sexual sensitivity

[Jonatello]

First of all, my point is that you are not using the word “nature” correctly. In point of fact, you are equivocating between two different uses of the word “nature” – the one relating to human nature (as Catholics use it), the other relating to the material world (as atheists use it).

so for Catholic doctrine to make sense, it only has to meet the standards of its own definitions of reality?

When asked why something is bad, we point out how it goes against human nature. But when human nature is pointed out to us, we have a trump card: We’ve got our own special Catholic definition of human nature. Which comes first? Our own Catholic chicken or Our own Catholic egg?

Isn’t this extremely circular?

Disregard the idea of nature as a place.

i’m not thinking of nature as a place, so we’re good there.

Think solely of human nature: that which arises from the form or essence of man.

That which can be understood by observing humans across various eras, cultures and lack thereof.

As for harm, there’s no sense talking about it without first deciding what constitutes harm. If you mean physical harm than you have simply begged the question by elevating the material over the spiritual.

no, because the spiritual aspect of harm in this case only arises by the natural law it supposedly violates. but why is it a violation of natural law? “point to nature/purpose/etc”…oops, studies of nature/purpose/etc show otherwise, but “point to spirit”…why does it harm spirit? “point to nature”

at least that’s the dance that seems to be going on here s far as i can tell

This is what is meant by “nature” when talking about “natural law.” Hence this is what “nature” is as far as discussions about natural law are concerned. You do realize a word can have more than one definition, yes?

yes and i’m not simply thinking of nature as a place. when i say “in nature” i mean “in the realm or subject of the nature of things”

We know EXACTLY what candy bars exist for. We know this because WE MAKE THEM.

of course. we made them. no mysteries left to be discovered there.

You aren’t seriously denying that chairs are made for the purpose of sitting, are you?

no, where did you get that idea?

Correct – the other end is spousal unity.

that’s ONE other end…a very very great and important one…there are others too.

But this itself arises from the procreative nature of the sexual faculty. If sex were not procreative there would be no reason for it to be any more unitive than a handshake.

this is where i greatly greatly disagree and see no good reason (other than we’re told we have to believe it) to believe this is true.

Unity, bonding, intimacy, pleasure, joy, sensation, expression, sharing, love

these are the reasons for life in the first place.

life isn’t necessary by its own self. God didn’t have to make any of us. He WANTED to. Why? To share with us in unity, bonding, intimacy, pleasure, joy, sensation, beauty, love, etc.

salvation/procreation/preservation is only important if it is a beautiful experience that brings God and His creatures joy and bonding.

What makes life so special to God? The ability to make life? That’s kind of circular, but what about things such as 2 persons that He created, with His essence coursing through them touching one another, delighting in one another, bonding with one another, feeling all sorts of amazing sensations, responding to one another?

To me its obvious that the the non-utilitarian purposes of creation that serve beauty and bonding are much more close to the “ultimate end” of everything God sets up than the utilitarian purposes which can only have any value if the thing they serve “life” is already a worthwhile thing for greater reasons.

 

[Carolus_Martell]

Its really sad to think a marriage could end over this.

No expert here but I’m inclined to think that a valid medical condition and doctors ‘prescription’ would trump any sinful religious proscriptions…but then again you can be wrong about a lot of things but you want to be absolutely right about eternity. So consult with a priest, and no fair priest shopping.

[edited]

 

[sw85]

so for Catholic doctrine to make sense, it only has to meet the standards of its own definitions of reality?

What are you going on about? They are using the term “nature” to mean a very specific thing. There is no sense saying “No, this word means this” – that is NOT the sense in which they are using the word.

This is NOT about redefining reality or whatever other nonsense you have the temerity to attribute to the Church. It is about being PRECISE with the language you are using. They are NOT using “nature” in the materialist sense (which, FYI, is a later innovation – the scholastic use of the word precedes it).

In semiotics, a word is a symbol pointing toward a given meaning. The meaning is defined by the context within which the word is used. The context is EXPLICITLY SCHOLASTIC. So use it appropriately.

When asked why something is bad, we point out how it goes against human nature. But when human nature is pointed out to us, we have a trump card: We’ve got our own special Catholic definition of human nature.

That definition IS WHAT WE MEAN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HUMAN NATURE.

There is no sense saying “no, I think it means this.” It doesn’t matter what you think the proper would should be. It has no bearing on the argument.

That which can be understood by observing humans across various eras, cultures and lack thereof.

Why in the world are you arguing over whether or not “nature” is the proper word for the object to which we are referring? Use whatever word you like in place of it – it does NOT change the substance of the argument.

no, because the spiritual aspect of harm in this case only arises by the natural law it supposedly violates. but why is it a violation of natural law? “point to nature/purpose/etc”…oops, studies of nature/purpose/etc show otherwise, but “point to spirit”…why does it harm spirit? “point to nature”

You are AGAIN conflating “nature” in the scholastic sense with “nature” in the materialist sense.

This is getting to be WILLFUL ignorance on your part. If you can’t be bothered to do even elementary homework about the Church teachings you presume to rebel against, you have no business posting about them.

yes and i’m not simply thinking of nature as a place. when i say “in nature” i mean “in the realm or subject of the nature of things”

Yet you talk about the “nature of things” as though it were identical to “occurring in nature,” so that masturbation MUST be morally good because it occurs in nature and is therefore consistent with our natures.

By this logic, EVERYTHING is moral since EVERY sin which occurs, occurs in nature using explicitly natural faculties.

This is NOT correct, it is an inaccurate representation of scholastic/Church teachings, and it is based on terminological confusion which you cannot seem to overcome.

There is no sense even continuing this conversation until you rectify your basic ignorance of Church teachings.

that’s ONE other end…a very very great and important one…there are others too.

No. There aren’t.

this is where i greatly greatly disagree and see no good reason (other than we’re told we have to believe it) to believe this is true.

Unity, bonding, intimacy, pleasure, joy, sensation, expression, sharing, love

All of those derive from the procreative telos of the sexual faculty! Some of them are actually just synonyms for “unitive”!

None of them would exist if sex WERE NOT PROCREATIVE.

For the record, even if there were no other reason to believe it than that you are told you have to believe it, that would be sufficient basis to believe it – given that we have been commanded both by God Himself and by the Apostles to obey authorities! The point, at any rate, is that the issue is a good deal more complicated than you are making it out to be with your terminological confusion and goopy sentimentalism.

life isn’t necessary by its own self. God didn’t have to make any of us. He WANTED to. Why? To share with us in unity, bonding, intimacy, pleasure, joy, sensation, beauty, love, etc.

Nope.

God’s love is agape: the will for our own good.

What is our good? Life in accordance with our natures as designed by God, and in direct obedience to His commands – including the one in which He obeys us to respect authority, including the ecclesiastical authority you’re presently rebelling against.

Which is why, for instance, so many of the Deuterocanonical commandments relate explicitly to sex – and many of them are punishable by death!

WHAT about this is so hard to comprehend?

salvation/procreation/preservation is only important if it is a beautiful experience that brings God and His creatures joy and bonding.

What makes life so special to God? The ability to make life? That’s kind of circular, but what about things such as 2 persons that He created, with His essence coursing through them touching one another, delighting in one another, bonding with one another, feeling all sorts of amazing sensations, responding to one another?

To me its obvious that the the non-utilitarian purposes of creation that serve beauty and bonding are much more close to the “ultimate end” of everything God sets up than the utilitarian purposes which can only have any value if the thing they serve “life” is already a worthwhile thing for greater reasons.

We are done talking. You don’t know the first thing about what the Church teaches or why and you’re clearly not open to reason if *this *is the closest you can come to a justification. It reads like you tore a page out of Eat Pray Love or something.

Do your homework, repent of your errors, and don’t desecrate the body of Christ by taking communion until you do.

 

[Jonatello]

nature sementics stuff

you’re losing your marbles a bit over a semantic maze that we’re trying to meet each other in lol. i’m absolutely not being willfully ignorant, but your understanding of what i meant by nature may have been off.

the reason why i assumed there was an alternate concept of human nature set aside for Catholics is because (maybe it wasn’t you) but when i cited observations of natural human tendencies (free from nurture influence), i was told “that’s different from the Catholic concept of human nature”

Yet you talk about the “nature of things” as though it were identical to “occurring in nature,”

you’re still confusing my “in nature” with a place (ie: “in jungle”)…i continue to mean an area of study (“in nature” vs “in culture” or “in nurture” or “in art” or “in science” or “in religion” etc)

Yet you talk about the “nature of things” as though it were identical to “occurring in nature,” so that masturbation MUST be morally good because it occurs in nature and is therefore consistent with our natures.

these are conclusions i don’t draw. Cannibalistic murder among starving people is natural, but it doesn’t make it moral. While the desperation is understandable, and the culpability may arguably be decreased somewhat, it is immoral because it takes somebody else’s life from them. We can easily point out a victim.

Stealing and lying is the same thing. While there may be exceptions to this rule, generally we can point out a victim who was unjustly harmed by that theft or lie.

But if the spirit is cited as the victim, and the REASON points to its violation of the nature of something, then the debate is over that thing’s nature. Thus we observe what naturally takes place, what its purposes and uses are, and if any alternate purposes actually violates the nature of the thing (cutting down a tree for wood which harms its nature of providing oxygen) or is non-violating to that thing’s nature (building a fort or home in the tree, which can still produce oxygen).

No. There aren’t.

yes there are other ends to activities that we would call sexual. ones that researchers and scientists continue to discover.

All of those derive from the procreative telos of the sexual faculty! Some of them are actually just synonyms for “unitive”!

None of them would exist if sex WERE NOT PROCREATIVE.

Thats your presumption. Your saying procreation is more important than unity. I’m saying unity is the purpose for procreation. God didn’t make us to make us. He made us for a reason. So He could love us, we could love Him and we could love each other. And so we could share in delight and beauty.

God’s love is agape: the will for our own good.

What is our good? Life in accordance with our natures as designed by God, and in direct obedience to His commands – including the one in which He obeys us to respect authority, including the ecclesiastical authority you’re presently rebelling against.

a lot of that stuff is not fundamental definition of our good. its things that promote our good. He didn’t just arbitrarily give us commands so that we would have some kind of commands to obey, He gave them because doing these things would promote our good.

so what is our good? and why is it good?

please dig deeper.

 

[Nate13]

you’re losing your marbles a bit over a semantic maze that we’re trying to meet each other in lol. i’m absolutely not being willfully ignorant, but your understanding of what i meant by nature may have been off.

the reason why i assumed there was an alternate concept of human nature set aside for Catholics is because (maybe it wasn’t you) but when i cited observations of natural human tendencies (free from nurture influence), i was told “that’s different from the Catholic concept of human nature”

Let me help you out here. Most of your examples could be called instincts. This is primarily a mental function and it would be incredibly hard for you to prove that these instincts did not evolve over time and were influenced by culture. If you were an animal then I would have to agree that whatever our instincts pointed us towards must display God’s purpose. However since we were created with an ability to reason that works in tandem with our instincts this is not the case, especially since reason is completely capable of superseding our instincts.

Actually your own example of your experience growing up is a perfect example of what the instinct that we are talking about really is about. The instinct is not about deriving personal pleasure for ourselves. The instinct is linked to women and intercourse (in principle). The purpose of the instinct is to push us towards finding a mate. In place of mate the instinct finds other ways to derive the pleasure. The instinct itself is inherently good however, but without applying reason to the instinct it causes us to go against our nature. You can’t argue about human nature without bringing our ability to reason into the equation especially when your talking about an instinct. Our ability to reason shows that we were never inherently created to blindly follow our instincts, but rather should use our ability to reason to derive the purposes of our instincts and their true purposes.

 

[Jonatello]

Let me help you out here. Most of your examples could be called instincts. This is primarily a mental function and it would be incredibly hard for you to prove that these instincts did not evolve over time and were influenced by culture.

Since the idea of sexual desire and masturbation (something that is seen among humans but also among several other mammals) being a result of culture-passed-down-genetically contains more far-reaching presumptions than my explanation, the burden of proof would be on you

We already know otherwise anyway.

If you were an animal then I would have to agree that whatever our instincts pointed us towards must display God’s purpose. However since we were created with an ability to reason that works in tandem with our instincts this is not the case, especially since reason is completely capable of superseding our instincts.

True, but reason is only relevant here if there is an actual reason to disobey the instincts that He also gave us. So far the only reason being offered is that it is against the nature of human sexuality, which I find to be untrue.

The instinct is not about deriving personal pleasure for ourselves. The instinct is linked to women and intercourse (in principle).

This is a very good point. I’m not sure how fool-proof universal my case would be, but good overall point and I tend to mostly agree. I do believe that opposite-sex relations is a higher purpose for sexuality than the other reasons.

The purpose of the instinct is to push us towards finding a mate. In place of mate the instinct finds other ways to derive the pleasure.

overall, true…although i might nitpick about some caveats, but yeah

The instinct itself is inherently good however, but without applying reason to the instinct it causes us to go against our nature.

here is where we begin to disagree. if it doesn’t harm our ability to procreate (and in the case of masturbation or wet dreams, it actually serves as a benefit to that ability), then how does it “go against” our nature?

If a bird uses a tree’s branches for a home, yet does nothing to harm the tree’s ability to make fruit and provide oxygen, how is finding a new additional use for the branches violating the tree’s nature?

You can’t argue about human nature without bringing our ability to reason into the equation especially when your talking about an instinct. Our ability to reason shows that we were never inherently created to blindly follow our instincts, but rather should use our ability to reason to derive the purposes of our instincts and their true purposes.

I agree with this. Absolutely.

 

[Nate13]

Jonatello:
I’m just going to refer you to the other thread we are debating on. Lets get of this thread because we are off track again. I believe the OP here could care less about the philosophical debate of this as it pertains to his question. I answered much of your post anyways in my last post on the other thread.