Help Articulating the Church's View On Sex

[MacBP]

So I have a problem. Often times my non religious friends like to ask (and in some cases it’s closer to mock) my Church’s “wacky” beliefs regarding sex (namely homosexuality, contraception, you know the drill).

I’ll never be able to convince my friends that sex is anything more than something two consenting adults do when they are attracted to one another. I would, however, like to be able to present the Church’s stance without it sounding groundless.

I feel as though I have the basic principles down. Namely that since sex leads to the creation of new life (which is of infinite worth and dignity) it is sacred and deserves to be protected. Sex has both a procreative and unitive dimension. Using sex for one of these dimension while deliberately excluding another is a misuse and abuse of sex (in the same way that binging and purging is a misuse of eating). Since sex is sacred this misuse is bad. Ergo, acts which askew the procreative aspects of sex (homosexuality and contraception) are bad.

Am I missing anything here? Have you found effective ways of presenting the Church’s position on sex. Or am I just doomed?

 

[Rolltide]

Here are some reasons why pre-marital sex is a mortal sin:

1. Human law provides the minimum standard for humans to live by. In other words, what is the most that humans can get away with without destroying themselves? God’s law is exactly the opposite. God holds us to the highest standard possible. In other words, what behavior would be needed in order to achieve an absolute perfect society? We don’t change God’s law to suit us because we fall short. We don’t even change God’s law because it’s impossible for humans to achieve. Instead, we adapt because we should always be striving for the ideal. With that stated, what kind of behavior do you think God would expect of unmarried couples?
2. Moral behavior also requires that we have the highest respect for human life possible. As such, we should never do harm, short of self-defense. Pre-marital sex, no matter how careful, always has a risk of pregnancy. This could lead the mother to another mortal sin through abortion. The couple is also putting a potential human life’s entire future at risk by not being prepared to accept the responsibility to raise it or be prepared to do so in advance. It might have to grow up in a single parent or unstable household, finances would not have been prepared, and so on. The fact that a couple could potentially put an innocent life at risk is the highest form of selfishness and is completely irresponsible.
3. Despite years of scientific study and philosophical debate, no one knows precisely when the soul enters the human body and human life begins. As such, Catholics are required to take the safest route and assume the most conservative answer, which is that life begins at the moment of conception. Birth control can cause the failure of a fertilized egg to implant, thus causing an abortion. Someone could be the unknowing partner to unintentional murder. Some might also choose to use the morning after pill, which does essentially the same thing, but on purpose.
4. Pre-marital sex always presents the possibility of sexually transmitted disease. It would be a grave sin to infect someone with a dangerous disease, and some diseases, like HIV, can be transmitted even through condoms. People might not even know they have them. HPV has no symptoms, and yet can cause cervical cancer. How many times have people believed themselves to be in a monogamous relationship, only to discover that their partner is cheating? Over 50% of the population has been cheated on at some point. How many had suspicions beforehand?
5. Promiscuity leads to more promiscuity. By sleeping around, it decreases the special bond that one has when they are exclusive with a single partner. They want to explore the lustful side of sexuality more, unimpeded by feelings. It increases the possibility of cheating during marriage, and has helped to contribute to our skyrocketing divorce rate. Why get married when I can just sleep with someone and move on? People get obsessed with the initial sexual attraction, and never move on to the more intimate phases of relationships. When the fireworks stop, they simply dump their lover, find someone new, and recapture the feeling again. You always hear in the movies about “fear of commitment”. Well, a LOT of this is due to the fact that people think they have a good thing going. Why would they want to limit their sexual fun by committing permanently to someone?
6. During pre-marital sex, one is treating the partner like an object of pleasure, rather than an object of love. (This can occur EVEN INSIDE OF A MARRIAGE, by the way…) Rather than using sex for its wondrous purpose, which is a special unity that offers the possibility for the creation of life, we detach from that purpose, and use it solely for pleasure. To be sure, sex is pleasurable and provides fun and great intimacy for couples, but it is meant to be a unique bond that strengthens the family unit, rather than fracturing it through promiscuity. By giving into lust, a couple is exploiting each other for selfish purposes, even if the bond of love is there. The minute that sex becomes just about fun, the couple begins to test those boundaries to see how much fun one can have. These boundaries are difficult to resist, and one can find themselves in trouble very fast. Even inside a marriage, when you are not open to life, you are taking one of the most special gifts of God, which is actually being allowed to participate in the process of creation, and rejecting it as if it is worthless.

So, why is pre-marital sex bad? It could lead to abortion, it could lead to the creation of a child with a family completely unprepared to raise it, it can transmit disease, it is selfish, it weakens the family, it provides a mentality for divorce and lack of commitment, it is exploitative, and is the misuse of a hugely unique gift from God. Does that help?

 

[paul_c]

So I have a problem. Often times my non religious friends like to ask (and in some cases it’s closer to mock) my Church’s “wacky” beliefs regarding sex (namely homosexuality, contraception, you know the drill).

I’ll never be able to convince my friends that sex is anything more than something two consenting adults do when they are attracted to one another. I would, however, like to be able to present the Church’s stance without it sounding groundless.

I feel as though I have the basic principles down. Namely that since sex leads to the creation of new life (which is of infinite worth and dignity) it is sacred and deserves to be protected. Sex has both a procreative and unitive dimension. Using sex for one of these dimension while deliberately excluding another is a misuse and abuse of sex (in the same way that binging and purging is a misuse of eating). Since sex is sacred this misuse is bad. Ergo, acts which askew the procreative aspects of sex (homosexuality and contraception) are bad.

Am I missing anything here? Have you found effective ways of presenting the Church’s position on sex. Or am I just doomed?

You have the basics down.

Sex is a sacred act because it results in the creation of new souls. It requires the cooperation of a man, a woman and God to do so. That’s why marriage is a sacrament.

Sex outside of marriage is wrong because it fails to recognize the sacredness of the act and the responsibility of caring for the newly created soul, which is always the end goal of sex, no matter how much effort is expended to separate sex from procreation.

Contraception is wrong in that it seeks to separate sex from its intended purpose which is procreation. The use of contraception has led to the very same evils predicted by Pope Paul VI in HUman Vitae:

1. the objectification of women (pornography is rampant)
2. the general lowering of moral standards (hard to see anyone arguing against this)
3. an increase in illegitimacy and abortion (over half the babies born this year were to single mothers and this is after over 1Million abortions in the us this year)
4. the state has begun forcing birth control (In China for sure)

there is a common misconception that contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies. In fact, the opposite is true. Here’s why: Birth control obviously reduces the chances of a pregnancy occurring. A couple having sex for a year will have a pregnancy 85% of the time without condoms, for instance, but only 15% with condoms. However, people have been led to believe that sex with birth control is safe and therefore can be engaged in without ramifications. But 15% is not zero %. If a high school class has 12 girls in it and half are sexually active and use condoms reliably, then one of them will become pregnant during the year. In every class in the country. This is what we are experiencing. Over 1 million of these girls will have an abortion in the next year and be emotionally scarred for life. And many of those girls that have their children will have financial difficulties for the rest of their lives. So sex with birth control is anything but safe.

As for “same sex marriage”, although has been positioned as a matter of equality by the LGBT community, it misses the fundamental point that marriage is about the creation and
raising of children. Think about it. The state doesn’t care to recognize who is love with who. Rather, the state recognizes that creating children and raising a family is the building block of society and gives special accommodations to couples who plan to do that. Since same sex couples can not create life, there is no reason for the state to give them special recognition. Same sex marriage undermines legitimate marriage by decoupling the procreation aspect from marriage. This is not good for society because for society to function in the long term, it must replace itself with new children.

 

[red85]

I strayed a bit from theology and became more biology oriented in my defense of the right use of sexuality.

I start with, it’s empirically obvious that a man and a woman are designed to interfaced with each in a certain way, using procreative organs for the purpose of making life. I bring in the nature argument, saying that billions of animals get it right, producing off-springs. Attraction alone is a dumb argument - moths are attracted to the flame, but it doesn’t mean it’s sensible. What’s sensible is to use sexuality in a responsible way (for procreation, in marriage) since it holds the power to create another human being, no small matter. Marriage offers stability, and living like animals out of wedlock offers none. If they say otherwise to this latter point, I am sure you can find statistical data to back up your defense of marriage.

Look at biology, consider man as a biological being, and you can come up reason-based arguments to support Church teachings. If you start off with “the Church says this, you might close their minds then and there.”

Pray for me. I frequently have to argue against weird philosophies, and it’s wearing and demoralizing.