The immaculate misconception

[AngryAtheist8]

If he loses himself to the extent that his child suffocates through neglect it is hardly ridiculous…

Constant vigilance heh…wouldn’t be easier and more moral just have no sexual desire then?

Isn’t that the ideal of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hmmm…evidently you are unable or unwilling to understand. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire or sexual pleasure - it was created by God. It is when sex is reduced to simply a physical act with no attempt to show love and increase bonding with one’s spouse that it becomes lust - lust occurs when a person is treated as a mere object.

No. But as I have not tried to measure and regulate desire I don’t think your question is relevant.

Oh I understand perfectly well, its just that the theology makes no sense, and since I am not a Catholic, I do not feel obligated to believe anyway.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Hmmm…evidently you are unable or unwilling to understand. There is nothing wrong with sexual desire or sexual pleasure - it was created by God. It is when sex is reduced to simply a physical act with no attempt to show love and increase bonding with one’s spouse that it becomes lust - lust occurs when a person is treated as a mere object.

No. But as I have not tried to measure and regulate desire I don’t think your question is relevant.

Oh I understand perfectly well, its just that the theology makes no sense, and since I am not a Catholic, I do not feel obligated to believe anyway.

P.S. Sorry I double posted for some reason.

 

[bluelake]

I participated in several threads dealing with the catholic concept of “proper sexuality”. The posters uniformly said that any sex 1) outside marriage and 2) inside marriage, but not “open” to procreation is “gravely disordered, sinful, etc…”. I understand that this is the official catholic position, and I do not wish to argue against it - if that position is based only on religious grounds. You believe what you believe. It is no skin off my nose. Just keep your opinion to yourself. An example would be: the religious person believes that those practices endanger the practitioner’s “immortal soul”. Even in that case they are not welcome to give that opinion unless specifically asked for it.

The problematic part is when the posters wish to argue on secular, rational grounds. They say that masturbation, sex outside marriage or sex inside marriage but not open to procreation (active contraception or extra-vaginal ejaculation) are harmful either to the person(s) involved or to some third parties. Of course what is “harmful” is debatable. Simply not liking what other people do is not “harm”. Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business.

If they can show that such practices harmfully affect some third parties, in that case they can legitimately express their concern, even when not asked for it. But I have never seen a valid argument along those lines. Some posters say that the general acceptance of masturbation, of homosexual sex, of contraception, of extravaginal ejaculation are “harmful” to society. How are they harmful? Is there any physical harm? In the old times the deeply religious do-gooders loved to lie to the adolescents and asserted that masturbation

1. will lead to blindness, or
2. causes to grow hair on the palms of your hands
3. leads to mental illness
4. permanently reduces libido, desire, and/or sexual performance
5. permanently reduces the quantity or quality of semen
   which are, of course shameless lies.

What “harm” can possibly come out of having two people express their love and commitment to each other in a proscribed manner by the church in the privacy of their home? Some people say that the acceptance of these practices will lead to the destruction of marriage, and it will lead to the destruction of society. They say that openly accepted gay sex will lead to adolescents to accept that lifestyle (we all know that being around tall people will also cause you to become tall ). Or that openly accepted promisculity will lead to less stable marriages… etc… what nonsense.

When I see these “concerns” I am wondering just what society did these posters come from? Is it possible that they were born in some ideal world, where children never touched their own genitals to learn that it is a rather pleasant experience, where adolescents never masturbated, where everyone waited until their wedding night for their first experience, where there was no divorce, no adultery? When every act of sex was performed with being “open” to procreation? Which planet is that?

Surely it cannot be Earth, where people practised some type of contraception since times immemorial, where the “oldest profession” was sex for money, where the prototypes of those beautiful Greek statues practiced the highest form of brotherly love - called gay sex these days. Where adultery was rampant in every age, though not always admitted, where males kept mistresses, and women had fun with the gardeners and with each other (island of Lesbos, anyone?).

And despite (or maybe because of) these activities society did not crumble into nothingness. Indeed it is more “open” these days, but also from time immemorial the conservatives were complaining and moaning about the deteriorating “morals” - in each and every generation; remember Cicero’s “O tempora, o mores?”. The members of the older generation are not able to practise sex any more, so they spend their energy complaining about what the younger ones can do. Sheer jealousy. And sheer misconception (maybe not so immaculate) about their own era - when people did the same things, but also practised the worst kind of “sin” of all, the hypocrisy of silence.

Face reality: sex is harmless when practised without coersion, when practised out of love, when practised with the desire to give and to receive. As such their practice does not concern you. Can you prove me wrong? Can you show that the natural practice of sex is somehow harmful to you? After all you are a memebr of the society, if it is harmful to you - personally, then maybe it is harmful to society as well. But if it is not harmful to you, you have no right or reason to complain and disparage they practice. It is simply none of your business.

Thank you for your opinion.
WWJD?

bluelake

 

[tonyrey]

Constant vigilance heh…wouldn’t be easier and more moral just have no sexual desire then?

You’re going from one extreme to the other. The issue was inordinate…

Isn’t that the ideal of Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary?

The ideal wasn’t **no **sexual desire but self-restraint - and sublimation where necessary.

 

[Debora123]

TO THE OP:

Well the harmful effects of sex outside marriage I think are very clear - STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

So I really don’t understand why you are saying that there are no harmful physical consequences to premarital sex.

There are emotional consequences of sex outside marriage as well, but that’s a little less obvious and a little more difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint specifically.

As for the harmful physical consequences of masturbation, well, masturbation (especially for a man) can lead to premature ejaculation. I had read this in Catholic books before, but I wasn’t entirely convinced it was true until I learned about it in a university health class, instructed by a very liberal professor.

Now contraception… the harmful physical effects of hormonal contraception are quite obvious as well. I went to nursing school and you wouldn’t believe how many times I saw “hormonal birth control” listed as a risk factor for numerous disease processes (and once again, I did not go to a catholic university). Not to mention it can kill a newly conceived life if the sperm actually does manage to fertilize the egg. As for condoms and other barrier contraceptives - well, I must admit I don’t see eye to eye with the Church on this, and neither can I find any harmful consequences related to them.

I Hope that helps!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Thank you for your opinion.
WWJD?

bluelake

Apparently nothing (sexual).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re going from one extreme to the other. The issue was inordinate…

The ideal wasn’t **no **sexual desire but self-restraint - and sublimation where necessary.

The Bible doesn’t really mention Jesus or the Virgin Mary having sexual feelings at all (restrained or otherwise). Therefore their useless as an example of ideal sexuality.

Unless you assume that no sex or sexual desire IS the ideal.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re going from one extreme to the other. The issue was inordinate…

The ideal wasn’t **no **sexual desire but self-restraint - and sublimation where necessary.

So what?

Catholicism demands (or at least encourages) total dedication to God and the rules and principals he supposedly commands and endorses. Your religion is all about extremes.

Lay and religious Catholics taking a moderate and pragmatic approach to sexuality is usually regarded as a sign of corruption by True Believers.

Self-restraint seems like too little by that standard.

 

[StarFireKK]

You’re forgetting something important Spock.
Catholicism (and Christianity in general) judges people not just on their sexual feelings but also their thoughts and emotions.

Technically correct but your phrasing indicates that you are missing the point. The point is we should STRIVE for pure thoughts and emotions with the understanding in our fallen nature we will fail now and then. There is degree of sin, it isn’t as though if you think “Wow, he’s cute” you are going to burn in hell. But the devout do strive to keep their minds on holy things.

The Catholic Church disapproves of any sex act unless its within the context of marriage, open to life (e.g. no contraception), and the people involved have the right motivation (e.g. no lust).

Yes.

This means that if a man or woman becomes lustful when having sex with their spouse, the Church considers the activitiy sinful. The Church only approves of a very very narrowly defined kind of sex.

Here’s a Catholic definition of Lust (source: newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm) for a bit of context:
The inordinate craving for, or indulgence of, the carnal pleasure which is experienced in the human organs of generation.

Apparently you’re not supposed to crave or indulge when it comes to sex. If that’s true it appears that** good** Catholic sex is a non-pleasurable, joyless activity. The* problem *is that for the marital act to occur at all, base (e.g. instinctive) male arousal is (at the very least) required

Not even close to true. Lust is having sex for sake of having sex. It is all about having pleasure at any cost. When your ONLY motivation to have sex is to experience pleasure you are degrading the whole experience and marriage to boot.

Good Catholic sex is just that good. Very, very good.

I’m not expecting you to understand this. It is a completely different worldview. We have different values. Most Catholics can’t explain why the Church has the teachings she does on sex- they either follow because they are faithful or they ignore them. A few take the time to really dive in and learn the “why” of the rules. This is Advance Catholicism, you are still working on the basics. It is like asking us to explain Quantum Physics while you are still learning how to light up a bulb with a potato. You just don’t have the necessary framework in place.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Technically correct but your phrasing indicates that you are missing the point. The point is we should STRIVE for pure thoughts and emotions with the understanding in our fallen nature we will fail now and then. There is degree of sin, it isn’t as though if you think “Wow, he’s cute” you are going to burn in hell. But the devout do strive to keep their minds on holy things.

Yes.

Not even close to true. Lust is having sex for sake of having sex. It is all about having pleasure at any cost. When your ONLY motivation to have sex is to experience pleasure you are degrading the whole experience and marriage to boot.

Good Catholic sex is just that good. Very, very good.

I’m not expecting you to understand this. It is a completely different worldview. We have different values. Most Catholics can’t explain why the Church has the teachings she does on sex- they either follow because they are faithful or they ignore them. A few take the time to really dive in and learn the “why” of the rules. This is Advance Catholicism, you are still working on the basics. It is like asking us to explain Quantum Physics while you are still learning how to light up a bulb with a potato. You just don’t have the necessary framework in place.

What’s wrong with a husband and wife having sex just because they both feel like it?

A requirement that people not engage in or even think about sex without some other accompanying motivation implies (if not outright states) that the sexual urge isn’t a positive good on its own. That the sex drive needs to be justified whenever its used.

This is not a positive view of sex and the sex drive.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Technically correct but your phrasing indicates that you are missing the point. The point is we should STRIVE for pure thoughts and emotions with the understanding in our fallen nature we will fail now and then. There is degree of sin, it isn’t as though if you think “Wow, he’s cute” you are going to burn in hell. But the devout do strive to keep their minds on holy things.

Yes.

Not even close to true. Lust is having sex for sake of having sex. It is all about having pleasure at any cost. When your ONLY motivation to have sex is to experience pleasure you are degrading the whole experience and marriage to boot.

Good Catholic sex is just that good. Very, very good.

I’m not expecting you to understand this. It is a completely different worldview. We have different values. Most Catholics can’t explain why the Church has the teachings she does on sex- they either follow because they are faithful or they ignore them. A few take the time to really dive in and learn the “why” of the rules. This is Advance Catholicism, you are still working on the basics. It is like asking us to explain Quantum Physics while you are still learning how to light up a bulb with a potato. You just don’t have the necessary framework in place.

Saying that ‘I can’t explain it to you its too complicated’ is not a legitimate tactic in an intellectual debate

 

[StarFireKK]

Saying that ‘I can’t explain it to you its too complicated’ is not a legitimate tactic in an intellectual debate

I’m not saying it is too complicated. I am saying you don’t have the necessary education or background to participate in this debate.

 

[StarFireKK]

What’s wrong with a husband and wife having sex just because they both feel like it?

A requirement that people not engage in or even think about sex without some other accompanying motivation implies (if not outright states) that the sexual urge isn’t a positive good on its own. That the sex drive needs to be justified whenever its used.

This is not a positive view of sex and the sex drive.

THEY CAN!

Having sex because they feel like it isn’t the same as having sex ONLY for the purpose of pleasure.

A married couple has sex as an expression of their love and a celebration of their marriage vows. Part of that love and celebration is being opened to children. In a good marriage those feelings and ideas are always there. Practically speaking, one or both is “in the mood,” flirts and lets nature takes its course. It is fun, playful and loving.

Lustful sex is like (I hate this term but it is accurate) mutual masturbation. It is all about making sure you get what you are looking for. It is all about your pleasure, your stress relief, your ego. You might care enough to make sure it is an enjoyable experience for your partner, but not because you really care if it is but because you want to avoid any complaints/drama/etc from them if it is not. Or…you want to make sure the next time you are “in the mood” they’ll have sex with you.

Nothing is wrong with having a sex drive, nothing is wrong with finding your spouse attractive, nothing is wrong with not intending to conceive when you have sex (provided you aren’t using contraceptives,) and nothing is wrong with enjoying it.

 

[StarFireKK]

Sheer nonsense. Many people consciously choose not to have children and they have excellent relationships.

I said the LARGEST motivating factor not the only. Yes, some people choose not to have children and I’m sure they have excellent relationships by a lot of standards. They may or may not have an “excellent relationship” from a Catholic standard.

 

[Alindawyl]

And that is the problem. Not all decisions are “morally charged”. And which ones are morally charged is up for debate.

I quite clearly said in my last post that not all decisions are morally charged. Only decisions which involve the intellect and will have a moral component.

Since pills don’t jump down people’s throats, condoms don’t apply themselves, IUDs don’t insert themselves, injections don’t inject themselves, and surgical tools don’t perform vasectomies or tubal ligations on their own, I think it’s safe to say that contraception involves an act of the will. That makes it a moral decision.

Fine. You need to give some real reasoning why “contraceptive” sex is “evil”. That is the point.

It’s been given. Not my fault you don’t like it.

And with this example you are off your rockers. There is nothing “evil” in helping others, even if it might not be praiseworthy, if done for some “selfish” reasons. This is a perfect example of something being partially good (helping others) and partially bad (for selfish reasons). But to say that it will become “evil” is truly nonsensical.

If you think that I’m spouting nonsense, best to ignore me. Arguing with a crazy person is a waste of time because they’re, you know, crazy…

Repeated now ad-nauseam. Tell me how? Explicitly… Not that it MAY or MIGHT hurt society… but how DOES it hurt… in each and every case. Show me the direct, logical line of reasoning how an act of contraception “hurts” society. Exactly and precisely. It does not have to be immediate. But you must show a logical line of causative relationship (not some ill conceived correlation!) that the idea of “contraception” leads to some dire consequences.

Again, it’s been given. If you want an explanation not in the words of any of the posters here, which contains a great deal of citations and the like, you could read Humanae Vitae:

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Although you probably won’t because it isn’t short.

Paragraph 17 is titled “Consequences of Artificial Methods” and talks about three negative consequences to society at large for widespread acceptance of contraceptive sex:

1. Marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. The history of the past 40 years is on the Church’s side for this one. Infidelity is rampant today. No fault divorce has paved the way for one in every two marriages ending in divorce. Over 25% of all children under 21 are being raised by single parents, and the numbers are growing because almost all of the older kids are from women who got divorced and never remarried. Today, a third of all NEWBORNS have unmarried mothers. ONE THIRD! That doesn’t take into account the children will will end up raised by a single parent because of divorce, just the ones who started that way. And it’s not simply single mothers, as it typically was in the past. 2/5 of that one third are born to cohabitating couples who aren’t married, and may never marry or stay together because there is no marriage vow to signify any level of commitment. Even 20 years ago this was hard to imagine for most people, although the writing was on the wall when TV shows like Murphy Brown were trying to brush off concerns about such things as irrelevant. Irrelevant to the parents, maybe, if they lie to themselves about it. But definitely not irrelevant to the children raised in that environment after mommy and daddy ignored the procreative purpose of sex and only looked at the physical pleasure involved.
2. Objectification of women. The history of the past 40 years is on the Church’s side for this one as well, and it’s not just men objectifying women. Women objectify men today as well, in large numbers. This was also hard to imagine for most people 40 years ago.
3. Government imposing contraception. Teaching sex education with the attitude “Kids are uncontrollable beasts, so let’s make sure they use condoms” is one obvious example of this. Distribution of free condoms to students at taxpayer expense, whether or not parents/guardians agree to it, certainly sounds like government imposition of contraception to me.

What we have today wasn’t even on the radar for most people in 1968 when Humanae Vitae was written. But since Humanae Vitae is a Church source, clearly it must be suspect. Never mind that Pope Paul VI nailed it when he predicted what would happen if we went down this road. It must be dismissed out of hand because it doesn’t jibe with what the popular culture wants to believe.

So what’s the alternative explanation which will be used to dismiss this? I’d love to hear it. And since Pope Paul VI called it in advance, it would be nice if the alternative explanation also called it in advance in order to avoid looking like justification after the fact.

 

[Spock]

I believe the poster has given you the answer you are still requesting - in the post to which you have responded. It divides the unitive and procreative purposes of sex. I will take it a bit further and say that it is not what God intended. I know this is true because God’s Church has made it official teaching and that is infallible. Every act of contraception is evil and it is also Church teaching that every evil is pervasive and effects every person in the world in a negative way.

Sorry, I am not interested in faith based arguments. What actual, specific secular or temporal harm does contraception bring along? That is the question. This is a philosophy forum, not apologetics. I am aware that the church’s teaching “settles” it for you. You might not be aware that the church’s teaching does not mean anything to a non-catholic (even to a non-catholic christian).

As for women for whom the next pregnancy is almost death, that is extremely rare and the unborn child is just as precious as her mother.

Maybe rare. But the church does not make exceptions. Besides there is no “other child” to consider - except the ones who will lose their mother in case of a next pregnancy. We are talking about avoiding conception not abortion. Maybe you are not as awake as you say… not one word has been uttered about abortion.

 

[tonyrey]

So what?

Catholicism demands (or at least encourages) total dedication to God and the rules and principals he supposedly commands and endorses. Your religion is all about extremes.

Lay and religious Catholics taking a moderate and pragmatic approach to sexuality is usually regarded as a sign of corruption by True Believers.

Self-restraint seems like too little by that standard.

Your allegations need justification…

With equal facility I could state that your lack of religion demands total dedication to **your own point of view **and the rules and principles you command and endorse. Your lack of religion is all about extremes. No need for self-restraint at all!

 

[Spock]

I believe that there is objective morality and that it is not simply what a society decides.

Well, I also believe that there is objective (but not absolute) morality. I even described what it is.

The optimum game strategy would be to follow the logic of the prisoners dilemma. I should let everyone else act morally and should lie and deceive others to get them to believe I act morally. In reality I should act immorally. That would optimize my happiness.

Except the prisoner’s dilemma is not “all”. Life is not a prisoner’s dilemma. The optimum strategy is a good balance of cooperation and competition. And you might achieve some temporary “peak” of happiness, but other people are not idiots and they will turn against you.

Consent is not biological at all. How would I observe and measure consent? What part of the human can I put under a microscope to evaluate consent? How do you know a dog, for instance, does or does not consent? Consent is definitely a philsophical concept.

Sure. But without a well-developed brain (and mind) one cannot consent at all.

 

[Spock]

Well the harmful effects of sex outside marriage I think are very clear - STDs and unplanned pregnancies.

Again… you are talking about possibilities. Just like getting into a car brings along the risks of accidents. You cannot judge a process on the ground that it may fail.

As for the harmful physical consequences of masturbation, well, masturbation (especially for a man) can lead to premature ejaculation. I had read this in Catholic books before, but I wasn’t entirely convinced it was true until I learned about it in a university health class, instructed by a very liberal professor.

Anything and everything is harmful if taken to the extreme. And what about female masturbation?

Now contraception… the harmful physical effects of hormonal contraception are quite obvious as well. I went to nursing school and you wouldn’t believe how many times I saw “hormonal birth control” listed as a risk factor for numerous disease processes (and once again, I did not go to a catholic university). Not to mention it can kill a newly conceived life if the sperm actually does manage to fertilize the egg.

Sure, there might be negative consequences - as with everything in life. If the woman knows and accepts the risks, it is her decision. Just like smoking, the smoker should make the decision that the certain and immediate pleasure of smoking is worth the risk of a possible health hazard.

As for condoms and other barrier contraceptives - well, I must admit I don’t see eye to eye with the Church on this, and neither can I find any harmful consequences related to them.

Well, at least we have a partial agreement. That is good to see.