Rotten fruit of sexual revolution predicted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Franciscan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If only more people were aware of the Church’s actual teachings on sex, and the Theology of the Body…

I think one key to the so-called “sexual revolution” has been its advocates and practitioners perpetuating the stereotype that it’s the conservative religious fuddy-duddies who think sex is something dirty that should be kept in the dark, and not enjoyed. Thus they can claim that there is something oppressive that they are trying to “revolt” against.

In actuality the Church’s teaching on sexuality is quite beautiful, whereas sexual license and promiscuity leads to, well, boredom, ennui, or worse. But you have all these people out there going around saying the opposite. And young people who aren’t catechised buy into that very easily. They just assume that whatever the Church says is ignorant and prudish, and thus easily ignored, and assume that the way to fulfillment is to go out and aquire a whole lot of experiences.
 
Bobby_Jim said:
If only more people were aware of the Church’s actual teachings on sex, and the Theology of the Body…

I think one key to the so-called “sexual revolution” has been its advocates and practitioners perpetuating the stereotype that it’s the conservative religious fuddy-duddies who think sex is something dirty that should be kept in the dark, and not enjoyed. Thus they can claim that there is something oppressive that they are trying to “revolt” against.

In actuality the Church’s teaching on sexuality is quite beautiful, whereas sexual license and promiscuity leads to, well, boredom, ennui, or worse. But you have all these people out there going around saying the opposite. And young people who aren’t catechised buy into that very easily. They just assume that whatever the Church says is ignorant and prudish, and thus easily ignored, and assume that the way to fulfillment is to go out and aquire a whole lot of experiences.
Click to expand...
Bobby Jim you hit the nail on the head. So are you a catechist?
 
Franciscan said:
Bobby Jim you hit the nail on the head. So are you a catechist?
Click to expand...
Well, as a parent of a young child, yes. Formally in a church setting, not currently.

Occasionally on my way home from work I catch Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN radio talking about theology of the body. Also I have heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel touching on this subject. There are a lot of good teachers out there to learn from. It’s good education for me to hear it, but if only they would be given a voice in mainstream broadcasting, I think the message is very important, and uplifting.
 
Bobby_Jim said:
Well, as a parent of a young child, yes. Formally in a church setting, not currently.

Occasionally on my way home from work I catch Fr. Mitch Pacwa on EWTN radio talking about theology of the body. Also I have heard Fr. Benedict Groeschel touching on this subject. There are a lot of good teachers out there to learn from. It’s good education for me to hear it, but if only they would be given a voice in mainstream broadcasting, I think the message is very important, and uplifting.
Click to expand...
How can we solve the catechesis problem? Too many well informed catholics are too busy with work etc.Meanwhile the whackos(not all) are teaching CCD and are DRE’s!
 
Just as long as we don’t force those who suffer with ssa and practice celibacy back into hiding and silence. We still need more understanding in this area.
 
While we’re on the subject, we shouldn’t forget the role of the “Great Society” which subsidized women for having children out of wedlock and penalized welfare families for having “a man in the house.”
 
vern_humphrey said:
While we’re on the subject, we shouldn’t forget the role of the “Great Society” which subsidized women for having children out of wedlock and penalized welfare families for having “a man in the house.”
Click to expand...
Now that we have sperm-donors via IVS, children out of wedlock has now evolved into children with no Father from the begginning!
Talk about ‘Whose your Daddy?’!!!
 
vern_humphrey said:
While we’re on the subject, we shouldn’t forget the role of the “Great Society” which subsidized women for having children out of wedlock and penalized welfare families for having “a man in the house.”
Click to expand...
While that is a disastrous consequence the “Great Society” still allowed for those with disabilities to have something to fall back on so let’s not knock off all the socalled liberal ideas. Sometimes they show a little more compassion than conservatives who misunderstand and say just go to work.
 
Franciscan said:
Now that we have sperm-donors via IVS, children out of wedlock has now evolved into children with no Father from the begginning!
Talk about ‘Whose your Daddy?’!!!
Click to expand...
Not all IVS is producing children out of wedlock. Many are happily married couples who have no other way of having children.
 
vern_humphrey said:
While we’re on the subject, we shouldn’t forget the role of the “Great Society” which subsidized women for having children out of wedlock and penalized welfare families for having “a man in the house.”
Click to expand...
Let’s bring this full circle here–weren’t the Great Society generation the parents of the Hippie/sexual rev. generation?

So now my generation is left with the misery of both…:mad: .
 
goofyjim said:
My personal friends would never lable me PC but I do have some discrepancies with the radical conservative movement.
Click to expand...
So would you say the Catholic Church is part of the radical conservative movement?

In regards to sexual ethics.
 
Franciscan said:
So would you say the Catholic Church is part of the radical conservative movement?

In regards to sexual ethics.
Click to expand...
It depends. There have been those on these forums who contedn that on cannot be a Christian and even a chaste homosexual. That, to me is radical conservatism. Fortunately I don’t see the Church going to that extreme. But there are groups out there. For example, the now defunct, I hope, whackos in Bayside, NY.
 
goofyjim said:
While that is a disastrous consequence the “Great Society” still allowed for those with disabilities to have something to fall back on so let’s not knock off all the socalled liberal ideas. Sometimes they show a little more compassion than conservatives who misunderstand and say just go to work.
Click to expand...
A “solution” that creates even greater problems than it solves is no solution at all.

How compassionate is it to creat multi-generational families with no education, no job, no fathers and no work ethic? How compassionate is it to creat a system where young people have no jobs, so they take drugs and alchol rather than stare at the walls all day?
 
vern_humphrey said:
A “solution” that creates even greater problems than it solves is no solution at all.

How compassionate is it to creat multi-generational families with no education, no job, no fathers and no work ethic? How compassionate is it to creat a system where young people have no jobs, so they take drugs and alchol rather than stare at the walls all day?
Click to expand...
But soem are unable to work due to emotional disabilities. While everyhting should be done to eradicate the abuses such as you state that doesn’t mean you abolish all the programs completely and leave nothing for those who truly need them.
 
goofyjim said:
It depends. There have been those on these forums who contedn that on cannot be a Christian and even a chaste homosexual. That, to me is radical conservatism. Fortunately I don’t see the Church going to that extreme. But there are groups out there. For example, the now defunct, I hope, whackos in Bayside, NY.
Click to expand...
You can’t be a murderer without killing someone or a thief without stealing something. Similarly you can’t be a homosexual without committing a sexual sin [1]. However you can be a repented homosexual, or a Christian with a habitual sin, or even a Christian who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. What you can’t do is both openly defy and disagree with the Church’s teaching, and expect to be a member in good standing.

[1] In an objective sense. Mental disorder or social pressure or other factors might reduce an individual’s culpability to zero in God’s sight.
 
goofyjim said:
But soem are unable to work due to emotional disabilities. While everyhting should be done to eradicate the abuses such as you state that doesn’t mean you abolish all the programs completely and leave nothing for those who truly need them.
Click to expand...
Who said abolish everything completely?

My position is the Great Society introduced far more evils into our society than it cured. We should follow Saint Paul’s advice in 1 Timothy, Chapter 5, and be judicious with our charity, lest we do more damage than good.
 
Malcolm_McLean said:
You can’t be a murderer without killing someone or a thief without stealing something. Similarly you can’t be a homosexual without committing a sexual sin [1]. However you can be a repented homosexual, or a Christian with a habitual sin, or even a Christian who disagrees with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. What you can’t do is both openly defy and disagree with the Church’s teaching, and expect to be a member in good standing.

[1] In an objective sense. Mental disorder or social pressure or other factors might reduce an individual’s culpability to zero in God’s sight.
Click to expand...
You can be a homosexual w/o actually having any sexual relations whatever. It can be an equal term for one who is same sex attracted in which there is no sin. So unlike the murderer comparison, yes, you can be a homosexual w/o sexual sin. One needs to understand the actual experience a little better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top