M
- Status
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Are you kidding? His interview was positively scandalous. Take this, for example:
We have a much more positive understanding of human sexuality because of the sexual revolution? There’s greater patience with sexual sin because of the sexual revolution? This is a good thing??? I think I’m going to be sick.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
You’re suggesting we should not have a positive view of human sexuality? Do you take issue with John Paul’s Theology of the Body, which Chaput was referencing when he made that statement?
M
manualman
Guest
I see nothing wrong with his statements. The ‘sexual revolution’ arguably came about partly because the culture that preceded it still suffered from a nagging suspician that sex was some sort of inherently dirty thing. Church teaching focused ONLY on the procreative function of it (true as far as it went, but incomplete), but hardly at all explored the unitive nature of it.
People sense that there was more to our sexuality than simply a reproduction factory. As usual in human history the reaction against this one-sided moral and theological emphasis was to reject it utterly instead of BALANCING it with a more complete view.
Thus the sinful excesses of the sexual revolution forced many in the Church, JPII included, to ponder what had prompted this outrageous reaction. As a result, we got the first inklings in Humanae Vitae, and ultimately JPII’s Theology of the Body.
Even secular humanists have brains. They had a good, if exagerrated point in noting that most of the theological exploration of the meaning of sexuality had previously been done by celibate men! No wonder they grasped truths about the procreative functions sooner than the unitive functions.
People sense that there was more to our sexuality than simply a reproduction factory. As usual in human history the reaction against this one-sided moral and theological emphasis was to reject it utterly instead of BALANCING it with a more complete view.
Thus the sinful excesses of the sexual revolution forced many in the Church, JPII included, to ponder what had prompted this outrageous reaction. As a result, we got the first inklings in Humanae Vitae, and ultimately JPII’s Theology of the Body.
Even secular humanists have brains. They had a good, if exagerrated point in noting that most of the theological exploration of the meaning of sexuality had previously been done by celibate men! No wonder they grasped truths about the procreative functions sooner than the unitive functions.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
The sexual revolution was bent on, and to a large part succeeded, destroying God’s plan for human sexuality. The sexual revolution was positively evil. It was a mass rejection of all things Christian and is the direct cause of the evils we continue to see today, from pre- and extra-marital relations, contraception, abortion, and pornography.
I’m suggesting that it’s absurd to assert that we have a much more positive understanding of human sexuality as a result of the sexual revolution.
When I asked, “This is a good thing?” I was referring to His Excellency’s observation that we now have more “patience” with sexual sin. Our Lady of Fatima said that souls fall into hell like snowflakes because of sins of the flesh. That was in 1917. And today we have more patience sexual sin, and we’re pretending this is an improvement? Truly, I’m not sure I’ve heard anything more ridiculous from a member of the Church hierarchy.
U
UKcatholicGuy
Guest
Let me get this straight: The Church was partly responsible for the sexual revolution? And for 1,965 years Her teaching was lopsided, and was only “balanced” due to the sexual revolution? You do realize that most families before the sexual revolution had tons of kids? If people thought sex was inherently dirty, they sure were making use of it a lot.
Again, you’re suggesting the Church’s teaching was “one-sided” for 1,965 years, until the sexual revolution? What of Our Lord’s promise to lead the Church into all Truth? I guess it wasn’t entirely fulfilled until the sexual revolution . . .
In addition to the absurd suggestion that the sexual revolution helped correct Church teaching, you’re wrong that Church teaching was lopsided or focused only on the procreative. True, Church teaching focuses more heavily on the procreative, because that is the principle end of sexual relations. However, it is absurd to suggest the Church ignored the unitive aspect. Are you familiar with Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubii? It does a beautiful job explaining all aspects of marriage.
So I guess we should take Our Lord’s teachings concerning human sexuality with a grain of salt, eh? After all, He was a celibate man-- what could He possibly know? And that St. Paul-- just another celibate man trying to explain the beauty and mystery of the marital union-- what could he know? Thank goodness for the wisdom of the sexual revolution! By the way, your argument further backfires on you by the fact that, despite your claim we have a better understanding of human sexuality in the Church now, we still have not had anyone other than a celibate man teaching the Church on the matter.
1
1Samuel8
Guest
I can not speak for the Archbishop but I would give him a bit more credit. I do not think your interpretation of his statements is entirely accurate.
He did not say as a result or because of anything in the passage you quoted. He said with and he is describing things that developed concurrently.
The “sexual revolution” is not a person. It is a meta-physical concept that exists only in our mind. It is how we choose to interpret history in a collective market of free thinkers. Therefore, to attribute the concepts of “good” and “bad” should be done with caution.
Fornication and promiscuity and sexual deviance and abortion have always existed. None of these are new. It is possible that these behaviors are more rampant or more common than before, I do not know. However, none of that is verifiable.
What IS verifiable is that technology has changed. Education has changed. We now have the internet which is extremely new in the history of mankind. In the past, history was recorded by a select few people. Now, history is recorded by everybody. We must be careful when we compare time periods.
Thus, I can look at the same historical time period and attribute “a much more positive understanding of human sexuality” to the information age given that sexual impropriety and immorality exists.
G
Genesis315
Guest
God brings good out of evil. Evils often bring out the best in the Church, especially in her doctrine. In the face of error, she has to more clearly, precisely, and thoughtfully declare the truth.We have a much more positive understanding of human sexuality because of the sexual revolution? There’s greater patience with sexual sin because of the sexual revolution? This is a good thing??? I think I’m going to be sick.
For example, without the Protestant Reformation we wouldn’t have the teachings of the Council of Trent on Justification and on all the Sacraments. If there weren’t Christological heresies, we wouldn’t have the precise Christology of the Early Ecumenical Councils. Even Casti Connubi,was issued in light of the Anglican conference approving of contraception.
There’s never anything wrong with explaining the beauty of a truth in more depth–that is what theology is all about in fact and that is why there can continue to be theologians in all centuries. Was it wrong for St. Francis de Sales to write about Divine Love when St. Bernard had already done so beautifully? They are both beautiful. Was it wrong for Leo XIII to write Satis Cognitum when Boniface VIII had already written Unam Sanctam? Of course not. In fact, Leo builds on and explains more deeply the truth explained by Boniface.
These things are not opposed, by complimentary.
M
manualman
Guest
Precisely the point I was trying to make. John Paul spent an enormous amount of time as a young priest and bishop working with a relatively small number of couples in a small faith community in Poland. His observations there were the foundation for his book Love and Responsibility. That work eventually grew in his heart into the Theology of the Body. My logic doesn’t backfire at all. JP saw what was happening in the culture around him and decided to get very close to married couples to gain insights to respond. And boy did he.
Would he have been prompted to study and reflect on the issue so closely in an age where sex wasn’t so thoroughly abused? Hard to say. But lights DO seem brighter when the surroundings are darker.
- Status