Is being Sexologist okay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Question
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be difficult to find an educational program where you would be allowed to learn within the parameters of Catholic teaching. It would be best to do a build your own within a sociology or psychology program at a Catholic university. Then find a Catholic clinic where you would be allowed to practice within your principles. Doable, but some small hoops to jump through. Needed, though, especially with the physically handicapped, many of whom marry others who are physically handicapped.
 
Last edited:
Verdanty said:
science in the form of psychology and biology fundamentally disagrees and has many decades of evidence based research with which to disprove many claims made by Christian doctrines on sexuality.
Click to expand...
That is not actually true. It’s easy to make a claim that “decades of science supports something” but you’d be hard pressed to back that up.
 
Actually, science is based upon backing things up, by testing again and again.

sci·en·tif·ic meth·od
noun
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
 
Um. Only the entirety of the Theory of evolution to start with?

Monogamy and chastity being a natural state for human beings is a big obvious red flag in the Theology of the Body. Human anatomy, especially that of males, is especially tailored towards frequent mating (men produce lots of sperm vs a womans usually singular egg release) and the biological impulse to seek sex encourages men to seek a wide variety of sexual partners. The whole concept of waiting for specific time slots in the monthly calendar to engage in coitus is very much against nature.

I admire monogamy and seek only those types of relationships myself, but I would have to be woefully ignorant of basic evolutionary biology to claim that was “natural” in what we have evolved to be.

Goodness, the amount of times people on here rant and rave about the sexual revolution I’d have thought the central findings which spurred it on would be rather better known than they seem to be in practice. And this is only one front and not even the weakest one.
 
Last edited:
I always loved that word: “Veritable”

Veritable Vegetables are delicious!
 
  1. The Theory of Evolution is fully compatible with the Catholic Faith.
  2. Monogamy being not natural for humans is simply your opinion. Science actually shows us that the chemicals released in the brain during sex serve to bond two people together. Sex is designed to be shared between two life-long partners.
3)Just because a man can have lots of sex doesn’t mean it’s good for him. You know what happens to people who sleep around…they inevitably get STDs.
  1. There are vast amounts of studies out there that show that the best outcomes for children occur in families with a mother and father, who are in a long-term monogamus relationship. The human drive to protect and provide for children can be just as strong as the sex drive. I think you’re taking too few factors into account in an effort to dismiss Church teaching.
    There are also a few studies that show that people in committed married relationships are generally more satisfied with life than people who go from one sexual partner to another.
I’m sure you could provide a load of arguments against monogamy but you must admit that the fact that it has endured for so long and continues to endure, constitutes evidence in itself.
 
Verdanty said:
No, you’lll find human anatomy is something physical and not simply an opinion. Take the penis for instance, the head of which for instance features a curved ridge. Though defunct and reduced in size at this stage previously for our ancestors it was rather larger and served to literally “scrape” the walls of a females vagina and remove the seed of other males.
Click to expand...
The physical features that point to polygamy are inherited from hominoid ancestors. That means modern humans are capable of polygamy but don’t need to be. Physical features aren’t the only measure. Chemistry could be better (though I’m biased because I’m a chemist myself).
The brain chemistry, even of males, point towards monogamy. The presence of the compound vasopressin in men is nicknamed the monogamy molecule for a reason. There’s also a gene in men that is associated with monogamy too. There’s also the role of neuroplasticity.
Then there’s the role of self-control. Humans are naturally able to control themselves, if they wish to.
They do, but in the past it was rare for humans to live beyond thirty years so degenerative STD’s wern’t so great a concern or a problem when the population died very young or in childbirth.

STD’s were also somewhat rarer in the past than they are today, people travel far greater distances allowing illnesses to spread across populations who have not developed resistances against them. A prime example of this was Cortez bringing smallpox to the americas, the Spanish suffered it for sure, but not to the same extend or scale it decimated Mexico who had no resistance to it.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem is modern promiscuity. In America, medical professionals 60 years ago only had to deal with around four or five types of STDs. That has increased exponentially and drug resistant forms are now present. Increased travel plays a role but that’s a part of the story. Promiscuity helped increasing STDs because every time a pathogen replicates, it’s prone to genetic copying errors. Higher rates of reproduction increases the chances of mutations in bacteria and viruses, especially retroviruses because RNA is highly vulnerable to reactions. (Humans and other eukaryotes have much more superior editing methods in genetic replication hence significant changes in us are rare). In fact, some drug resistance in HIV is already present.

You’re welcome to your beliefs, but don’t try to claim they’re in line with science when they’re clearly not.
 
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with a Catholic being a sexologist but you need to be prepared to counsel individuals and couples who are not Catholic and in no way want to live a Catholic life.

EDIT: And most importantly, you’ll need to respect their non-Catholic decisions.
 
Last edited:
Jamie5 said:
And it is very ironic that you call the Catholic view of sex basically the best and most enlightened.
Click to expand...
This comment demonstrates a lack of understanding of the word irony.
Jamie5 said:
They are not evil my friend, and most people would agree.
Click to expand...
You don’t get to decide what is evil and what isn’t, nor does any other so-called faith or idea. God does. And we both know, Jamie, this is because you think you’re defending these friends you talk about on here ad nauseum.

In any case, your statement is argumentum ad populum.
 
anikins said:
There is nothing wrong with a Catholic being a sexolo
gist but you need to be prepared to counsel individuals and couples who are not Catholic and in no way want to live a Catholic life.
Click to expand...
In a truly free society (something the Western left abhors), people would be able to decide their own private contracts.
anikins said:
And most importantly, you’ll need to respect their non-Catholic decisions.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think not.
 
“If you don’t “comprehend”, then what you need to do is zip it and listen, not roll around in uncertainty as though it gives you some kind of extra intellect or moral authority.”

I think you should practice what you preach just a little more 😉
 
Problem with that argument and personal attack is that I’m not the one who’s hiding behind uncertainty and saying “I don’t comprehend, I just don’t understand”.

Really, you’re making this too easy…
 
This post is a perfect example of why I keep on telling people that evolution is bad, bad, bad news.
 
Verdanty said:
I do accept the theory of evolution,
Click to expand...
Which means you are incapable of accepting the Word of God. At least you are honest and admit it. So if the Word of God is subject to the veto of evolution, than it is evolution that is the true Word and God, is it not?

One cannot serve two masters. So, for the OP: no, you can’t be a good Catholic and be a “sexologist”
 
Last edited:
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say the god is the one who invented evolution and “scientists” are his priests.

No, Darwin merely condemned untold millions to eternal Hell.
 
Can I just confirm this; accepting evolution will send you to hell?

And here was me thinking clothes were going to do it for most of humanity according to Fatima.

Well at least with all those scientists and tech heads in hell one of them should be able to make some air conditioning.
 
Last edited:
Accepting evolution will lead many, perhaps most to Hell. As much as I think the term “invincible ignorance” is overused these days, it could possibly apply to those Catholics who accept what little they know about the theory without taking it to it’s logical conclusion. However, being that evolution is a large piece of the pie that has driven the atheist movement of the last century and a half it would seem proper to it has condemned many, many souls.

The wisdom of the world is indeed foolishness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top