A
- Status
S
superamazingman
Guest
Well, you may be good looking, but I don’t know about the other two…EXACTLY!
And therefore smart, rational, and good-looking
U
underacloud
Guest
A few points:
a) So an "inordinate craving’ is wrong? That’s essentially a tautology anyway. It’s not saying that desire and arousal are wrong, or pleasure in sex is wrong (I have already shown that the Church teaches, officially, that the pleasure of sex is good), but they are wrong when they are “inordinate”. Much the same as it’s OK to enjoy eating, but we should avoid gluttony.
b) I presume you also read the next section, which goes on to clarify:
*The wrongfulness of lust is reducible to this: that venereal satisfaction is sought for either outside wedlock or, at any rate, in a manner which is contrary to the laws that govern marital intercourse. *
So again, venereal satisfaction within marriage is fine, when it meets the laws of marriage (that sex is unitive and procreative). This is much the same as what I quoted from earlier in the catechism. Again, this doesn’t rule out desire and arousal for married people.
c) This article does not constitute official Church teaching, but it seems to reinforce what the catechism says regardless.
d) In a way your interpretation is correct, that we’re “not supposed to want sex that much”…depending what you mean by “that much”. It’s not that it’s wrong to enjoy sex, to desire your wife, or to get aroused by her. But if I focus on sex so much that I only appreciate her for her body, and for what I can get from her sexually, then I have objectified her and am lusting (in the Catholic sense, not in the colloquial sense of finding her sexually attractive).
If I treat my wife with respect and we have sex within the laws of marriage (preserving the unitive and procreative aspects), then our desire and arousal are perfectly fine. Our enjoyment of sex is perfectly fine (intended by the creator). In other words, it is not “inordinate” but the way sex should be.
U
underacloud
Guest
What you say is true. Many Church fathers, especially Augustine, were quite anti-sex. Many Catholics misunderstand the official Church teaching because of this, so I’m not surprised than an athiest would also misunderstand it. But that’s why I’m trying to help you understand what the official position is. I’ve quoted from the catechism to show you that the church is not against enjoyment of sex. So you forget about what certain Church fathers said and correct your understanding now.
As for separating lust from desire, I’ve covered this above. Lust is “inordinate” enjoyment of sex…which of course does not rule out spouses enjoying sex, desiring each other, and arousing each other. It’s only wrong when it’s “inordinate”. So again, you can let go of this incorrect idea now.
S
superamazingman
Guest
I have a challenge for you, angry athiest: backup your view of “church teaching” with documents.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I should explain myself further.
I know that the official Catholic doctrine on sex is rather restrictive, but I am not sure whether sex having to be completely selfless is part of that doctrine.
When conservatives Catholics have argued that on CAF I have simply believed them, because it didn’t occur to me that they would make up something that made their position look so much less credible or reasonable.
C
clem456
Guest
Sexual desire can be ordered or disordered. Sexual desire in itself is not evil, it is good. Concupiscent sexual desire is a disorderd desire for another person, **as an object **for one’s own satisfaction. The Church teaches that desire should be orderd to spousal Love in a communion of persons, the mutual gift of self. In being selfless in Love, one receives Love (this will probably sound foolish to an atheist). There is nothing whatsoever restrictive about Love. What we restrict would be lust, not Love.
If you really want to learn more about what the Catholic Church teaches about Love and sexuality go here…
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm
Give yourself a good year to read it and absorb it. It’s really pointless to go round in circles if we don’t understand the theology…
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
As you wish.
Here is a quote from one of Pope John Paul II’s documents on the Theology of the Body. I will use this text to demonstrate the extreme and unnatural lengths Catholics are supposed to go to in order to deny the* Lustfulness* of ordinary sexual attraction:
- Christ’s words are severe. They demand from man that, in the sphere in which relations with persons of the other sex are formed, he should have full and deep consciousness of his own acts, and above all of interior acts. They demand that he should be aware of the internal impulses of his heart, so as to be able to distinguish them and qualify them maturely. Christ’s words demand that in this sphere, which seems to belong exclusively to the body and to the senses, that is, to exterior man, he should succeed in being an interior man. He should be able to obey correct conscience, and to be the true master of his own deep impulses, like a guardian who watches over a hidden spring. Finally he should draw from all those impulses what is fitting for purity of heart, building with conscience and consistency that personal sense of the nuptial meaning of the body, which opens the interior space of the freedom of the gift.
Moreover, even Pope John Paul II appears to admit that sexual desire is naturally Lustful (in that same document):
Consequently, a noble gratification, for example, is one thing, while sexual desire is another. When sexual desire is linked with a noble gratification, it differs from desire pure and simple. Similarly, as regards the sphere of the immediate reactions of the heart, sexual excitement is very different from the deep emotion with which not only interior sensitivity, but sexuality itself reacts to the total expression of femininity and masculinity.
Link to source:
ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb47.htm
P.S. I thought this line from the document was very telling:
There cannot be such spontaneity in all the movements and impulses that arise from mere carnal lust, devoid as it is of a choice and of an adequate hierarchy.
Yes, that’s right, according to the late Pope even our emotions and how we experience them are supposed to have a strict hierarchy.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Thank you for the useful sources.
U
underacloud
Guest
No, you don’t!
I think we’ve established that by now; you don’t **know **anything about Catholic doctrin on sex. We’ve shown you official Church doctrine, which does not at all suggest what you assert.
I’m done with this now. I’ve come to the conclusion you are merely being argumentative for the sake of it and/or trolling.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am arguing with you in a rational manner and using sources and evidence to back up my claims. That is more or less the exact opposite of being a troll.
Although I will admit that I enjoy arguing.
And I know quite a bit about Catholic doctrines on sex.
Frankly I liked the Catholic position on sex better when I was more ignorant of what it actually is.
U
underacloud
Guest
How can you not see that you twist and distort things to reach your absurd conclusions?
adequate hierarchy = strict hierarchy?
Sorry…note to self…stop feeding the trolls.
U
underacloud
Guest
Sorry, I must have missed your rational and evidence based argument.
Was that the one where you showed that the Catholic Church is opposed to “inordinate craving” for sex, so your conclusion is that the Church is against any and all desire and arousal?
Yes, a very strong argument.
If you want to engage in rational debate, I’ll again repeat the challenge, as others have, to show that the Church is against desire and arousal per se. You haven’t shown this…the reason being that she is not against them.
You’ve shown that the Church teaches that desire and arousal have an appropriate context (ie marriage). Well done. Maybe you are beginning to **know **something about Catholic sexual ethics.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
P.S. I thought this line from the document was very telling:
There cannot be such spontaneity in all the movements and impulses that arise from mere carnal lust, devoid as it is of a choice and of an adequate hierarchy.
Yes, that’s right, according to the late Pope even our emotions and how we experience them are supposed to have a strict hierarchy.
Moreover, I notice you ignored the more relevant quotes from Pope John Paul II in my post.
P.S. I thought this line from the document was very telling:
There cannot be such spontaneity in all the movements and impulses that arise from mere carnal lust, devoid as it is of a choice and of an adequate hierarchy.
Yes, that’s right, according to the late Pope even our emotions and how we experience them are supposed to have a strict hierarchy.
Why should any human being be expected to have *hierarchical *emotions at all?How can you not see that you twist and distort things to reach your absurd conclusions?
adequate hierarchy = strict hierarchy?
Sorry…note to self…stop feeding the trolls.
Moreover, I notice you ignored the more relevant quotes from Pope John Paul II in my post.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I am amused by the way you call me a troll while sending me replies dripping with disdainSorry, I must have missed your rational and evidence based argument.
Was that the one where you showed that the Catholic Church is opposed to “inordinate craving” for sex, so your conclusion is that the Church is against any and all desire and arousal?
Yes, a very strong argument.
If you want to engage in rational debate, I’ll again repeat the challenge, as others have, to show that the Church is against desire and arousal per se. You haven’t shown this…the reason being that she is not against them.
You’ve shown that the Church teaches that desire and arousal have an appropriate context (ie marriage). Well done. Maybe you are beginning to **know **something about Catholic sexual ethics.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Its against natural (i.e. real) sexual desire, as this quote from Pope John Paul II makes plain (I highlighted the most important part):Sorry, I must have missed your rational and evidence based argument.
Was that the one where you showed that the Catholic Church is opposed to “inordinate craving” for sex, so your conclusion is that the Church is against any and all desire and arousal?
Yes, a very strong argument.
**
If you want to engage in rational debate, I’ll again repeat the challenge, as others have, to show that the Church is against desire and arousal per se.** You haven’t shown this…the reason being that she is not against them.
You’ve shown that the Church teaches that desire and arousal have an appropriate context (ie marriage). Well done. Maybe you are beginning to **know **something about Catholic sexual ethics.
Consequently, a noble gratification, for example, is one thing, while sexual desire is another. When sexual desire is linked with a noble gratification, it differs from desire pure and simple. Similarly, as regards the sphere of the immediate reactions of the heart, sexual excitement is very different from the deep emotion with which not only interior sensitivity, but sexuality itself reacts to the total expression of femininity and masculinity.
U
underacloud
Guest
Point well made.I am amused by the way you call me a troll while sending me replies dripping with disdain
I apologise that I have descended to disdain out of frustration. It is a frustration born from an athiest posting false allegations against the Catholic Church, on a Catholic forum, regarding what she teaches on matters of sexual ethics.
The Catholic teaching on sexual ethics is beautiful and worthy of proper consideration. I have provided links to the catehcism to show that the Chruch teaches that sex is supposed to be enjoyed, within the context of marriage. You have provided further links to reinforce this. I’m glad you’ve linked to the beautiful work of JPII in the theology of the body, which further reinforces the beauty of sex within the context of marriage, as God intended. Whether you see it or not, this back and forth debate has shown that desire and arousal are good, and sex is supposed to be enjoyable (within context).
Since we’re going round and round, and my manners have weakened, let’s leave it there.
Good day to you.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I had a really cutting reply in mind, but there’s no point in saying it if you’re not interested in debating the point further.
If nothing else, you have provided me with food for thought:thumbsup:
If nothing else, you have provided me with food for thought:thumbsup:
U
underacloud
Guest
Feel free to offer your cutting reply, as a parting salvo if you like (I may even, despite best intentions, feel compelled to reply)…
…but yes, I think our debate has reached a stalemate as such.
All the best.
R
Rob_has_lapsed
Guest
“Some people have their first kiss on their wedding day…” Really!? Do you actually know anyone that is in that category?
- Status