The immaculate misconception

[Spock]

The Catholic starts from the opposite side of the spectrum as Spock. Spock proposes us Catholics to take the issue of sex in isolation. As crudely as he can get away with, he asks: “Is it theoretically possible that a sexual act has no wider consequences than the two people engaged in the act, and that the act be completely pleasurable, and that the people are unmarried to each other?”

This is nonsensical in Catholic eyes, because we start by taking people as they are. We put sex in the context of disease, lying, power, coercion, ignorance, fear, lust, perversity, and the whole gamut of emotion people experience.

Ah, so you say that “sex for pleasure only” logically and inevitably leads to disease, lying, power, coercion, ignorance, fear, lust, perversity… How interesting. I bet it would be a pretty tall order to prove it.

Other than that it’s wrong to bring someone else into sin that could endanger their soul?

But here is the gist of the matter. The rest of your posts are superfluous. You said everything you care about in this tiny little sentence. But, as I said in the OP, if you have no secular argument, then I will not argue with you.

 

[Warrenton]

Ah, so you say that “sex for pleasure only” logically and inevitably leads to disease, lying, power, coercion, ignorance, fear, lust, perversity… How interesting. I bet it would be a pretty tall order to prove it

.

This remark indicates an embarrassing lack of sexual understanding.

But here is the gist of the matter. The rest of your posts are superfluous. You said everything you care about in this tiny little sentence. But, as I said in the OP, if you have no secular argument, then I will not argue with you

Naturally, to the Catholic, the aspect of sin is transcendent, and Catholics do not accept your definition of “rational.” Anevil was wandering somewhat, and “opened the door” to the reminder that Catholics do not see the issue as artificially as atheists do. Since you are posting on a Catholic forum, “you asked for it” to use your own phrase.

 

[Spock]

This remark indicates an embarrassing lack of sexual understanding.

Maybe a lack of “catholic” understanding - whatever that might be. But that sword cuts both ways. Can you substantiate that sex without the intent to procreate MUST lead to those detrimental corollaries? I doubt it.

…and Catholics do not accept your definition of “rational.”

Your problem, not mine.

Since you are posting on a Catholic forum, “you asked for it” to use your own phrase.

Posting on a catholic forum does not give you any advantage. I am perfectly happy with the mandatory non-confrontational tone, but that does not give you an “edge” on what is real and what is not. If you can bring up arguments that non-procreative sex bring along logical disadvantages or secular problems, then I will consider your reply on its merit. If you can only say that the harm is to jeopardize your “immortal soul” (which was your reply so far), then you did not say anything that would merit consideration - catholic forum or not. That is your belief, and it will be respected as such, but as an argument it is null and void.

 

[Alindawyl]

Somehow I was under the impression that sex and suicide are a little different, even though there is a wonderful French phrase to describe orgasm: “la morte douce” (sweet death). You remind me of the student who was asked to describe the presidency of Washington, and who was totally ignorant about it. So she said: “Washington was a great president. But even greater was Lincoln, who…”. (In the OP I already asked not to try to bring up “emotional hurt”, since that is subjective, and it is either there, or not there.)

If you wanted me to specifically answer with regard to sexual acts, you should have said so. But you didn’t. You asked me for a specific example of how something done in the privacy of one’s room could be harmful to others.

I’ll be the first to admit I’m not very intuitive, and didn’t see any sort of implication that you meant ONLY sexual acts when you said “something”. Thanks for the roundabout implication inn your analogy that I’m just an ignorant child confronted by your robust, professorial intellect. That kind of attitude goes a long way toward facilitating friendly dialogue.

And unless I missed it, (possible, it’s been a while since I read the original post) I saw nothing in the original post about not bringing up emotional hurt.

However, I’ll play along and get back to you on “Washington” later.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

So I’ll ask you the question- Are you willing to marry a man who will not be faithful to you?

No. I happen to be a heterosexual male so I’m not very inclined to marry a man regardless of how faithful he’d be. I’m also not very inclined to marry a woman who’d lie to me. But I would consider marrying someone who wanted to have some sort of sexual interaction with someone other than me as long as she was honest about it and we were able to negotiate an arrangement that worked for both of us.

 

[mark_a]

Then that makes me wonder what a lot of Catholics who talk about homosexuality are thinking. Is convincing gay people not to have sex with the person they love more important than preventing them from being driven to suicide?

Absolutely not. I don’t think you are clear on the Catholic position.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

… my dear friends ,

… not long ago smoking was all the rage , no health worries , we use to drink out of lead mugs – no health worries , in fact we see asbestos was ok and everyone used it it seems , how many things are there that we now know are toxic , dangerous , poisonous , deadly etc – now that we once thought were ok ??? , i’ll bet it’s a very big list , am i right ??? …

… just because science and medicine has not yet unlocked all the mysteries of human sex and cannot tell us every minute detail about the consequences of unnatural sexual activity yet is no excuse to become presumptuous that they never will , in fact does anyone doubt that science and medicine are starting to uncover things harmful to man at alarming speed now — to the point where one might wonder should we slow down for a while until we learn a little more before we walk off a cliff ??? …

… science and medicine will end up showing that the natural law for man , the moral law , when correctly understood , is extremely beneficial to mans health and well being and extremely harmful to man when violated and man is unnatural , and it affects all men but also the whole of creation …

… sometimes the church is wiser than we realise and science and medicine are not interested in morality for the most part at present , there is a stupid huge conflict between the sciences , religion , theology and philosophy are also sciences and they have a lot to say about morality , ethics and evil , good too …

… i’d like to see all sciences come together accepting and embracing each other and try to collaborate to solve mans problems , rather than compete like enemies , all the sciences are supposed to befriend each other and bring there own unique contribution to the table to solve the problems that plague man – not fight each other like opposition …

… but science and medicine have little to say about human morality at present , give them time to come to their senses and they will once they do and start to really learn , and if we ask is there harm to man we must accept man has a soul and not just body and they are one man , you cannot ignore the spiritual dimension of man , but i suppose you must if you cannot believe in god because you can’t see spirit – you must believe spirit and soul does not exist perhaps , is that it dear friend ??? …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[mark_a]

No. I happen to be a heterosexual male

Oops, my bad.

But I would consider marrying someone who wanted to have some sort of sexual interaction with someone other than me as long as she was honest about it

Ok. But why get married at all?

and we were able to negotiate an arrangement that worked for both of us.

I’m curious. Could you describe a potential arrangement that would work for you?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Translation into plain English: Promiscuity is fine because it’s harmless, but saying things that bother other people is profoundly dangerous, especially if we’re talking about other people doing bad things.

There’s a morality criminal can get behind.

Yes, when done honestly and with appropriate precautions, I do not think promiscuity is harmful. I have yet to hear any good secular arguments for why it is wrong.

I think you greatly underestimate the power of words. When African-Americans were constantly assaulted with a barrage of racist slurs, those were words. When speeches about the inferiority and immorality of blacks led to violence against them, those were words. But at least for the African-Americans who had to endure that horrendous treatment, they could still turn to their family. For many gay teenagers, they cannot turn to their parents for support because their parents are attacking them for being gay as well.

If you want to try to understand the incredible pain that even someone who has the support of their parents goes through, I urge you to Google “suicide note of a gay teen” and read the first link. I am not linking to it because it contains cuss words, but I implore you to read it so that you can at least partially see the pain that words and abuse can cause. The abuse does not occur in a vacuum. Children are not born wanting to beat up gay kids. They hear from friends, family, the church, or the media that homosexuality is evil and gay people are bad. Kids pick on easy targets that they can feel superior to. I think a loving person should care more about preventing suicide than about discouraging gay people from having sex. If Catholics cared as much as I think they should about gay suicides, they would be talking about the evils of bullying gay children at least as much as they talk about the supposed evils of homosexuality. They would temper the fiery rhetoric with a dose of compassion for those with homosexual desire. Currently even those who want to remain celebrate are sometimes treated like lepers by other Catholics (See this depressing post by a celibate Catholic who is dealing with gay desires: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=601599).

The Church sees masturbation as wrong and homosexuality is wrong. Yet masturbators are not made to feel like second class citizens and are not bullied to the point of suicide like gay people are. I think we need to tone down the rhetoric against homosexuality before even more children die.

Gay people are currently committing suicide at about three times the rate of straight people, and those rejected by their families are over 8 times more likely to attempt suicide (pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/346.full?ijkey=NrncY0H897lAU&keytype=ref&siteid=aapjournals). I think that anyone who considers themselves pro-life should be outraged by this and should try to do what they can to make the world a more loving place for all people.

anEvilAtheist;8417212:

Then that makes me wonder what a lot of Catholics who talk about homosexuality are thinking. Is convincing gay people not to have sex with the person they love more important than preventing them from being driven to suicide?

chuckle Not having sex leads to suicide? I’m going to try that line next time I’m at the bar and feeling frisky!

“Hey baby, I’m feeling so frisky that I need sex or I’m going to commit suicide, you’ve GOT to help me!”

:ROLLEYES:

Read my posts.

I never claimed that not having sex led to suicide. I said that the horrific abuse, both physical and verbal, that gay people have to endure is driving some to commit suicide. I think those who care about life should consider this when speaking about homosexuality. If fiery anti-gay rhetoric is leading to abuse and suicide, maybe we need a little more compassion in our rhetoric.

chuckle Not having sex leads to suicide? I’m going to try that line next time I’m at the bar and feeling frisky!

“Hey baby, I’m feeling so frisky that I need sex or I’m going to commit suicide, you’ve GOT to help me!”

:ROLLEYES:

[/quote]

People are dying, but hey, at least you got a good laugh out of it.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

This bit was confusing. Is not premarital sex always “pre” marriage?

Yes, I was saying that this was a form of sex outside of marriage that he hadn’t addressed.

Other than that it’s wrong to bring someone else into sin that could endanger their soul?

Yes. This thread is about whether there are any secular grounds. I grant that if your version of Christianity is correct, it would be wrong. I’m glad that we seem to agree that there are not any good secular arguments for opposing it.

I was not exactly certain what you were trying to express. From the context, I presume you are suggesting the “Bob, Carol, Ted and Alice” scenario. Catholics do not mind Fred and Wilma experimenting with each other, as long as they leave Barney and Betty out of it.

Yes, that is what I meant.

Here we leave the realm that atheists will be able to accept. They may as well stop reading here.

Catholics can not experiment in the way I think Anevil suggests because to do so would break the vow we make at marriage. Only free people can bind themselves with a vow. That promise symbolizes freedom more than any other a layperson makes. Convicts, children and slaves are all not free to marry. People in a state of mortal sin cannot make a vow because they also are not free. In fact, they are slaves. There is only one thing they can do to obtain freedom, and in the atheist’s case, it is the only thing he will not do. That is why the vow of an atheist is worth less than nothing. It a pledge of collateral he does not even own.

For the same reason, a Catholic cannot “honestly” commit adultery, as these atheists suggest. To do so is a fundemental denial of our freedom, purchased by the blood of Christ. It is tantamount to selling oneself into slavery, and is a lie.

But are there any secular reasons for opposing it?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

You know, it kind of amuses me that your heart cries out for those struggling with masturbation in the “moral theology” forum… I went to search all your posts and found that in the last 30 days you have not even posted in the moral theology section on your views. Are these just crocodile tears, Spock? Does that issue really keep you up at night? If so, why aren’t you doing something about it?

I am not Spock, but I also feel incredibly sad when reading the countless posts about masturbation in the “moral theology” forum. I see such pain in their words. I think their lives would be better if they accepted masturbation as the harmless natural act that it is. Then why don’t I post on those threads? I don’t post because those people are typically coming to a Catholic forum to get Catholic advice on how to resist temptation. They do not want my advice and probably would not appreciate me telling them that they should stop trying to fight their urge to masturbate. If I had a friend in that situation, maybe I would talk to him or her, but i generally try not to give advice when I do not think it would be wanted.

 

[Warrenton]

Can you substantiate that sex without the intent to procreate MUST lead to those detrimental corollaries?

Whether it must or not is irrelevant. It does. You mentioned “the oldest profession” so we’ll take that, though we could choose any of a number of workaday examples. Do you even know what service that profession renders, and why?

Your problem, not mine.

It’s not even a problem.

Posting on a catholic forum does not give you any advantage. I am perfectly happy with the mandatory non-confrontational tone, but that does not give you an “edge” on what is real and what is not. If you can bring up arguments that non-procreative sex bring along logical disadvantages or secular problems,

Sure it does. It gives me the advantage of the “home court”. Anyone can dictate a result by defining the terms so narrowly that only one answer fulfills the equation. This is what you are trying to do. But since on a Catholic forum, Catholic definitions apply, your desired result is not forthcoming.

If you can only say that the harm is to jeopardize your “immortal soul” (which was your reply so far),

You have not read it completely.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist;8417212:

Then that makes me wonder what a lot of Catholics who talk about homosexuality are thinking. Is convincing gay people not to have sex with the person they love more important than preventing them from being driven to suicide?

Absolutely not. I don’t think you are clear on the Catholic position.

I agree that position is more consistent with Catholic moral teachings. But it seems inconsistent with the rhetoric.

 

[Warrenton]

I am not Spock,

The title of an autobiography notable for its lack of foresight.

 

[tonyrey]

So I’ll ask you the question- Are you willing to marry a man who will not be faithful to you?

A delightful reply.

I’m also not very inclined to marry a woman who’d lie to me. But I would consider marrying someone who wanted to have some sort of sexual interaction with someone other than me as long as she was honest about it and we were able to negotiate an arrangement that worked for both of us.

Not so delightful! It turns sex into a business deal for pleasure - and possibly financial gain… :tsktsk:

 

[tonyrey]

I am not Spock,

Another delightful reply!

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Oops, my bad.

Ok. But why get married at all?

For all but one of the reasons anyone gets married. For example, you could still want to commit to spend the rest of your life with the woman you love, even if you didn’t prevent her from having sex with a woman or two.

I’m curious. Could you describe a potential arrangement that would work for you?

That depends so much on the people involved. If I fell in love with and ended up marrying someone who wanted to have an open marriage, that’s something I would have to negotiate then.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

Yes, when done honestly and with appropriate precautions, I do not think promiscuity is harmful. I have yet to hear any good secular arguments for why it is wrong.

I think you greatly underestimate the power of words. When African-Americans were constantly assaulted with a barrage of racist slurs, those were words. When speeches about the inferiority and immorality of blacks led to violence against them, those were words. But at least for the African-Americans who had to endure that horrendous treatment, they could still turn to their family. For many gay teenagers, they cannot turn to their parents for support because their parents are attacking them for being gay as well.

If you want to try to understand the incredible pain that even someone who has the support of their parents goes through, I urge you to Google “suicide note of a gay teen” and read the first link. I am not linking to it because it contains cuss words, but I implore you to read it so that you can at least partially see the pain that words and abuse can cause. The abuse does not occur in a vacuum. Children are not born wanting to beat up gay kids. They hear from friends, family, the church, or the media that homosexuality is evil and gay people are bad. Kids pick on easy targets that they can feel superior to. I think a loving person should care more about preventing suicide than about discouraging gay people from having sex. If Catholics cared as much as I think they should about gay suicides, they would be talking about the evils of bullying gay children at least as much as they talk about the supposed evils of homosexuality. They would temper the fiery rhetoric with a dose of compassion for those with homosexual desire. Currently even those who want to remain celebrate are sometimes treated like lepers by other Catholics (See this depressing post by a celibate Catholic who is dealing with gay desires: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=601599).

The Church sees masturbation as wrong and homosexuality is wrong. Yet masturbators are not made to feel like second class citizens and are not bullied to the point of suicide like gay people are. I think we need to tone down the rhetoric against homosexuality before even more children die.

Gay people are currently committing suicide at about three times the rate of straight people, and those rejected by their families are over 8 times more likely to attempt suicide (pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/1/346.full?ijkey=NrncY0H897lAU&keytype=ref&siteid=aapjournals). I think that anyone who considers themselves pro-life should be outraged by this and should try to do what they can to make the world a more loving place for all people.

Read my posts.

I never claimed that not having sex led to suicide. I said that the horrific abuse, both physical and verbal, that gay people have to endure is driving some to commit suicide. I think those who care about life should consider this when speaking about homosexuality. If fiery anti-gay rhetoric is leading to abuse and suicide, maybe we need a little more compassion in our rhetoric.

People are dying, but hey, at least you got a good laugh out of it.

… my dear friend ,

… if you read my several yrs work on these forums you’ll see who i really am , i’m not the sum of your conclusion dear friend , you will see i try to save lives , and do you fear death ??? , of course you do even if you don’t admit it to yourself or others , death is not the end for me but just the beginning , the real life begins once we leave this messy delusion , death of the soul leads to eternal death and that is the only death we must fight with all our might , and i do for myself and all , atheism spreads spiritual and eternal death whilst zapping all hope out of man if one thinks and is honest , i’m right you know , think hard about it dear friend …

… may god bless and love you ,

… john …

 

[Warrenton]

But are there any secular reasons for opposing it?

This question is why I advised the atheists to stop reading. You are drawing a line we Catholics do not recognize. We believe that the world in general is improved by telling the truth. On can lie, or defraud, if you prefer the legal term, by conduct, by ommission, by silence, or by spoken.

Adultery is a lie because it traduces the vow the couple make. Lying habituates people to lying more. Do all people who ever lie become inveterate liars? No. But all inveterate liars begin with one lie.

If you want to debate whether lying is better than the truth, we can do that. If you want to posit a world so secular that there are no Catholics in it, and where no one contracts marriage through a vow, we can do that. But what is the point? If you set up such a problem, you already know your answer. Why would my assent be important? It’s no different than the Hitler hypothetical I tossed out earlier.

You need to decide what is open for debate on this thread. If we posit a world that is totally devoid of religion, where not a shread of Catholic thought exists, then we only need one person’s consent for any action. There is no longer any logical reason for opposing anything. But if we posit a world where Catholics exist, then secular or not, we must factor in Catholic understanding.

Glad we seem to understand each other, too.

 

[Warrenton]

That depends so much on the people involved. If I fell in love with and ended up marrying someone who wanted to have an open marriage, that’s something I would have to negotiate then.

Actually, it’s something you, your wife, and your lawyers would have to negotiate.