Root of Catholic sexual morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter mcteague
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mcteague

Guest
It seems to me that the paramount thing in Catholic sexual morality is procreation not love. It does not exclude love, but procreation is more important and more essential. As I think about the two, it occurs to me that procreation can be measured and observed. Love often can not. It is more difficult to access whether people love each other, or if a sexual act is done with love.
Because religion generally deals with things that are not easily measured or observed, it strikes me that the emphasis on procreation is somewhat out of line with the general emphasis of religious belief and thought.
Catholicism objects to homosexuality, for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love. True Catholicism thinks love is important. But when we get to the nitty gritty, Catholic sexuality prefers what can be seen and measured. Procreation.
The strikes me as a poor criterion for sexual morality. Especially in a religion.
 
mcteague said:
Catholicism objects to homosexuality, for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love…
Click to expand...
It has to do with the sacramental nature of matrimony. Marriage is an earthly sign of a divine reality. The union of male and female is a type of the union between Christ, the bridegroom, and his Church.
 
mcteague said:
It seems to me that the paramount thing in Catholic sexual morality is procreation not love. It does not exclude love, but procreation is more important and more essential. As I think about the two, it occurs to me that procreation can be measured and observed. Love often can not. It is more difficult to access whether people love each other, or if a sexual act is done with love.
Because religion generally deals with things that are not easily measured or observed, it strikes me that the emphasis on procreation is somewhat out of line with the general emphasis of religious belief and thought.
Catholicism objects to homosexuality, for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love. True Catholicism thinks love is important. But when we get to the nitty gritty, Catholic sexuality prefers what can be seen and measured. Procreation.
The strikes me as a poor criterion for sexual morality. Especially in a religion.
Click to expand...
As a Catholic i see them as equal.there united as a whole.The marriage act is not fullfilled unless both are totally and equally present.I say that there is a loss of dignity if one has sex without the possibility of conceiving.God created us that we should live in dignity.A glutton who eats and then throws up and starts all over again is not living in dignity.Personally i wouldn’t feel right if I were to ask my wife to use contraception.I would feel like Im having sex just for the feeling.I feel I have to not use contraception to show her how much I love her.That I risk the possibility of having a child and I will accept the responsibility of supporting that child.
 
I don’t understand how you have come to your conclusion at all. For me, I don’t see the difference. If two people love one another, are united in marriage, and are open to life, how is the outward sign of procreation not the very outcome of their love? I don’t get it. Catholic marriage is about Love, Respect, Procreation and Commitment ( and of course many other things) but those are just to name a few. Please explain what you mean, I guess I don’t see it.
 
Mamanurse said:
I don’t understand how you have come to your conclusion at all. For me, I don’t see the difference. If two people love one another, are united in marriage, and are open to life, how is the outward sign of procreation not the very outcome of their love? I don’t get it. Catholic marriage is about Love, Respect, Procreation and Commitment ( and of course many other things) but those are just to name a few. Please explain what you mean, I guess I don’t see it.
Click to expand...
I am just pointing out what I thinks is an interesting observation. It is not an argument per say. And I do not deny love as an important element in Catholic sexual morality. But I don’t see how anyone reading the posts from Catholics here can not see the prominent importance of procreation in Catholicism’s sexual morality. To me it is noteworthy that that is something that can me observed and measured from the outside.

This reliance on the tangible seems inconsistent with where the emphasis usually is in religious thought.

The primary objections to homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, and certain sexual acts are that they are not procreative. That is what they have in common. Whether any of those things involve love is not the deciding factor.

This does not mean the Church does not think there should be love involved as you attempt procreation with your wife. But it does seem that the intangible ethereal quality of love is less important than the thing that can be measured.

I just thought it interesting to look at it that way. And to consider what it implies, and whether that is where one’s emphasis should really be
 
mcteague said:
It seems to me that the paramount thing in Catholic sexual morality is procreation not love. It does not exclude love, but procreation is more important and more essential. As I think about the two, it occurs to me that procreation can be measured and observed. Love often can not. It is more difficult to access whether people love each other, or if a sexual act is done with love.
Because religion generally deals with things that are not easily measured or observed, it strikes me that the emphasis on procreation is somewhat out of line with the general emphasis of religious belief and thought.
Catholicism objects to homosexuality, for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love. True Catholicism thinks love is important. But when we get to the nitty gritty, Catholic sexuality prefers what can be seen and measured. Procreation.
The strikes me as a poor criterion for sexual morality. Especially in a religion.
Click to expand...
No… No… No… :nope:

This is not at all what the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that love is primary, and that the most profound experience of love is one that mirrors Trinitarian love, the interchange of love between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Few realize that when Karol Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II, he immediately dedicated his Wednesday general audiences (two hour public talks every Wednesday) to the subject of human sexuality. He did this on his first week and dedicated the next 128 weeks to this very topic. His collection of talks is known as “The Theology of the Body” and it is firmly rooted in love, not procreation.

In his catechesis, Blessed John Paul II states that God the Father loves God the Son and God the Son love God the father in such a way that their perfect interchange of love produces the Holy Spirit. The first and second person of the Trinity give themselves to each other freely, totally committed to each other in perfect, self sacrificing love. The fruit of this love is the Holy Spirit. This is how marriage is supposed to work. Man and woman make a total commitment to each other, to give up their own wants and needs for the happiness and wellbeing of the other. They sacrifice themselves for the other, and in so doing, give themselves freely as a gift. And like Jesus on the cross, they hold nothing back. The fruit of that selfless, sacrificial love is children.

In light of the Catholic view of love as a total committment and self sacrificing “Gift of Self” to another, the opposite of love cannot be hate. The opposite of love is use. To use another for your personal enjoyment, to appropriate their body for your pleasure, either mentally or physically, is to use them and that is the opposite of giving yourself to them.

Because only the union of man and woman can produce a child, and because of the sacrificce of self that child demands of the mother and father, only a total and unbreakable commitment of a man and woman to each other can mirror love inside the trinity. Homosexual unions might involve love, but they can never be the total commitment and gift of oneself to another that a woman can make to a man in giving herself freely to have children. Procreation is essential to that highest form of love in the same way as the Holy Spirit is essential to the Trinity.

God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. (Genesis 1:27-28)

BAM! That’s it. Right there. Man and woman. Made in “OUR” image. Man and woman made in the image of the Trinity, made to mirror trinitarian love, totally committed to each other, sacrificing their lives for each other’s safetey, wellbeing and happiness. Fertility. Procreation come after that. And that total commitment as a mirror of trinitarian love is what makes Adam’s sin so bad. When faced with the serpent, he did not follow through on that commitment, did not sacrifice himself. Instead he went for his own desires.

Children are the fruit of love between man and woman in the same way that the Holy Spriit is the fruit of love between God the Father and God the Son. Human procreation is the fruit of love, a gift freely given and recieved between husband and wife. Procreation is the fruit of love.
mcteague said:
But I don’t see how anyone reading the posts from Catholics here can not see the prominent importance of procreation in Catholicism’s sexual morality. To me it is noteworthy that that is something that can me observed and measured from the outside.
Click to expand...
Are not two sparrows sold for a small coin? Yet not one of them falls to the ground without your Father’s knowledge. Even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (Matthew 10:29-31)

You can count children in an attempt to make an objective measurement of procration but you cannot place a value on one of those children. How do you measure the love of a child for it’s mother? That’s the whole point. Love comes first.

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
The actual texts of Blessed John Paul II’s Wednesday general audiences can be found at ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tbind.htm

A good book on the topic is Christopher West’s Theology of the Body for Beginners.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The root of Catholic morality (sexual, and all of morality) is love. Love for God, total unity with God, and total self-donation for the love of God and the one that God puts in your life.

One fruit of such self-donating love is children. 2 become 1, and 1 becomes 3.
 
mcteague said:
It seems to me that the paramount thing in Catholic sexual morality is procreation not love. It does not exclude love, but procreation is more important and more essential. As I think about the two, it occurs to me that procreation can be measured and observed. Love often can not. It is more difficult to access whether people love each other, or if a sexual act is done with love.
Because religion generally deals with things that are not easily measured or observed, it strikes me that the emphasis on procreation is somewhat out of line with the general emphasis of religious belief and thought.
Catholicism objects to homosexuality, for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love. True Catholicism thinks love is important. But when we get to the nitty gritty, Catholic sexuality prefers what can be seen and measured. Procreation.
The strikes me as a poor criterion for sexual morality. Especially in a religion.
Click to expand...
I put it to you that the focus on “procreation” is to miss a very fundamental and underlying principle of Catholic teaching.

It is contained in St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians at 6:19-29 -
19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
Click to expand...
20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.
Click to expand...
St. Paul then goes on to write of immorality and what it is and of love and what it is. His point is to do with self respect and respect for others. This applies to our sexuality and its use. We are exhorted to use our own bodies with great respect, because it is a temple of God. This is the underlying message in the Catechism and lies behind every encyclical and edict ever written by Church leaders.
 
mcteague said:
… To me it is noteworthy that that is something that can me observed and measured from the outside…
Click to expand...
You have assumed that love is harder to measure than openness to procreation. This is not necessarily true. The general moral code of Catholic teaching lists many ways in which we can see and evaluate love for each other. And measuring openness to procreation is not trivial either. Some people who honestly are open to procreation, nevertheless do not have children for various medical reasons. But from an outside observer it could appear that they are not open to it. And even if a case could be made showing that one aspect of sexual behavior is easier to measure than another, the assumption that such a difference is the basis for Catholic sexual morality is just a wild guess, especially when there are so many good and reasonable straight-forward explanations for why the teaching is what it is.
 
Seems to me that women get shortchanged all around, in every religion throughout the world.

The holy trinity is a lopsided triangle in my opinion, consisting of the father, the son and the holy ghost, none of which are women. I guess they get relegated to just baring children in agony and washing the dishes, cooking and cleaning, while men run the world, the churches, and the homes.

No wonder our world’s so screwed up right now!

Women are the cornerstone of the whole civilised world in my opinion, and always have been.

I for one feel they should have equal leadership positions in every Christian church on this planet, including the priesthood.

Just my humble opinion of course.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
Seems to me that women get shortchanged all around, in every religion throughout the world.

The holy trinity is a lopsided triangle in my opinion, consisting of the father, the son and the holy ghost, none of which are women. I guess they get relegated to just baring children in agony and washing the dishes, cooking and cleaning, while men run the world, the churches, and the homes.

No wonder our world’s so screwed up right now!

Women are the cornerstone of the whole civilised world in my opinion, and always have been.

I for one feel they should have equal leadership positions in every Christian church on this planet, including the priesthood.

Just my humble opinion of course.

jomoco
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church strongly recognizes women for their unique gift. The most perfect human who has ever lived was a woman, Mary. Her yes (her “fiat”, “Let it be done to me…”) brought Hope Himself to the world. She is “the cause of our joy”.

The Church implores us to deeply consider and venerate (not worship) her.

Women today also bring hope. I am convinced of this. Women seem to be the hopeful ones. Men seem to have other gifts. Women civilize men.

Remember to think more deeply about the Trinity, and not to be limited to our understanding of genders. The mothering instincts came from God too.
 
My own opinion is that man and woman combined equal the holy ghost. You know, man+woman=holy ghost.

A nice firm triangular foundation for a brighter more enlightened future.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
Seems to me that women get shortchanged all around, in every religion throughout the world.

The holy trinity is a lopsided triangle in my opinion, consisting of the father, the son and the holy ghost, none of which are women. I guess they get relegated to just baring children in agony and washing the dishes, cooking and cleaning, while men run the world, the churches, and the homes.

No wonder our world’s so screwed up right now!

Women are the cornerstone of the whole civilised world in my opinion, and always have been.

I for one feel they should have equal leadership positions in every Christian church on this planet, including the priesthood.

Just my humble opinion of course.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Your broad sweeping statements indicate a number of things. Firstly, you don’t like the way God set things up. For a Christian, that’s mighty strange, to put it mildly, because you are denigrating Christian theology. Secondly, you obviously think the roles of child birth and motherhood are not worthy of much consideration. You prove this by using the word “relegated”. In your warped logic, women are ‘relegated’ to a role that is, by inference, below a role that doesn’t include childbirth and domestic duties. I think the womens libbers will have your guts for garters on this point.

You tell us women are the cornerstone of the whole civilised world, yet you tell us they are ‘relegated’ to this role. According to your logic, this secondary role, to which women are ‘relegated’, makes them the cornerstone of the world. If that role makes them so important as to be a cornerstone, why is it a secondary roole?

Since their biology dictates they are 'relegated" (your word) to what their biology dictates, and still they are, according to you, the cornerstone of the world, how is it then that “… world’s so screwed up.”? Should we alter their biologically determined roles and so promote them to being something else? About the only alternative I can think of would be to turn women into men. There are some radical feminists who’d love this idea. The trouble is, they’d be giving up the roles to which they have been relegated, but which still makes them the cornerstone of the family.

Personally, I think you should ditch the radical feminist claptrap you’ve been reading and buy some literature on true Christianity. It has quite remarkable insights into the role of women under God’s creation. Unfortunately, dealing with the inherent logical contradictions in your current thinking is making my head hurt.🤷

Oh, before I forget, please explain to me how women got a raw deal when men stood guard outside the caves in times long gone. Or worked themselves into an early grave when manual labour was all the rage? And how was it a bad deal when men always said “women and children first”?
 
mcteague said:
The primary objections to homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, and certain sexual acts are that they are not procreative. That is what they have in common. Whether any of those things involve love is not the deciding factor.
Click to expand...
With all of those things you mention above, none of them involve love. As the Catholic church teaches homosexuality is a disorder and must not be acted upon, masturbation is completely without love and is only self giving, contraception is withholding the entirety of your sexual entity by not allowing procreation to take place therefore not giving to your spouse as we are called by God. And as far as the “certain sexual acts” go, I guess you’d have to be more specific to say anything about that.
 
John21652 said:
Your broad sweeping statements indicate a number of things. Firstly, you don’t like the way God set things up. For a Christian, that’s mighty strange, to put it mildly, because you are denigrating Christian theology. Secondly, you obviously think the roles of child birth and motherhood are not worthy of much consideration. You prove this by using the word “relegated”. In your warped logic, women are ‘relegated’ to a role that is, by inference, below a role that doesn’t include childbirth and domestic duties. I think the womens libbers will have your guts for garters on this point.

You tell us women are the cornerstone of the whole civilised world, yet you tell us they are ‘relegated’ to this role. According to your logic, this secondary role, to which women are ‘relegated’, makes them the cornerstone of the world. If that role makes them so important as to be a cornerstone, why is it a secondary roole?

Since their biology dictates they are 'relegated" (your word) to what their biology dictates, and still they are, according to you, the cornerstone of the world, how is it then that “… world’s so screwed up.”? Should we alter their biologically determined roles and so promote them to being something else? About the only alternative I can think of would be to turn women into men. There are some radical feminists who’d love this idea. The trouble is, they’d be giving up the roles to which they have been relegated, but which still makes them the cornerstone of the family.

Personally, I think you should ditch the radical feminist claptrap you’ve been reading and buy some literature on true Christianity. It has quite remarkable insights into the role of women under God’s creation. Unfortunately, dealing with the inherent logical contradictions in your current thinking is making my head hurt.🤷

Oh, before I forget, please explain to me how women got a raw deal when men stood guard outside the caves in times long gone. Or worked themselves into an early grave when manual labour was all the rage? And how was it a bad deal when men always said “women and children first”?
Click to expand...
Apparently you believe that all is hunky dorry in the world and church at present?

I believe the exact opposite, The world is rife with evil. Our churches are packed with hypocrites doing the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.

I’m convinced that the sword of Christ is the truth, that it will cut through the hypocrisy of man’s evil world of unending lies and deception like a hot knife through butter. All this world’s woes are centered on man’s inability to definitively determine truth from lies.

Equate Christ to truth determined in a tangible manner that all can see, and the lies comprising our present world will become self evident.

It’s the knowledge of God that will save us from ourselves in my opinion. Not some heavenly apparition floating down out of the sky like superman come to save the day.

It’s the tangible world of science becoming reconciled to the Knowledge of God that exists inside the bodies of every man and woman on this planet on which the kingdom of heaven on earth will be built.

Know ye not that the body is the temple of the Lord?

Though ye have eyes ye cannot see!

Though ye have ears ye cannot hear!

Man’s world of deception, lies and hypocrisy is about to end, cut to pieces by knowledge of God’s sword of truth revealed in a tangible manner that is indisputable in it’s glory to God alone.

Just my humble opinion of course.

jomoco
 
jomoco said:
My own opinion is that man and woman combined equal the holy ghost. You know, man+woman=holy ghost.

A nice firm triangular foundation for a brighter more enlightened future.

jomoco
Click to expand...
Yeah, well, if you don’t believe in the Trinity, how can you call yourself a Christian? Men and women don’t combine to make the Holy Spirit! That’s blasphemy.
 
mcteague said:
It seems to me that the paramount thing in Catholic sexual morality is procreation not love. It does not exclude love, but procreation is more important and more essential. As I think about the two, it occurs to me that procreation can be measured and observed. Love often can not. It is more difficult to access whether people love each other, or if a sexual act is done with love. Love is not the qualifier because if it were anyone who says they’re in love could get married. That could include unions between son and mother, father and mother, brother and sister…etc. Just because homosexuals or their advocates are the ones making ALL the noise doesn’t mean it’s ALL about homosexuals.
Because religion generally deals with things that are not easily measured or observed, it strikes me that the emphasis on procreation is somewhat out of line with the general emphasis of religious belief and thought.
Catholicism objects to homosexuality,<–So do most other Christian denominations. But in muslim countries the religious objection rises to the level of state mandated murder of homosexuals. A person concerned for homosexual rights would obviously NOT start with the Catholic Church or Christianity in general. A person concerned with homosexual rights would start with those religions which systematically murder homosexuals and would actually be telling those people to be more like Christians in their dealings with homosexuals. for example, regardless of any love that might exist in that union. And it embraces unions that can lead to procreation as morally superior regardless of love. True Catholicism thinks love is important. <—Are there any Catholics here who have said love ISN’T important? But when we get to the nitty gritty, Catholic sexuality prefers what can be seen and measured. Procreation.
The strikes me as a poor criterion for sexual morality. Especially in a religion.
Click to expand...
Catholics believe in love and procreation. And despite the fact that your post singles out Catholics, everyone knows the same applies to other Christians. The Christian perspective on homosexuality is also Biblical, not specifically Catholic or denominational.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top