The new acceptance of sodomy

[tafan2]

Most (I think all) of the non-religious people I know believe in sexual morality. They may have a different idea of the scope and boundaries of that morality, but they certainly recognize that there are boundaries.

Very true. Indeed, one can go through history of various cultures and learn that sexual mores and marraige are universally regulated by a society’s morals. Indeed the commonality is enough to convince one they are objective and based on natural law. And in society’s where the greatest sexual deviancies are accepted, it is almost always due to a corrupted religious practice. Ie, it takes a deity to override the objective moral standards.

 

[Wozza]

Which is a long way of saying that most people understand that allowing two adults to have whatever sex they want does not lead to pedophilia, but I get why some people think differently (even if I don’t agree with them).

Well put. There is a tendency to think (from a religious view, which is deontological) that one rule out means that all rules are out. Whereas the secular view is: Let’s discuss this on a case by case basis.

 

[TMC]

Very true. Indeed, one can go through history of various cultures and learn that sexual mores and marraige are universally regulated by a society’s morals. Indeed the commonality is enough to convince one they are objective and based on natural law. And in society’s where the greatest sexual deviancies are accepted, it is almost always due to a corrupted religious practice. Ie, it takes a deity to override the objective moral standards.

I think you make a very big leap there in the middle. I agree that the fact that most cultures have mores about something is a good indicator that something is going on with that topic, but I don’t agree that it necessarily leads us to some objective moral standard. That is particularly true with sexual morality because, while virtually every society has sexual morals, they range very widely. I would even say that some of the predominate (and accepted) sexual practices in much of human history are considered repugnant today, including by the Church. So I agree that sexual morals are important to all societies, but I don’t see a commonality that points to an objective standard.

 

[tafan2]

Outside of religious practices, you will find they vary much less that is commonly thought. CS Lewis discussed this iirc.

And sense we are a fallen race, a certain level of corruption of a natural law is to be expected. But the fact there is a commonality shows there is a core standard.

 

[TMC]

Outside of religious practices, you will find they vary much less that is commonly thought. CS Lewis discussed this iirc.

And sense we are a fallen race, a certain level of corruption of a natural law is to be expected. But the fact there is a commonality shows there is a core standard.

Well, I don’t find that to be true. I do know that through most of human history polygamy was considered acceptable, marital rape was acceptable, and female consent in general was not consistent. Also, owning women for sexual purposes was pretty common, and even practiced by many prominent Old Testament figures. So to the extent that there is a commonality through history, I think that commonality is not a consistent guide - nor would most modern people agree with it.

 

[Vico]

One of the commenters in the section following the original article also questioned that assumption. Did the abusing priests come to a conclusion that their actions were now acceptable, or did they simply do them while knowing them to be wrong? Kippley doesn’t really answer that question. The timeline of events he presents show that a great many people came to accept a variety of sexual activities that had previously been considered immoral. He seems to think that abusing priests were a part of that trend, while society in general was becominng more accepting of things that all Christian religions had previously condemned.

I see that trend occurring in general, however it was not adopted by the Catholic Church which has maintained the conventional moral teachings in Catechisms as before on grave sexual matters.

 

[JimG]

I see that trend occurring in general, however it was not adopted by the Catholic Church which has maintained the conventional moral teachings in Catechisms as before on grave sexual matters.

Yes, exactly. Yet there were many within the Catholic Church who were affected by the new sexual liberalism, to the extent that they could excuse their own sexual misdeeds as mere peccadilloes, nothing serious.

 

[tafan2]

. I do know that through most of human history polygamy was considered acceptable, marital rape was acceptable, and female consent in general was not consistent

You are actually wrong about polygamy. Pick a society, 9 times out of 10 you will find monogamous marraiges practiced almost exclusively by the common people. If polygamy occurred, it was generally a corruption of the ruling class (eg see ancient Israel) . If it was generally practiced, it was typically due to a religious command from God (eg Normans or Muslims).

As to marital rape, I suspect that is more common than polygamy, but not as common as you think. Regardless, it is a corruption.

 

[TMC]

You are actually wrong about polygamy. Pick a society, 9 times out of 10 you will find monogamous marraiges practiced almost exclusively by the common people. If polygamy occurred, it was generally a corruption of the ruling class (eg see ancient Israel) . If it was generally practiced, it was typically due to a religious command from God (eg Normans or Muslims).

As to marital rape, I suspect that is more common than polygamy, but not as common as you think. Regardless, it is a corruption.

I am not a historian, by any means, but I do know that polygamy was not only accepted in ancient times - it was practiced by many big figures in Judeo-Christian history. It is still practiced many places today.
So if historical practices are to be a guide at all, one would think that figures like David, Solomon, and Abraham would be people to look to. But the fact is that historical sexual practices are not a good guide -they are not consistent and even those held out as heroic and admirable figures accepted (and lived) practices that we now agree were wrong.

As to marital rape, it was extremely common. It was perfectly legal nearly everywhere until the middle of the 20th century. Female consent was simply not required if a couple was married.

I understand that you view these two examples as corruptions. And there are many others - concubines (and other forms of sanctioned rape), child brides, etc. But how do you propose sorting out the common but corrupt practices from the “commonalities” that should serve as a basis for objective morality? Which cultures do you use as a guide? Which practices must be rejected as corrupt? Who decides?

I am not saying that there should not be sexual morals or limits on sexual behavior. I am saying that I do not see an “objective” standard that is separate from the moral standards for other behaviors. I certainly do not see past history or cultural norms as a good guide to sexual standards.

 

[tafan2]

I am saying that I do not see an “objective” standard that is separate from the moral standards for other behaviors. I certainly do not see past history or cultural norms as a good guide to sexual standards.

Neither do I, you mis-understand my point. Historical norms do not set the objective standard. They are evidence that an objective standard exists as part of natural law. The commonalities outweigh the differences. Knowing the natural law, unfortunately does take divine revelation, due to our fallen and corrupt nature. That’s what the Church is for.

 

[TMC]

Neither do I, you mis-understand my point. Historical norms do not set the objective standard. They are evidence that an objective standard exists as part of natural law. The commonalities outweigh the differences.

Fair enough. Not sure I agree, but I think you make a good point

Knowing the natural law, unfortunately does take divine revelation, due to our fallen and corrupt nature. That’s what the Church is for.

This is the main point, I think. As I understand it, “natural law” is essentially used as a synonym for the Church’s understanding of divine revelation. I don’t find that to be sufficient (and I am Catholic, albeit a bad and sometimes heterodox Catholic), so I don’t think it reasonable for Catholics to expect others to find it sufficient.

 

[tafan2]

As I understand it, “natural law” is essentially used as a synonym for the Church’s understanding of divine revelation. I

That’s not quite right. I think I overstated my own point about needing divine revelation. From the catechism:

“The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie”

If we consider polygamy, our reason can certainly tell us it is objectively wrong, especially as we can see the effects of when it has been practiced.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

I see that trend occurring in general, however it was not adopted by the Catholic Church which has maintained the conventional moral teachings in Catechisms as before on grave sexual matters.

Yes, exactly. Yet there were many within the Catholic Church who were affected by the new sexual liberalism, to the extent that they could excuse their own sexual misdeeds as mere peccadilloes, nothing serious.

Always been true that grave matter could be venial or mortal or no sin depending upon the full consent or partial consent, and invincible ignorance. It is not reasonable that a priest would not understand this, so, speculating, it would only be venial through lack of full consent.

 

[Wozza]

C

If we consider polygamy, our reason can certainly tell us it is objectively wrong, especially as we can see the effects of when it has been practiced.

If it’s objectively wrong then we shouldn’t need examples of why it is wrong. That argument makes no sense.

 

[PetraG]

No rules when they’re old enough. Just guidance.

Did you think parents have a choice about that, lol?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

No rules when they’re old enough. Just guidance.

Did you think parents have a choice about that, lol?

Yeah. I know parents who decided that a rules based system would be best.

 

[PetraG]

Yeah. I know parents who decided that a rules based system would be best.

I am not sure why you think that any people are better off with the idea that there is no way to objectively know right from wrong, but whatever. Neither of us think that parents ought to do without rules for their minor children or can enforce rules on our adult children, so we’ll leave it at that.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Yeah. I know parents who decided that a rules based system would be best.

I am not sure why you think that any people are better off with the idea that there is no way to objectively know right from wrong, but whatever. Neither of us think that parents ought to do without rules for their minor children or can enforce rules on our adult children, so we’ll leave it at that.

Well, we’re agreed. No rules for adults.

 

[TMC]

That’s not quite right. I think I overstated my own point about needing divine revelation. From the catechism:

“The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie”

If we consider polygamy, our reason can certainly tell us it is objectively wrong, especially as we can see the effects of when it has been practiced.

I know that is the “official” definition of natural law, but I think your overstatement is actually closer to the mark. We are wandering off topic, but I would argue that using the moral intuition of Catholic scholars to find moral reason bootstraps Catholic teaching into reason such that it is impossible to separate the two.

As to polygamy, the moral reason of millions of people, including the great leaders of the Old Testament (who Jesus himself lauded) found polygamy perfectly acceptable, so I don’t see how that can be any kind of guide.

 

[John_the_Blind]

Let’s take a look at Bob and Jane, a young couple with no children. Bob and Jane love sex with each other, as well they should.

But Bob has a low-paying job and Jane is looking for a job with no luck. They know that right now a child is the last thing they need in their lives.

So what are Bob and Jane to do? If they continue to have relations in the ‘natural way’ there’s a darned good chance that a baby will show up and throw the young family into chaos.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Bob and Jane don’t want to stop having sex with each other, so they turn to ‘unnatural acts’ to satisfy themselves and their desire for each other. They do so not because it is ‘unnatural’ but because they know it will prevent a child being born.

The alternative is to either continue ‘naturally’ and hope no child is born, or stop having sex altogether. And as we can easily figure out, a young couple not ‘doing it’ or being afraid to have sex- for whatever reason- is fertile grounds for bad blood and maybe even divorce over it.

What, in the eyes of the Church- or God, for that matter- is worse? A couple engaging in sodomy (for all the right reasons), or a happy marriage going down in flames (for all the wrong reasons)?