery was piety.

That idea is far more compatible with the writings of the Church Fathers and the Doctors of the Church than the alternative. Yes, it has never been an official part of Church teaching, but pretty close. St. Augustine said it was venially sinful for married couples to have sex unless they were trying to conceive. Who do you think he’d agree with, the woman I quoted, or with Christopher West?

God is perfect, obviously, so the devil has a tough time making him look bad. His best trick is to trick christians into cultivating a distorted sense of virtue rather than the real thing. Then he (Satan) can point at the christians and truthfully say “Look how screwed up those folks are! Why would you want to be like THAT?”

Granted.

THIS is West’s point in his infamous reference to Hugh Hefner. Hefner found such a ready market in otherwise decent people partially because he said out loud what many of them long suspected: sex is a whole lot more than merely a duty to be performed in order to have children. Of course, Hefner’s approach was far worse in the opposite direction, but that is the NATURE of deception, isn’t it?

This idea is nothing new. It existed in C.S. Lewis’s day, and he rejected it as well.

I would also contend it is a form of sin if you were to reject the goodness and pleasure of food altogether and consume ONLY a gruel formulated to contain all the nutrients a human needs, but with no taste or texture.

So priests and religious who take vows of celibacy and chastity are sinning?

Asceticism has a place, but only when properly directed. Asceticism is only healthy when what is given up for God is still considered good and desirable. God made us physical beings and GOD is the one who made sex (and food) to be both functional and pleasurable. Some folks act like the pleasure comes from hell or something…

Is this a big problem where you live? Where I live it’s exactly the opposite. I remember my junior year of college, when I went out to dinner on a Friday night during Lent with Catholics. (I was not yet Catholic at the time.) They made such a huge fuss about having to abstain from meat, and most of them chose to defy it. The Jewish girl at the table, on the other hand, declined to eat non-kosher food without a peep of complaint.

 

[valient_Lucy]

“Why worry about sex? You’ll only have sex once on your wedding night, and after that only when you want children, so only another two or three times. Why worry about getting anything out of it? It’s not a woman’s place to demand pleasure.”

I open this up to the wider audience. What about this quote is sinful or incompatible with Catholic teaching?

 

[manualman]

1. This idea is nothing new. It existed in C.S. Lewis’s day, and he rejected it as well.
2. So priests and religious who take vows of celibacy and chastity are sinning?
3. Is this a big problem where you live? Where I live it’s exactly the opposite.

1. CS Lewis rejected the idea that an error when identified often produces a reaction so strong against that error that the new position is ALSO an error? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Met a militant feminist?
2. Priests and nuns who take vows of celibacy as a means of avoiding dealing with sexuality are not only sinning, they make up most of the population of sexual abusers (according to the training in safe environments I received at parish). Vows of celibacy should only be made when the one taking the vow truly recognizes the good of what is being given up rather than seeing it as a big relief. Ask your diocesan vocations director and you will find that they spend quite a bit of time making sure of that these days.
3. No it is not. That is exactly WHY we must be hyper vigilant against over-reaction. Our culture at large is absolutely hedonist on the subject of sexuality. That is why we must beware the devil’s favorite trick and guard against over-reacting back into prudery. I prefer to reject errors on BOTH sides of the sexuality issue.

As for St. Augustine, we’ll have to ask him over a cold brew in heaven some time. Be aware that saints, even Doctors, are not individually infallible. We are each a product of our age and Augustine’s age was certainly one in which the Church existed in an overall culture in which hedonistic sex was a part of pagan religious ceremony. It would be even easier then than today to over-react against the excesses of the larger culture. This is why no single saint or Early Father should be considered THE model of christian virtue (with exception of the Blessed Mother). What Augustine says must be examined in light of Magisterial teaching since then as well (of which Humanae Vitae and Castii Connubi are a part).

As for the statement, if you share the sentiment, PLEASE make sure your fiance is aware of it before you make even the first of wedding plans.

 

[valient_Lucy]

1. CS Lewis rejected the idea that an error when identified often produces a reaction so strong against that error that the new position is ALSO an error? Ever heard of Martin Luther? Met a militant feminist?

C.S. Lewis rejected the idea that pornography stems from a reaction to a prude culture.

1. No it is not. That is exactly WHY we must be hyper vigilant against over-reaction. Our culture at large is absolutely hedonist on the subject of sexuality. That is why we must beware the devil’s favorite trick and guard against over-reacting back into prudery. I prefer to reject errors on BOTH sides of the sexuality issue.

To worry about prudery in the modern era is like worrying that the US Government will have a large budget surplus next year. Why should we worry about an imaginary threat instead of a real threat?

Besides, which is worse: a married couple with a horrible sex life but both spouses go to Heaven, or a married couple with a great sex life and they both end up in Hell? **What’s more important, great sex or eternal salvation? **

As for the statement, if you share the sentiment, PLEASE make sure your fiance is aware of it before you make even the first of wedding plans.

Hmm. Instead of addressing the argument, you chose to insult me. **I guess that means you can’t say why that quote is sinful or incompatible with Catholic teaching. ** Because you know that it isn’t.

I do not agree with the quote, as I said before (twice!). I’m also not engaged. However, if an engaged couple did agree with the quote, what would be wrong with that? Does the 11th commandment say “Thou shalt have sex for reasons other than procreation?” Does the 12th commandment say “Thou shalt enjoy sex?” It’s a free country, and to each his own.

I’ll say it again: I don’t agree with the quote. I spent too many years as a Protestant to fully absorb the Catholic suspicion of marriage and the Catholic hatred of sex.

However, my father recommends that, before I get married, I live with a guy for a year to see that we’re compatible. Which advice would you rather have me follow: the quotation in question, or my father?

 

[valient_Lucy]

However, if an engaged couple did agree with the quote, what would be wrong with that? Does the 11th commandment say “Thou shalt have sex for reasons other than procreation?” Does the 12th commandment say “Thou shalt enjoy sex?” It’s a free country, and to each his own.

I recently read a secular biography of St. Therese of Liseaux. The biographer detailed her mother’s life, and writes that Bl. Louis and Zelie Martin (her parents) viewed her mother’s nine pregnancies as a welcome respite from sex, an activity that neither one of them enjoyed, but rather used in a utilitarian fashion. And they’re well on their way to canonization.

 

[bingbang]

I recently read a secular biography of St. Therese of Liseaux. The biographer detailed her mother’s life, and writes that Bl. Louis and Zelie Martin (her parents) viewed her mother’s nine pregnancies as a welcome respite from sex, an activity that neither one of them enjoyed, but rather used in a utilitarian fashion. And they’re well on their way to canonization.

How can you not enjoy sex? At least for the guy it has to be quite enjoyable. How can you orgasm and not enjoy it?