The immaculate misconception

[Warrenton]

You’re getting meaner Warrenton (or at least more openly mean).

I approve:thumbsup:

Then I owe you an apology!

I meant simply to acknowledge that not everyone draws inspiration from literature, and even fewer people probably draw inspiration from Somerset Maugham. It’s more an EM Forrester era, don’t you think?

I would be the last person to hold that against anyone!

But I am glad that you approve - anyone who who references “Victorianism” is someone whose approval I will shamelessly court! If I get to saccharine, just let me know!

Cheers!

 

[Monica4316]

It doesn’t matter if sexual sin is “natural”, our human nature is affected by original sin. We weren’t MEANT to do these sins. Christianity is about following God, not our human nature which is weakened anyway. and even if some sins don’t harm the body, they still harm the soul. Sex is meant to be unitive and procreative, open to life, between only two people (not with more than one partner, because the man and the woman become “one flesh”).

 

[StarFireKK]

To a certain extent its not that important what the real position of the Catholic Church is with regard to sex, because the Church has never really understand the basic truth that PR matters.

Even if we accept that the Church has always promoted sex (of a very very narrowly defined kind), by treating sex as something to hidden, something that can’t be openly discussed, and something that polite people pretend doesn’t exist, the Catholic Church has created the impression that it considers sex shameful. Even some Catholics believe this, which has created difficulties for the devout.

Have you gone through Catholic marriage prep? I have. Sex and its role in a marriage is talked about a lot. Not just by the priest but by the couples you meet. Also there is that required class on NFP- that’s all about sex.

Do you know that most newlywed Catholic couples hear a number of jokes from older parish members about “When are they going to get busy and start having some babies?” I’ve never met a young Catholic couple who attended Mass and doesn’t have one of those stories.

Do you see how often sex comes up on the Catholic Living board here on CAF? All the time. Especially, on the parenting board where mothers and would be mothers are exchanging tips about NFP and breastfeeding. How about the forums asking for advice on what is and is not allowed during sex or advice on what to do if your husband/wife doesn’t seem to want relations.

But then, I guess all those examples are worthless because you have decided it no longer matters what Catholics believe but what some knucklehead, who never bothers to double check his facts, thinks Catholics believe.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Because it is an unsupported personal opinion.

Not it isn’t.

The Catholic Church covered up abuse that came out during the sex abuse scandals in places like the U.S., Germany, and Ireland (an example of lying to protect the reputation of the Church). And of course the Church is biased when it comes to its own history, all humans are (although some make a decent attempt at being objective when it comes to their own actions).

 

[Warrenton]

The traditional attitude of the Catholic Church (and devout Catholics for that matter) argues against your interpretation.

You’re correct. The theology of the body thing is somewhat controversial. As you know, Blessed Pope JP II is hugely popular among Catholics, and this has tended to dampen the vigor of the dissent. However, as time goes on, we may see your observation vindicated.

The Church has usually argued against any depiction, promotion, or even discussion of sex, nudity, and sexuality in the public sphere. Treating the whole subject as something that needs to be hidden, not openly discussed, and certainly not celebrated

This needs some qualification. It is not correct regarding public nudity, and Catholics hardly do anything more than they discuss sex. (Q.E.D.) Visit Italy, fahcryinoutloud. The Church as an institution probably published more on sex by the time of the Norman Conquest than the Kinsey Institute will in the next 1000 years.

But, you are correct that the Church does not approve, and has never approved, of pornography.

Titian’s “Adam and Eve?” Totally Catholic. Hang it in the chapel. “I am Curious Yellow?” Not Catholic. Save it for Saab drivers and the kind of people who say they’re “working” at having kids.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Have you gone through Catholic marriage prep? I have. Sex and its role in a marriage is talked about a lot. Not just by the priest but by the couples you meet. Also there is that required class on NFP- that’s all about sex.

Do you know that most newlywed Catholic couples hear a number of jokes from older parish members about “When are they going to get busy and start having some babies?” I’ve never met a young Catholic couple who attended Mass and doesn’t have one of those stories.

Do you see how often sex comes up on the Catholic Living board here on CAF? All the time. Especially, on the parenting board where mothers and would be mothers are exchanging tips about NFP and breastfeeding. How about the forums asking for advice on what is and is not allowed during sex or advice on what to do if your husband/wife doesn’t seem to want relations.

.

Yes I have.

I have also come across many self-professed Catholics here on this forum who seem to think sex is something inherently dirty and shameful.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

You’re correct. The theology of the body thing is somewhat controversial. As you know, Blessed Pope JP II is hugely popular among Catholics, and this has tended to dampen the vigor of the dissent. However, as time goes on, we may see your observation vindicated.

This needs some qualification. It is not correct regarding public nudity, and Catholics hardly do anything more than they discuss sex. (Q.E.D.) Visit Italy, fahcryinoutloud. The Church as an institution probably published more on sex by the time of the Norman Conquest than the Kinsey Institute will in the next 1000 years.

I will agree that Catholics spend a lot of time talking about sex (that is certainly true on this forum). But from this outsider’s perspective it seems like much (or even most) of that time is used to discuss the apparently endless stream of DON’Ts from the Church.

What was your point regarding nudity?

 

[StarFireKK]

Yes I have.

I have also come across many self-professed Catholics here on this forum who seem to think sex is something inherently dirty and shameful.

But they have opened up to someone enough to let you know they think sex is dirty and shameful.

That’s progress.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

But they have opened up to someone enough to let you know they think sex is dirty and shameful.

That’s progress.

I…guess

 

[Spock]

Ah, two very interesting remarks.

We are all one body. Something affecting one does affect us all. Not heading the laws of the Father, given to us by the Son, affects the world. Also, anything affecting one’s eternal soul, is most harmful.

Maybe that is what you personally believe. But is this belief based upon what the church teaches? Any official church documents to support it?

Based on what you have written, this is the opposite end from which you begin your analysis. You start with a hypothetical “If I am in a dark room, totally alone, and I begin to think about Anita Ekberg, who is harmed?” I reply: you are retarding your development as a chaste person, capable of maintaining the required self control. You see no potential victims.

Well said. That is exactly what my view is. Of course I am not a “chaste” person if “chaste” is (the catholic church defined) proper sexual behavior. Of course I have proper self-control, I do not jump from bed to bed, I would respect my wife’s “headache”, if she had one, etc… Of course I see no actual victims, because there are none. Are there “potential” victims? I have not seen yet a syllogism which would show that each and every non-procreative act leads logically and inevitebly to some “victim”. Not even a logical argument which would show that non-procreative acts of love lead to some stochastically possible victims. Of course I am now aware - due to your excellent post - that many catholics confuse the temporal and secular reasoning with the religious one. (Thank the Lord - if there is one - that millions of catholics - the so-called cafeteria catholics - thumb their nose at Rome!)

I would like to ask you the same question that I asked from Cephas, is the proclaimed catholic view - namely: every act of everyone affects everyone else? - really what the church teaches? Officially or semi-officially? Or is that just your opinion? Is there some church document which substantiates this?

I see a soldier who fails to muster for parade, because he does not foresee the battle.

I really hate these “military” phrases. I suspect you view the whole life as a huge “battle” between God and Satan (which God could win if he so chose, but for his own inscrutable reasons, does not “want” to win, just yet), but that is not my view.

That is probably the clearest I can make the Catholic “secular” argument. Catholics, like communists, have long realized that the rich and powerful find the ideal unattractive.

Your honesty is refreshing. You see very clearly the similarity beteween the (now defunct) communist worldview and the catholic one. (I know, I have lived there a large portion of my life.) The communists were just as prudish as the catholics when it came to sex, they openly persecuted homosexuality and pornography. I am amazed and delighted to see how well informed you are.

However, you did not mention those folks who like to think for themselves, who only accept an authority, if that authority can substantiate what it claims, and who do not accept either a power-based or self-proclaimed authority. The so-called free-thinkers, in other words.

 

[RobbyS]

Not it isn’t.

The Catholic Church covered up abuse that came out during the sex abuse scandals in places like the U.S., Germany, and Ireland (an example of lying to protect the reputation of the Church). And of course the Church is biased when it comes to its own history, all humans are (although some make a decent attempt at being objective when it comes to their own actions).

All history is "biased"in the sense that historians must choose sides. Baronius’ Ecclesiastical History was wrong in detail, but was not, on balance, as biased as anything the Voltaire wrote.

 

[RobbyS]

Ah, two very interesting remarks.

Maybe that is what you personally believe. But is this belief based upon what the church teaches? Any official church documents to support it?

Well said. That is exactly what my view is. Of course I am not a “chaste” person if “chaste” is (the catholic church defined) proper sexual behavior. Of course I have proper self-control, I do not jump from bed to bed, I would respect my wife’s “headache”, if she had one, etc… Of course I see no actual victims, because there are none. Are there “potential” victims? I have not seen yet a syllogism which would show that each and every non-procreative act leads logically and inevitebly to some “victim”. Not even a logical argument which would show that non-procreative acts of love lead to some stochastically possible victims. Of course I am now aware - due to your excellent post - that many catholics confuse the temporal and secular reasoning with the religious one. (Thank the Lord - if there is one - that millions of catholics - the so-called cafeteria catholics - thumb their nose at Rome!)

I would like to ask you the same question that I asked from Cephas, is the proclaimed catholic view - namely: every act of everyone affects everyone else? - really what the church teaches? Officially or semi-officially? Or is that just your opinion? Is there some church document which substantiates this?

I really hate these “military” phrases. I suspect you view the whole life as a huge “battle” between God and Satan (which God could win if he so chose, but for his own inscrutable reasons, does not “want” to win, just yet), but that is not my view.

Your honesty is refreshing. You see very clearly the similarity beteween the (now defunct) communist worldview and the catholic one. (I know, I have lived there a large portion of my life.) The communists were just as prudish as the catholics when it came to sex, they openly persecuted homosexuality and pornography. I am amazed and delighted to see how well informed you are.

However, you did not mention those folks who like to think for themselves, who only accept an authority, if that authority can substantiate what it claims, and who do not accept either a power-based or self-proclaimed authority. The so-called free-thinkers, in other words.

Define “prudish.” Your views are basically middle-class but elastic morality, like most of us Christians. You applaud Catholics for their freedom from Rome, when all Rome does, in truth, is to teach moral standards that go back 2000 years. Moral standards which when practiced produce very good social results and which flaunted produce very bad social results.

Ayers famously had a debate with Coppleston. he probably out did the latter on philosophy, but could find no rational grounds for his morality.

 

[willofgods]

…]Even if such practices harmfully affect the practitoners - but only them! - that alleged harm is none of your business…]

Hi Spock,

You’ve probably heard plenty of arguments about why non-procreative, non-marital sex is harmful that have not convinced you, but to say that something is none of our business is a different point of contention.

I’m going to label people here for clarity:

The label “Prime” signifies people that are engaging in what could be viewed as harmful activity, per this topic;

The label “Alpha” refers to people that are hoping to convince people “Prime” that their activity is harmful.

I agree that if someone “Prime” doesn’t want to hear some argument, that after a reasonable number of attempts to convince them (I guess this number would be before the person “Prime” loses patience and stops listening) they should be left alone.

However, if person “Alpha” sincerely believes that people “Prime” are harming themselves, person “Alpha” must, at the very least, try to inform people “Prime” that what they are doing is harmful. If not, person “Alpha” would bear part of the culpability of the harm that falls on people “Prime”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Define “prudish.” Your views are basically middle-class but elastic morality, like most of us Christians. You applaud Catholics for their freedom from Rome, when all Rome does, in truth, is to teach moral standards that go back 2000 years. Moral standards which when practiced produce very good social results and which flaunted produce very bad social results.

Ayers famously had a debate with Coppleston. he probably out did the latter on philosophy, but could find no rational grounds for his morality.

Actually even devout Catholics cannot adhere to the standards that Rome sets. If only because of the Thought Crime aspect of Christian morality (especially when it comes to sex).

That’s kind of the point.

 

[Warrenton]

What was your point regarding nudity?

Depicting nudity by itself is not a problem for the Church, many saints and hermits went nude or practically so. In Catholic days many of the peasants worked in the nude, certainly communal bathing was common. There were mass bathings in holy rivers, and one can occassionally find stereoscope photos of them from the turn of the last centuries. To contemporary eyes, they resembled huge wet tee shirt contests. Many old churches have paintings or sculpture of nudes, some depict saints or biblical characters, others are merely decorative.

But the use of the nude body to stimulate erotic arousal is a different matter.

Maybe you would have enjoyed being a Catholic before the 20th century. I certainly would have.

 

[Warrenton]

I would like to ask you the same question that I asked from Cephas, is the proclaimed catholic view - namely: every act of everyone affects everyone else? - really what the church teaches? Officially or semi-officially? Or is that just your opinion? Is there some church document which substantiates this?

This question reminds me of a saying that I heard ascribed to Prime Minister Gladstone, something to the effect that “all actions are moral actions.”

The short answer is that I do not know. I seem to recall that scholastic philosophy allows for neutral actions. When I have some time, I will try to find the answers. I wish some of our Orthodox friends would post on this thread. They tend to have a strong grip on “classical” Christian philosophy.

really hate these “military” phrases. I suspect you view the whole life as a huge “battle” between God and Satan (which God could win if he so chose, but for his own inscrutable reasons, does not “want” to win, just yet), but that is not my view.

I am sorry. You are correct in my general worldview, but that is not why I selected the metaphor. I was searching for an easily understood simile for how a seemingly neutral act - even an omission - could impact people other than the actor, and the lazy soldier came to mind as an image that might be familiar to you. I did not mean to offend.

Your honesty is refreshing. You see very clearly the similarity beteween the (now defunct) communist worldview and the catholic one. (I know, I have lived there a large portion of my life.) The communists were just as prudish as the catholics when it came to sex, they openly persecuted homosexuality and pornography. I am amazed and delighted to see how well informed you are.

Thank you for the kind words. Rather than prudish, though, I would prefer to say “authoritarian.” Perhaps that word would cover your objections to the nature of Catholic sexual morality equally well? “Prudish” connotes squeemishness. We’re strict, but we’re not squeemish. The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin contains remarkably frank references to sexuality and reproduction (I expect it’s one of the reasons it has gone out of fashion).

Like the communists, or maybe even more like the Spartans, Catholics think reproduction serves a corporate purpose as well as a personal one. Hence, the corporate body (for us, the Church) has the “secular right” to legislate, or regulate, sexual practices.

In searching for an apt “secular” analogy, I recognize that to the extent my countrymen decline to have children, so much more frequently will I share space with aliens, and so forth. But of course, this only addresses the “right” to make rules, and not whether the specific rules are in themselves good or bad. Your “individual rights” based critique on that issue remains valid, and persuasive to many, whether or not they are free thinkers.

 

[Spock]

This question reminds me of a saying that I heard ascribed to Prime Minister Gladstone, something to the effect that “all actions are moral actions.”

I wonder if there is anyone, who would accept such idiocy? How could be the decision to part my hair on the right or on the left a “moral” issue?

The short answer is that I do not know. I seem to recall that scholastic philosophy allows for neutral actions. When I have some time, I will try to find the answers. I wish some of our Orthodox friends would post on this thread. They tend to have a strong grip on “classical” Christian philosophy.

Thanks. I would like to hear from some of the die-hard posters, and especially if they have any support for their black-and-white view of the world.

I am sorry. You are correct in my general worldview, but that is not why I selected the metaphor. I was searching for an easily understood simile for how a seemingly neutral act - even an omission - could impact people other than the actor, and the lazy soldier came to mind as an image that might be familiar to you. I did not mean to offend.

Don’t worry about it, it was not offending at all. I am just getting sick and tired of the “war of drugs”, “war on poverty”, “war on whatever…”. This kind of rhetoric wants to whip people into some emotion. I understand that it was not your intent.

Thank you for the kind words. Rather than prudish, though, I would prefer to say “authoritarian.” Perhaps that word would cover your objections to the nature of Catholic sexual morality equally well? “Prudish” connotes squeemishness. We’re strict, but we’re not squeemish. The Little Office of the Blessed Virgin contains remarkably frank references to sexuality and reproduction (I expect it’s one of the reasons it has gone out of fashion).

I went to Rome, and of course visited the Vatican museums. I saw the result of the “great castration”, the mutilation of those magnificent Greek and Roman statues. In my book that is definitely “prudish”. Of course, authoritarian is also very precise.

Like the communists, or maybe even more like the Spartans, Catholics think reproduction serves a corporate purpose as well as a personal one. Hence, the corporate body (for us, the Church) has the “secular right” to legislate, or regulate, sexual practices.

Well, obviously I disagree. My basic stance (which by now should be pretty obvious) is that we should treat others as “responsible adults”, and respect their right to choose their lifestyle, as long as it does not violate others. It can be best described as: “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I respect other people, I respect their decisions, I assume that they know what is good for them. I respect their “right” to make foolish mistakes. I deny that “I am my brother’s keeper”, who is assumed to “know better”, and who is assumed to interfere whether such interference is welcome or not. And I demand the same respect.

In searching for an apt “secular” analogy, I recognize that to the extent my countrymen decline to have children, so much more frequently will I share space with aliens, and so forth.

Do you mean “foreigners”, or “aliens”? The word alien can mean “space aliens”. If you mean foreigners, wht is that a problem? America became what it became because of the accepting “those dayum foreigners” with open arms. The sooner we get rid of those foolish borders, the better we are off. The old “tribal” mentality should be replaced with the notion that we are all “fellow human beings”, regardless of our heritage. Is that antithetical to christianity? I don’t think so.

But of course, this only addresses the “right” to make rules, and not whether the specific rules are in themselves good or bad. Your “individual rights” based critique on that issue remains valid, and persuasive to many, whether or not they are free thinkers.

I am again glad for our agreement.

 

[Spock]

Hi Spock,

You’ve probably heard plenty of arguments about why non-procreative, non-marital sex is harmful that have not convinced you, but to say that something is none of our business is a different point of contention.

I’m going to label people here for clarity:

The label “Prime” signifies people that are engaging in what could be viewed as harmful activity, per this topic;

The label “Alpha” refers to people that are hoping to convince people “Prime” that their activity is harmful.

I agree that if someone “Prime” doesn’t want to hear some argument, that after a reasonable number of attempts to convince them (I guess this number would be before the person “Prime” loses patience and stops listening) they should be left alone.

However, if person “Alpha” sincerely believes that people “Prime” are harming themselves, person “Alpha” must, at the very least, try to inform people “Prime” that what they are doing is harmful. If not, person “Alpha” would bear part of the culpability of the harm that falls on people “Prime”.

Please read the post directly above. Seems like I addressed your points there. If you wish me to elaborate, just tell me.

Let me give just one example. We all (both belivers and atheists) agree that having an unhealthy diet (lots of grease, etc) is harmful. Even those who are on such a diet know this. They are aware of the consequences. Yet, they keep it up. Why should we try to interfere? Of course I have no problem with simply giving out information. What I was alluding to, is some form of “nagging”, or - even worse - introducing some legislation to raise the taxes on unhealthy food, to “force” people into a special mold by issuing “punitive taxes”.

The same can be said for smoking or drinking, or any kind of “vice-taxation”.

 

[StarFireKK]

Actually even devout Catholics cannot adhere to the standards that Rome sets. If only because of the Thought Crime aspect of Christian morality (especially when it comes to sex).

That’s kind of the point.

Now you are venturing into the territory of our fallen natures and our inclination towards sin. Catholics believe you cannot be perfect or sinless without the Grace of God. That is why when Saints were in danger of giving into sin they would pray for God to give them the strength to resist.

So what do Catholics do? We know that more than likely we are all going to have an impure thought (or uncharitable thought or fill in the blank with your choose sin thought.) That’s why we have the Act of Contrition and the Sacrament of Reconciliation (i.e. Confession.) We acknowledge we sinned, we apologize to God for having offended him, and we resolve to do better next time.

That doesn’t mean we will never fall into that sin again but that we will make an honest effort to battle it. Think of it as a math problem where the teacher doesn’t give you credit for the right answer but for showing your work. If you get the right answer but show none of the work you will get less “points” than a person that showed his work but got the wrong answer. That’s what Catholics call “struggling with sin.”

Most Catholics cheerfully admit they are not perfect and are a “work-in-progress.” It is just a different mentality. You see the strict standards and say “I can never do that, why bother?” Most Catholics say “Wow, that’s hard. I’ll give it my best shot and ask God to help me and we’ll see what happens.”

 

[StarFireKK]

Let me give just one example. We all (both belivers and atheists) agree that having an unhealthy diet (lots of grease, etc) is harmful. Even those who are on such a diet know this. They are aware of the consequences. Yet, they keep it up. **Why should we try to interfere? **Of course I have no problem with simply giving out information. What I was alluding to, is some form of “nagging”, or - even worse - **introducing some legislation to raise the taxes on unhealthy food, to “force” people into a special mold by issuing “punitive taxes”. **

The same can be said for smoking or drinking, or any kind of “vice-taxation”.

Well, unhealthy citizens tend to cost the government money and/or cost society progress. First, you have the cost of the work they would have done if they had not be unhealthy. Second, you have the cost of any worked missed from a family caretaker. Third, you have the actual cost of the care given to them. If the person is on a government program there is actual money lost. But there is also the cost that had the doctors and their staff not wasted time with someone who was unhealthy because of something they could control (i.e. diet, smoking) they could have given care to someone that really needs it. (Cancer, etc) It is simple supply and demand. With more “sick” people the price of giving care goes up.

It isn’t so simple to say “get rid of the government programs.” You will still have the opportunity cost of the doctor’s spending their time caring for and educating people that could have avoided their situation. Also, where do you draw the line? If someone had an “ok” diet but a ton of stress and had a heart attack or stroke. Should they be refused care? They could have done more to defend against the risks, but they are only human and we all make mistakes. Where does compassion fit into the equation? Also, government programs have a role in society- people can get some level of care and food so they don’t get so desperate they start robbing and killing people.

Now, I’m not saying the other extreme is good either: having the government (or some authority) regulation EVERYTHING we do. That’s absurd.

But to say that “bad” choices don’t matter to society at large is inaccurate. People generally interfere because they see the larger problem these choices cause.