I just read an article (I'll have to look for that link...) about a group that is so thoroughly opposed to the use of prophylactics (specifically: Condoms) that they opposse it even in the case where it's being used to reduce the chance of the transmission of AIDS--even when its used between a married man and woman.
Just wondering what people think about the underlying (im)morality of that attitude.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I assume that they are against sex for any reason other than procreation, and definitely not recreation?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
One would assume. I'm still trying to wrap my head around why any group would try so hard to control the sexual act.
I mean, as a parent, I love procreation--but it does have its limits.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Some people have issues. I don't understand it either. They're not the only ones doing it either. There are plenty of groups trying to stop other people from doing things they don't approve of. Many many many.
Posted by Deceased House (Member # 9388) on :
Uhhm well imma teenager in highschool, so obviously i find this condom oppression very disturbing. Weight out the benifits of condom use versus their morals, and it just dosent add up
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that practically all people will agree that some boundaries on sexual behavior are a good thing
What those boundaries are, and how much it matters whether others stay within those boundaries, is something that varies wildly from one person to the next.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: a group that is so thoroughly opposed to the use of prophylactics
Yeah. The Pope is a founder member.
Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think it's very easy to carry a philosophical point too far and ignore reality.
I understand and even to a certain extent endorse the philosophical underpinnings of the opposition to condoms, but I certainly would not object to a husband who had a venereal disease using them with the express purpose of attempting to prevent infecting his wife. Not in a million years.
I'm all for strong moral stances, but they *must* be tempered with love, understanding, and compassion or they are, IMO, far worse than the sins they denigrate.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
I thought the movement was just for married couples if one of the spouses was HIV positive. I think the mvoement doesn't include single people. I could be wrong. Anyone else know more specifics about it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think the mvoement doesn't include single people.
The Catholic Church believes that sex between unmarried people is immoral, so I seriously doubt it (edit: would include single people).
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Two points to Bella Bee
RC Church Pope Married Couples HIV and they're considering it.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: Two points to Bella Bee
Leaving before this gets unproductive.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I am reminded of a joke.
The Reverend Tode of the Church of the Virgin Everyone was answering questions on the radio one fine afternoon. He had come storming into town, demanding and exorting for the end of dancing. He loudly proclaimed the evils of dancing, and the terrible destructive sins that such gyrations lead too.
So Bob called him up to ask a few questions.
"How can I help you sir?" asked the minister.
"Well," started Bob, "You are all against sinning and dancin, but there are those who claim you are against the lawful intercourse between a man and his wife."
"Heaven's forbid!" shouted the minister. "Why the good book tells us to go forth and multipy. That would be a tad difficult if we forbid such lawful relations."
"And you aren't in the business of telling my wife or I how we should hold those relations?" Bob asked.
"No sir. As long as you are married to each other, and are one man and one woman, how you consumate those relations is your choice."
"So if my wife were to be the more aggresive, or I were to bend her over the bathtub, you would have no problems?" Bob continued.
The minister cleared his throat. "Well, I don't think we should get into specifics here on this radio station, but no sir. The bible has no qualms with that."
"How about," asked Bob, enjoying himself, "if we were to make love standing up?"
"Oh no!" answered Minister Tode. "No sir. That is not allowed. Why, it might lead to dancing."
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
The Catholic Church claims that one of God's primary purposes for giving us the ability to have sex was to let us reproduce, and that condoms etc. so blatantly shut off the possibility of reproducing that using them offends God (in the way that you would probably be offended if you gave someone a fancy outfit and found out they were wearing it to cover themselves while painting their house).
The most recent Church teaching is that there's nothing wrong with enjoying sex if you're married to your partner. The rhythm method (modern versions of which, according to the Church's experts, are just as effective as anything artificial, according to various studies carried out among the poor in places such as India) is fine because God also designed us so that women naturally can't get pregnant some of the time; God simply wants us to discipline ourselves so that sex doesn't dominate our marriages.
This at least is the most charitable interpretation I can give of the Church's rules. I myself left Catholicism for no religion at all a while ago.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would caution about using the term "Church" when referring only to Vatican or Papal teaching.
A national survey in 1995 found that:
95% of Catholic women who had sex had used contraceptives.
75% of fertile Catholic women who are sexually active were using contraception.
Fewer than 3% exclusively used the "rhythm method".
A council of Bishops, theologians, and laity brought together to study the issue of birth control was overwhelmingly in favor of opening the issue. Paul VI rejected their findings out of hand.
So while the Vatican may call such teachings authoritative, I would argue that the Church does not.
The Vatican has never claimed to be a democracy. The practices of a majority of Catholics are irrelevant to its doctrine (even though the practices may arguably make that doctrine largely irrelevant.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The Vatican is not the Church.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Church teaching" does not refer to what the majority of Catholics do. It refers to what the Church actually teaches. Within a diocese, the Bishop has the final say as to what that is, subject to the Vatican. It's one thing to disagree with that teaching, it's another to misidentify the teaching.
And those teachings, to date, include the unacceptability of artificial contraception.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not just talking about what Catholics do - I am talking about what Catholics believe. I agree that that is the Vatican's position. That is not the same as saying it is the Church's position.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it is the same as saying it's the Church's position. That's what "the Church's position" means.
"Catholics' position" better describes what you're speaking of.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
well said Dag, The key is that the Church currently teaches that the use of prophalactics is a sin, even if 95% of the church doesn't agree.
and to Boothby: While I'm not 100% in line with the Church's official teachings on this matter, I am dissapointed at the way the discussion was started: as a seemingly rediculous precept held by a fringe group...
If it's because you honestly didn't know about the background of this issue then so be it, but though many may disagree with some aspects of it, this teaching has a strong moral/philosophical/theological basis that has been clearly laid out in the Catechism and other church documents. it's not some crazy unfounded practice just pushed by some crazy minority.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Wow. I didn't even realize that he might have been talking about the Catholics all along.
I can respect their views, and as far as I know, they're not trying to make condoms illegal or to even campaign against non-catholic condom users.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
We may have to disagree on this. "The Church", according to Vatican II is "the people of God". Millions of Catholics, including priests and bishops and cardinals, are as much the people of God as anyone else.
"Teaching is not a unilateral activity. One is only teaching when someone is being taught. Teaching and learning are mutually conditional." Bishop James Malone
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'm not Catholic, but I've never had the impression that Church policy traveled any direction but from the top down.
I think there's a difference between "The Church" and "Church Policy."
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmbboots, then let me change the wording:
"Official Catholic Teaching, as layed out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (that being the main source of officially endorsed Catholic teachings), is that the use of contraceptives is an improper use of one's sexuality."
I see the issue as kinda like speeding in north dakota... it's technically against the law, even if nobody necessarily thinks a speed limit is necessary and/or follows that law. However, when I got pulled over there I didn't argue with the cop because I knew that according to what was written, even if many of the state legislature don't agree with it, is that I shouldn't have been going that fast...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chris, I can understand that thinking; it is a concept that has been pretty widely promoted in recent centuries. But there have been many times when the laity arrived at the "correct" position before the hierarchy. One of the earliest and most notable was the "Arian Controversy" in the fouth century.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It may seem odd that I am making such a big deal of this. Perhaps it would make more sense if I explained why.
Prior to Vatican II, the hierarchy of the Church has gathered more and more power around Rome. Vatican II went a long way to correcting some of those abuses. Since Vatican II there has been a backlash, an attempt to undo a lot of what Vatican II accomplished. Much of that is done by promoting the idea that the Church and the hierarchy of the Church are the same thing. They are not.
I am convinced that much wrong occurs when the we start thinking that way. Decisions are made in the name of "protecting the Church" that are only protecting the power of the hierarchy.
"There is a solid principle in political science that says the governing elite of an organisation will eventually think that it is the organisation. That's a mistake that the Catholic bishops have made: thinking that they alone are the church."
"The real truth is the undeniable fact that the Catholic church is all of its members and the most important people in this church are those who are most rejected and farthest from the institutional throne rooms."
Those are two quotes from Fr. Tom Doyle, one of my favorite priests and canon law experts, on the dangers of clericalism. It is from an essay he wrote on the sexual abuse scandal. It isn't online and, at a couple of page is too long to post here. I am happy to e-mail it to anyone interested, though.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Yay for 3000-year-old taboos from the desert.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: I see the issue as kinda like speeding in north dakota... it's technically against the law, even if nobody necessarily thinks a speed limit is necessary and/or follows that law. However, when I got pulled over there I didn't argue with the cop because I knew that according to what was written, even if many of the state legislature don't agree with it, is that I shouldn't have been going that fast...
That's another reason that I insist on the distinction. While I can accept Vatican teaching to be wrong, irrelevent, or disregarded, I think it does the Church harm if we ascribe such teaching to the whole of the Church.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Saying that the "Church" is actually the congregation and not the heiarchial structure of the papacy sounds more Protestant than Catholic to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The papacy is and the apostolic succession is important to the church. It is not the only source of authority nor of correct teaching.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
TheGrimace,
quote:it's not some crazy unfounded practice just pushed by some crazy minority.
Yes, I realize that "The RC Church" (however you would like to interpret it, as long as it's correct) is not "some crazy minority." Though they are a minority, there are other religious groups far crazier.
And while my original intent was not to sneak in and poke fun at the RC Church, I did want to pose the question in a "value-neutral" sort of way, by not defining the group that held such beliefs, and see how people responded. I figure I was only being slightly disingenuous.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can respect their views, and as far as I know, they're not trying to make condoms illegal or to even campaign against non-catholic condom users.
At least not in the US. In the developing world where teh AIDs pandemic is out of control, the catholic church has official opposed condom use at every level.
quote:Yes, I realize that "The RC Church" (however you would like to interpret it, as long as it's correct) is not "some crazy minority." Though they are a minority, there are other religious groups far crazier.
The catholic church might be a minority in the US, but last time I saw the numbers they were the majority of Christians globally. Does anyone have recent numbers on that?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I don't think Boothby was refering to their relative numbers among Christians, but as compared to all non-Catholics, religious or not.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I thought that Christianity was a minority, globally.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The latest stats I've seen are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.3 billion Muslims, 1.1 billion non-religions, 0.9 billion Hindu's and it drops off dramatically from there.
So Christians are a minority, but it is the largest religion in the world by a considerable margin.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I get the feeling that the RC (radio controlled?) Church disallows any and all sexual positions that might not, somehow, even accidentally, lead to impregnation as being "sinful."
Man! What a bunch of sticks in the mud!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boothby, honey, what, exactly, are you trying to accomplish? Do you want an honest discussion about the theology of sex from a Catholic perspective. I am happy to do that - and have on this forum.
If your point is just to paint Catholics as sexually repressed, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are sexual positions that might not result in pregnancy?
-pH
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Prophylactecs do not cause adultery, promiscuity, or premarital sex. They are, however, much easier to stamp out.
Posted by Boon (Member # 4646) on :
Yes, if you consider genital to "other orifice" sex.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boon: Yes, if you consider genital to "other orifice" sex.
I consider that a different kind of sex.
When I hear "sexual position," I generally think of vaginal intercourse.
Oral sex is oral sex.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am confused as to why someone who would disregard prohibitions (such as they are) against adultery, promiscuity or pre-marital sex would be likely to obey a prohibition against prophylactics. The only point I can see for the ban as far as the "keeping people from having sex" motivation is to make them unavailable. And the people for whom they are most unavailable is likely where they are most meeded.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
pH, I am disappointed in you! You are forgetting...ears!
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Two points KM.
1) prophylactics are easier to control because, while some people may still want to use them, stores and manufacturers can be closed down if they produce or sell them.
2) If they are unavailable then some people will not have sex for fear of disease and parenting children. Not many, but some.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is why I said the only point was to make them unavailable.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: pH, I am disappointed in you! You are forgetting...ears!
I once read some Juvenile lyrics that involved nose sex.
Because nostrils are sexy.
I wonder what it says about Juvenile that he is capable of having nostril sex.
-pH
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Lets just say its nothing to sneeze at.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, interesting point on your opinion that this teaching (and possibly others) is damaging to the church as a whole. It definately explains the need to separate the church versus the church heirarchy...
My view is basically that while I don't think that the "extreme" views held on this issue and some others by official church doctrine are strictly necessary, I do think the ideas behind them are sound. therefore I accept that many/most of us aren't going to have the self-control etc to fully abide by all the strictures layed out by the clergy. However, I think having these stricter rules out there is important as a guiding line to keep us going relatively straight.
Here's an analogy (cause I like analogies)... The fences at the grand canyon are generally something like a few yards away from the edge of the cliff (it's been a while so I may be off a bit, but just assume this is true). Now the purpose of these fences is to keep us from falling in to our deaths, however, it's not strictly necessary to stay 10 yards from the cliff, and in fact impedes our view. However, I know of a lot of people that will sit on the fence (in a somewhat precarious manner) or kids that will dart through the fence to get a closer look etc... (basically that many don't strictly stay behind the fences).
now, we could move the fences closer to give a better view, with the understanding that generally people go closer than 10 yards, but likely as not even with the closer fences, you'll still have people going further forward etc... People make their judgements based on a relative distance from the strict official rules. So sometimes it's beneficial to make the rules fairly strict, knowing that they will be broken in a relatively harmless manner, instead of making them at the harmless point, but allowing that many will go the same distance from that new rule but this time into the danger zone.
I'm certainly not saying that your view is wrong, and I wouldn't necessarily say that this teaching is 100% non-damaging. I will say, however that this teaching, even if not often followed is still in a way holding Catholics back from possibly more damaging activities. If I can feel like a rebel by not wearing a condom, then maybe I won't be as tempted to break other, more damaging taboos...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grimace, to borrow your analogy I think we should teach people how to be safe without fences. How to judge how close they can get, where the ground is likely to be unstable, how to climb back from a fall, how to rescue each other. I think that this would result in a lot fewer broken bodies than making rules and teaching people (by example) to disregard them. Also, it prevents people from injuring themselves on the fence.
A heartbreaking number of people have been injured on the Catholic "fence" of sexual teaching. Both by running up against it and by crashing through it without any idea of how to cope with what is on the other side.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Grimace, I think the problem that some of us have (and I say this with a ton of respect for the Catholic *philosophy* of sex) is that the way it is presented can do tremendous damage. I agree with your example... morality is supposed to be there to keep us safe when experiencing wonderful things... but kmb and others are maintaining that church teachings on condoms are actually *causing* more damage than they prevent. I don't necessarily agree on the issue of condoms, but I can understand their point, having experienced some very negative reprecussions from church teaching on another issue.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Jim-Me, no arguments from me.
I've personally not seen any teachings that have bothered me enough to think them damaging, though the more I think about the issue of AIDS in Africa, the more I see the point about condoms being potentially damaging.
I guess part of why it generally doesn't jump out at me is that in this society most people seem to be fairly comfortable with bending/breaking the rules as they personally see fit (see earlier statistics on catholics using contraceptives anyway). however, there is the point that generally in developing countries, the folk-culture is often more rigid in promoting these kinds of rules. So perhaps African Catholics, who are more prone to be hurt by this teaching, are more likely to follow it anyway because of their culture's stricter adherance to the teachings.
I guess in my life so far I've not fully disagreed with any of the church's teachings so much as I've accepted either my own personal weaknesses or am making a gamble that we don't necessarily have to be as strict as the "church" says, even though the strictures are probably the best idea of how to be safe.
Really it all comes down in my mind to understanding what you believe and practice. if you follow the rules blindly you're going to be worse off than if you look at everything carefully and make decisions based on as full an understanding as any of us can reach.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
oh and kmb, I agree, and in the end that's definately what I'd like to see. However, I am unfortunately doubtful that that kind of utopian solution is going to happen in any concievable future. Unfortunately most people in the world seem to lack some combination of the time/energy/intelligence to spend fully understanding this kind of situation. that's even assuming that any of us are really capable of understanding the full situation. It's unfortunate that the world has jaded me so, but thems the breaks.
As for those hurt by these teachings, it's my hope that there are less of them, and/or less collective damage than the amount of pain and suffering saved by these teachings... is that the case? who knows
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have seen a lot of hurt. Adolescents convinced they were going to hell because of "impure thoughts", or worse yet, that they were sick or evil because they had these thoughts; people repressing their sexuality and never learning how to deal with it until it erupts in horrifying ways; people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely. I could go on.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
some notes on a discussion of Catholic sexual teaching.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, (I hope I'm not offending by being lazy and leaving off the "boots") I honestly dont think our ideas on the nature of sexuality really differ very much. it's basically just our views on the nature of of the church's teachings and their effects that aren't as in-line.
some of it I think is how I look/when I look to the dogmatic teachings: When I think of an issue, take sexuality for example, I try to see its potential (both good and bad). I work out how it can make life better for me and others, as well as those things about it that can be problematic and are to be avoided. Then, just as a basic checklist/guide I may refer to the official "this is right and that is wrong" teachings just as some kind of baseline.
Sure if you just read the catechism and base your entire view of sexuality on that you are going to have a skewed and probably disfunctional understanding of things, just as if you refer only/primarily straight to any kind of legal rulings for your concept of morality, it will also be skewed.
The basic statements along the lines of sexuality being a sacrament whose purpose is to bring one closer to the divine can be taken as a good baseline that I think people would benefit from. Now, my interpretation of what that baseline means in the stark terms of "is x act right or wrong" may not mesch exactly with the "church"'s extension of the same basic premise, we do share that premise. And I can still use their logic to bolster/modify my personal beliefs...
Now that I've gotten this far into the argument I've unfortunately forgotten where I was heading, but hopefully it wasn't completely useless.
One other quick throwback to the Grand Canyon analogy: An important aspect of catholicism, versus other christian denomenations, is that we take a combination of the scripture as well as historical teachings as the foundation of the faith (accepting that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others, and that Jesus didn't address every topic in detail in his time here). That being said, while teaching everyone that the key idea is not to fall in the canyon, and teaching them to mountain climb etc... doesn't still mean that certain areas shouldn't still be fenced off because someone discovered that despite appearances they are geologically unsound. So you might approach that fence and say " I'm a mountain climber, I can go past it, no prob" only to have the rocks give way and crush you despite your good survival skills...
basically, a lot of very intelligent, thoughtful and caring people took great time and faith to develop the teachings on birth control, and while I may not completely agree with their conclusions I'm going to be wary when I'm exceeding their bounds.
Perhaps a mutually agreeable change would be to back off a little and not make as many "you're going to hell if you do X" statements, but make more "based on our experience and thoughts, X is generally something to be avoided". i.e. warning signs rather than fences. But that's basically how I interpret those "rules" anyway...
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely.
Look, we all know my reputation for trolling. But I'm asking this quite seriously : How can you consider this a bad thing, even in the context of theism? If a church is imposing rules that make no sense, is it not better that its members leave for another? (Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Absolutely, Grimace. I think that we are very much on the same page. You, fortunatly, were smart, strong, or lucky enough to come to a pretty reasonable understanding with official teaching. So was I. I know an awful lot of people who weren't so lucky. Most of them grew up getting the "sex is evil" thing as children, from parents who were likewise taught.
With all official teaching. I pay attention to people that, I agree, have a great deal of knowledge that I don't. Differing is like working without a net in a lot of ways. In the case of the teachings on sex, I have given the matter a great deal of study and prayer myself in order to understand why the official policy is what it is. I have also consulted Catholic theologians whom I trust and who have spent their lives stuying and working with these issues. So I feel pretty certain that my personal philosophy is in line with God's will.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: An important aspect of catholicism, versus other christian denomenations, is that we take a combination of the scripture as well as historical teachings as the foundation of the faith (accepting that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others, and that Jesus didn't address every topic in detail in his time here).
(Italics mine.)
TheGrimace, what other Christian demoninations are you referring to that don't take a combination of scripture and historical teaching and accept that it's good to learn from the knowledge of others?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:people who, rather than submit to rules that make no sense to them, leave the Church entirely.
Look, we all know my reputation for trolling. But I'm asking this quite seriously : How can you consider this a bad thing, even in the context of theism? If a church is imposing rules that make no sense, is it not better that its members leave for another? (Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.)
KoM, because, the Church is not about either a set of rules or about avoiding hell.
There are varying degrees of teaching. Some things (more than people usually think) are negotiable. Others are foundational - things that if you don't believe them, it doesn't make sense for you to be a Catholic. These foundational things are not "rules", they are core understandings of doctrine.
And, for the record, I work on the assumption that when you are discussing things with me I can safely take you seriously. I have not yet been disappointed.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that their's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It is not clear to me how your post answers the question - in fact, you seem to be reinforcing it. What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell? You seem to be saying that people are leaving over things that are actually negotiable; sure, but so what? Why shouldn't they leave?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that there's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
It is a central tenet, I agree. But oddly enough, few of the theists on this board seem to really, really believe this when you confront them about it. And I can't say I blame them, considering the extremely unpleasant implications. Anyway, I believe I remember from previous discussions (I could be wrong) that kmbboots definitely does not believe this.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Most theist I know don't believe this, either. This has always been one of my main sticking points with religion (not to set off a time bomb or anything).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell?
Contrary to some popular opinion, for most Christians religion is not primarily about what happens after you die.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
JT, No.
KoM, the Church is about worshipping GOd, connecting to the Divine, connecting to the Divine in our fellow human beings, being nourished, participating in the Sacraments, learning with and from each other...
Jack Shea says it pretty well:
quote: Schillebeeckx opens Christ: The Experience of Jesus as Lord with, “It began with an encounter.” Our insistence is that what began as an encounter continues as an encounter. The original event of Jesus Christ was an interpersonal meeting of Jesus of Nazareth with other people. This encounter penetrated to their core person, their relationship to ultimate reality, and reconstructed it salvifically. Through his human love, divine love entered and transformed the lives of people. In this experience people recognized the presence of God; and the named the experience Spirit. Although this Jesus of Nazareth now lives in the far reaches of God as the Risen Lord, the salvific experience that he made possible continues. When this experience happens, we acknowledge that its ultimate author is his Spirit and that we are functioning as his Body. We are in relationship to one another like the revelatory relationship he had with some of his contemporaries. Through our human love for one another, inspired and supported by the Spirit of Jesus, we initiate each other into a relationship with that Ultimate Love which Jesus revealed. When this happens, the event of Jesus Christ occurs, not in the original way, but in a way dependent upon yet different from those long ago encounters. Therefore, access to the event of Jesus Christ is through our Spirit-suffused love for another which transforms us into the Body of Christ.
When that happens, it is "Church".
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Ok, and if a given person is not getting that from your church, why is it bad for them to leave?
Edit : Incidentally, those theists who insist on arguing over evolution would give you a totally different impression. Pascal's Wager is very often their second or third line of attack, or defense, however you want to look at it. In fact, I seem to recall Boris, on these boards, and Jay when he was around, using it too. It is possible they would disagree with your assessment of what their churches are for.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
ElJay, Sorry, my initial wording there is somewhat faulty. I believe the official stance of Catholicism is that Tradition is approximately equal to Scripture in importance in our belief structure. Whereas most other Christian denomenations concentrate MUCH more heavily on Scripture as the only source of authoritative doctrine.
this is of course not to say that other Christians do not value and build on previous teachings etc... but it is generally viewed as entirely subservient to Scripture, instead of more equally supportive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If they get it better somewhere else, it isn't bad. Too often they end up not getting it anywhere or deciding it doesn't exist. Often that is very damaging; I believe that it leaves them poorer.
Yes. There are a lot of theists who give a different impression. And they can be very loud about it. One of the reasons I spend time on these discussions so adamantly is to counter that impression.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
I'm trying to provoke an open discussion about the Catholic Church's desire to control the sexuality of their followers, and the damage they can cause in doing so. However, I open it up to any organization that tries to manipulate the sexual nature (ooh--that sounds wrong...) of their followers.
Your "number of people have been injured on the Catholic 'fence' of sexual teaching" is very much in the direction I was hoping this thread would head. Not to bash the Church, per se, but to discuss and critique its approach to human sexuality.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
boothby, in that case a longer discussion is in order. There are reasons for the Church's stance. SOme of them theological, some historical. I am happy to go into some of them tomorrow.
Have a good night.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
I think the key (as I see it) of the argument between KoM and kmb is this:
There are multiple reasons to belong to any religion or philosophy, chief among them in terms of Christianity (and most other major religions) are:
1) Securing a positive place in the afterlife 2) Living a good (blessed) life close to God and/or others (the precise focus here can vary a bit)
If you are going solely for #1 (for example, an extreme Pascal's Wager case) you are likely going to be missing out on living a truly good life (just as if you follow the letter of the law exactly, but don't allow yourself to stray to have fun or see why the law is the way it is)
If you are going solely for #2 then you're probably better off, as most of #1 will probably be covered, but there may be issues that can fall through the cracks and get you into trouble.
But in principle, assuming a sound religion of some sort the two goals are going to be intricately tied, so that by aiming for one you accomplish both, and are thus fulfilled.
As mentioned, most of the Theists on the board here are very open-minded and may have some beliefs in relative agreement with the following (my belief on the matter): if you live your life as best you can by whatever creed you've found to be truest then at the end you will have the chance to see through all the misunderstandings and misleadings and still make the right choice.
i.e. I believe Catholicism is the truest path (at least for me) despite the fact that I'm certain it isn't perfect. however I do think other religions have the potential to at least steer you in the right direction. and in my belief in a infinitely compassionate deity I have to believe that they will give me a chance at the end to repent (or whatever you want to call it) and see the truly right choice. i.e. maybe hinduism is closer to right and Ganesh will be meeting me when I die, explain things to me and I'll have the chance to accept him. I don't think this will happen, as I believe it will be closer to the Catholic teachings, but none of us can know for sure.
Given that thought process, it's not a good thing when people leave the church as I think it the best route to both salvation and the best life God has layed out for us, but it's not necessarily the end-all of things.
it's like if someone wanders off the road, sure that's a bad thing, but they still might make it to their destination, we just don't think it's the best route.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote: What is the purpose of your church, which makes it a bad thing for people to leave, if it isn't about avoiding your hell?
Contrary to some popular opinion, for most Christians religion is not primarily about what happens after you die.
Sadly, it doesn't seem this way, probably because the most visible Christians are those who are the most adament about fire and brimstone. Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames, anyone?
I think that if you're following a religion to avoid hell, you don't really have faith.
-pH
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
booth, are you asking for the reasoning behind these teachings or are you asking for our opinions on why that reasoning is sound/incomplete/wrong?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:JT, No.
If this answers the question that I think it does, have I misread or misinterpreted the 1st commandment? Kind of another topic, if you'd rather cover it through email.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The question I was answering was this:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Unless you are going to assert that there is only one church that lets you avoid hell, which I don't seem to recall you believing.
Isn't a central tenet of most faiths that their's is the one true path to the afterlife? In other words, isn't that exactly the case?
I'm afraid I didn't give your query the attention it deserved. dkw did in stating that it really wasn't about what happens after we die.
Also, Catholicism specifically states that:
quote: It follows that the separated Churches[23] and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.
From DECREE ON ECUMENISM - UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO
edit to add: Regarding the First Commandment, I don't recall it saying anything about the afterlife.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Grimace,
If there is any reasoning behind why certain totally enjoyable (by both poarticipants) but also totally non-procreational sexual axcts are considered immoral by the Church, I'd love to hear them.
Whether followers of that Church support that particular doctrine is irrelevant, it appears that Church Doctrine restricts the sexual acts of its followers to certain positions, and (at the same time) pretty much mandates "intent."
So, yeah--what is the "reasoning" behind those teachings.
And, while we're at it, does anyone here think that those teachings are correct? I mean, (and this will be the trick) people who are not by their own unique natures "prudish."
Please note that I do not mean to use the term "prudish" as derogatory. The term "reserved," I guess, would work as well, though it doesn't have the inherent sexual connotations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
boothy,
I know that you are asking Grimace, but perhaps it would help to understand a bit of the history. Remember, the Church goes back a long way and (rightfully) is slow to change in general. This is an area where I believe we started off on the wrong track early on and our reluctance to change - although necessary in many areas of doctrine - has kept us from correcting course.
The early Church "fathers", especially Paul, were very infulenced by Greek Stoicism, particularly that of Seneca. The concept of Stoicism that "stuck" was the division between reason and "the passions" (fear, pleasure, etc.). The passions were held - not just by Christians - to be an impediment to the life of reason or, for Christians, a life of "spirit". The idea that these parts of human nature could and should be divided was not a Christian idea, but rather one that was quite common in ancient philosophy during that time and earlier. Asceticism was considered to be a valuable disciplne and a path to a life of the spirit.
Several early theologians, ones who had a powerful infulence on the early Church in many really woonderful ways, carried this even further. St. Jerome and St. Ambrose for example. But mostly we are influenced by St. Augustine. I love St. Augustine, but he did have some issues. Sex for him was something that kept him away from God. It was a distraction, an addiction even. So the formula for living in relationship with God, for him, meant abstinence.
This was, in my opinion, a lot like having someone who drowned everytime he went near a bathtub teach water safety.
Hope that is helpful to the discussion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
to see how things are changing (lightning speed for us) - as well as the article on condoms posted above. That is assumning that you are really interesting in understanding instead of just criticising.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
OK; I'll take a look (just not at work!)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: Whereas most other Christian denomenations concentrate MUCH more heavily on Scripture as the only source of authoritative doctrine.
. . . but it is generally viewed as entirely subservient to Scripture, instead of more equally supportive.
Again, you're saying "most other" Christian denominations, and I'd like to know specifically what denominations you are referring to.
I have been a member of more than one mainstream protestant denomination, and niether of them considered Scripture the only source of authoritative doctrine. I think you are falling into the common trap of making broad statements about organizations of which you are not a member based on limited experience. I do not doubt that you have encountered a church or some people who act as you say. But most Christian denominations outside of Catholic? Unless you can provide me with the names of the denominations you are referring to, so I can check their doctrinal statements, I do not believe it.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Ooooh! Religion... dicey territory. kmbboots - posted May 03, 2006 12:58 PM
I am confused as to why someone who would disregard prohibitions (such as they are) against adultery, promiscuity or pre-marital sex would be likely to obey a prohibition against prophylactics.
No offense to the Catholics, but I knew a Catholic in college who refused to use condoms even though he was having sex regularly, or as regularly as he possibly could.
I asked him why he didn't use condoms, and he said because he was Catholic. I pointed out that that didn't actually answer the question. What did being Catholic have to do with it? He pointed out that the Pope said he shouldn't do it. I saw I was in a losing battle, so I though it better to get to my own point.
I pointed out to him that having sex was a sin. He had already chosen to disregard the church and the Pope by engaging in pre-marital sex. It would seem reasonable that if he was going to sin, that he would sin in a responsible manner and attempt to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease.
That made perfect sense to me but he wasn't buying it. I tried to point out that if he was going to sin, he should at least sin to his own benefit and for his own safety.
The Pope says no SEX. Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin.
The Pope says no Condoms. Well, they are inconvenient, and an added expense, so he had no problem conforming to this rule.
I tried to get him to justify his position, but he refused to do it. He had chosen his path and that was that. I will add that he mostly had sex with Catholic girls, so maybe there is some saving grace in that, though I don't personally see it.
The moral of this story is 'wise up, if you are going to chose to sin, at least chose to sin responsibly'.
pH - posted May 03, 2006 12:40 PM There are sexual positions that might not result in pregnancy?
This is a sign of the sorry state of sexual education in our modern world. Of course, it may hinge on how you define 'sexual positions', but there is a wide range of non-vaginal sexual activity that greatly lowers, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
frottage - rubbing your bodies together to achieve sexual gradification.
Usually the man will trap his penis between his body and his parner's body and make thrusting motions. As a riskier alternative, he may rub his penis vertically against the outside of the Vagina to reach orgasm.
The risk? Sperm are great swimmers and in the right environment can live for several days. The sperm may come in contact with extrenal viginal fluid and swim, eventually, into the uterus.
Anal sex - no explanation needed. But, again, there is the risk that sperm can swim into the vagina. Also, it's probably a pain in the ... ah better move on.
Oral Sex - no explanation needed. Safe from pregnancy, but not from disease, though for certain diseases, the risk is low.
Mutual Mastrubation- either simultaneously or separately, the partners pleasure each other. Still some risk, but a high degree of safety.
Mastrubation while watching each other - self-pleasure in the company of a friend. Probably very safe.
I am a strong advocate for comperhensive thorough morals-based sex education (not that not an oxymoron), and from my examples above, a believer that sexual relationships should progress in stages. You don't jump right to intercourse until you are absolutely confident that a real relationship is possible.
By the way, I can explain in THREE SIMPLE WORDS, three simple BELIEVABLE words, why kids should not have sex, or at least why they should be extremely cautious about it. Further, those three word ARE NOT 'God said so'.
What are they? I'll leave you to guess.
Just a few thoughts.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin.
You're taking an awful lot for granted or calling a lot of people "unhealthy" without reason.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
He's also assuming that not using condoms means he's taking no care at all and I find it interesting that his friend has to "justify" his choice to have sex without condoms.
He's also showing a grave misunderstanding, IMO, of what sin is and what moral teaching is supposed to accomplish.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin.
You're taking an awful lot for granted or calling a lot of people "unhealthy" without reason.
No kidding. The average age for guys to get married in my circles is early twenties (probably 23 on average, if I had to guess). The VAST majority (I would estimate in excess of 95%) will have no sexual experience when they marry -- but not for lack of desire, and not because they are "unhealthy." Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:This is a sign of the sorry state of sexual education in our modern world. Of course, it may hinge on how you define 'sexual positions', but there is a wide range of non-vaginal sexual activity that greatly lowers, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
Actually, I was referring to the fact that to ME, the phrase "sexual position" implies position during intercourse. Any other activities are referred to separately and, to me, are not included in the "sexual position" label. More like "sexual activity." As I said in a later post.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The VAST majority (I would estimate in excess of 95%) will have no sexual experience when they marry
I'd be willing to bet quite a bit of money that you're wrong about this. I've known plenty of Orthodox Jews who have had pre-marital sex.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When I say "my circles," I am limiting that far more than the phrase "Orthodox Jews" would.
Try the phrase (which I loathe and detest, but it is what gets used) "ultra-Orthodox" and you'll be a lot closer.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:He's also assuming that not using condoms means he's taking no care at all and I find it interesting that his friend has to "justify" his choice to have sex without condoms.
I'm disturbed by the "you don't need condoms for safe sex" drift I'm picking up in this, especially in relation to college age kids.
rivka, Still, I'd be extremely willing to make that bet. It'd be free money.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Squicky do you really need me to elaborate on all the ways you can have safe and responsible sex without a condom?
and "justify why you didn't use a condom last time you had sex" is a hell of a lot more invasive and judgemental than the "justify not driving a Toyota Prius" nonsense I was subjected to in another thread.... and that was ridiculous enough.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, maybe not, Squicky - with males, there's no way to actually test for virginity, so you're going to have to take people's word for it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: Although apparently, there is some movement in the high-up circles of the Catholic Church to allow the use of condoms by the HIV positive.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/europe/654/section/vatican.to.issue.document.on.condom.use.for.aids.victims/1.htm Vatican to issue Document on Condom Use for AIDS victims
quote: VATICAN CITY (AP) - At Pope Benedict's request, the Vatican is preparing a document about condom use by those with AIDS, a top cardinal said in a published interview.
"Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with AIDS," Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican's health care ministry, was quoted as saying in Sunday's La Repubblica newspaper.
It looks like they may finally not condemn the use of condoms for HIV, but they're likely to come out saying it's a "lesser sin" issue compared to knowingly transmitting AIDS.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
I'm with you.
Of course, I'm also of the opinion that one shouldn't even engage in oral sex with someone with whom one is not willing to have intercourse, although many college age kids seem to believe that oral sex is no big deal.
Gonorrhea of the throat, anyone?
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: [QB]
quote: VATICAN CITY (AP) - At Pope Benedict's request, the Vatican is preparing a document about condom use by those with AIDS, a top cardinal said in a published interview.
"Soon the Vatican will issue a document about the use of condoms by persons who have grave diseases, starting with AIDS," Javier Cardinal Lozano Barragan, who is in charge of the Vatican's health care ministry, was quoted as saying in Sunday's La Repubblica newspaper.
That's certainly a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will allow anyone the use of condoms to prevent disease, and not only people who know that they are HIV+. The goal should be to prevent the spread of HIV as much as possible, not just with those who know that they have it.
It saddens me that the goal of religion should be to enrich the lives of its practitioners, and make the earth a better place to live, and in too many cases, it does just the opposite. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, I'm sure you're all kinds of safe without condoms and all, but it's dangerously irresponsible to spread the idea in a wide context that condoms are not needed for safe sex.
On the contrary, I think it's far more dangerous to spread the idea that condoms are a major part, much less central to, safe and responsible sex. Condoms aren't long-term effective at preventing the spread of herpes or hpv (the two most common venereal diseases) and there are far more effective means of birth control.
And there is *no* substitute for a disease free partner you can trust. Contrary to your apparent belief, it is entirely possible... in fact, it's quite easy... to get through college limiting yourself in that way. Inflating condoms (pun intended) is, IMO, far more dangerous and irresponsible than refusing to give them out.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
People lie. And in guys, most STIs have no symptoms. And even if you DO make them get tested, how to you know that they've actually gone or that the tests they tell you are the ones that they actually got?
On top of that, there are plenty of people in college who don't want monogamous relationships. I think it's very important to stress that one should use condoms when one goes and bangs that dreamy frat boy only to do the walk of shame across campus the next morning and never even attempt to speak to him again.
And these "far more effective methods of birth control" are also far more expensive and difficult to obtain. Aside from the fact that, as I have said many times before, a lot of women have serious side effects from using hormonal birth control.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: People lie. And in guys, most STIs have no symptoms. And even if you DO make them get tested, how to you know that they've actually gone or that the tests they tell you are the ones that they actually got?
I've always found asking for a copy of the lab results to be effective.
But yeah, I'm on the Squicky/pH side of this debate. Condoms aren't 100% effective, but for most people they're a lot better than the other options, and while responsible and mature adults can find other ways to manage their personal lives I think the vast majority of people would take the condoms aren't necessary message and say great and head off with the best of intentions. . . and then not take the other percautions that are necessary without condoms.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Perhaps I have a higher opinion of the general public than you guys do. More to the point, people who are going to skip out on the other precautions with "the best of intentions" are also going to find they forgot to bring a condom along and say "ah, well, it's ok." That argument cuts both ways.
I'd also like to note, pH, that two of your objections don't really address what I said:
"people lie" - well yes they do, which is why I said you need to be able to trust your partner. You can, as ElJay said, ask for a copy of the test, or you can, like me in my present relationship, spend enough time with someone that you're willing to take the bet that they aren't lying to you about it. Admittedly less sure than getting test results with them, but taking the time to be aware of your partner is usually worth it and, well, kinda fun.
"not everyone wants to be monogamous" - Well, I *did* say "a partner" but it works for multiple partners, too. Many polyamorous people have a closed group who are all tested. It is possible to find more than one person you can trust.
I'd like to reiterate that I am not arguing against condom usage here. I think my two main points stand:
1) Condoms are far less effective at stopping some VDs than people give them credit for and false security-- the idea that using a condom is the essential point of safe sex-- is extremely dangerous. If you want to argue that it's less dangerous than not making condoms availible, fine. I think handing someone a condom and calling it "safe sex" is comparable to giving someone a can of pepper spray and saying they are protected from assault.
2) It's absurd to go up to someone and demand that they justify their non-use of a condom. I'm not very reticent about discussing such things, and I would be very put off by someone's attempt to do so.
I should also note that I'm not attributing particularly wise behavior to Blue Wizard's friend... he could be as idiotic and irresponsible as Blue Wizard paints him. What I am trying to say is that throwing a condom at such a person and saying "put a helmet on that soldier" is not remotely fixing the problem. To pretend otherwise is, IMO, more damaging.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlueWizard,
It seems that you were perplexed by that attitude as well.
Sex is never "safe". It is a powerful gift and anything powerful carries risks. Especially if done right. For me, doing sex right means extraordinary vulnerablility and openess. This is not "safe", even with a trusted, beloved, partner. It is like a swinging on a trapeze - better and more graceful (and grace-filled) when you trust your partner to catch you - but not safe. That is part of its beauty.
I do think that condoms are important to protect people (to an extent) from the physical repercussions of sex. But, too often in this age of "sexual revolution", we try to insulate ourselves from the risks both with latex and by shutting ourselves off from the depth and power of sex. This doesn't make it safe; and it doesn't make it good.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb just put this well in my opinion, and I'll assert my very flawed summary of some/one of the main points behind the church's views on sex:
By doing anything to make sex a less extrodinary/special/unifying act you lessen it. The theological logic behind this is, by closing yourself to the life-making (and in my mind unarguably most amazing/special/important) aspect of sex, you are degrading the whole act. there are two important facets of sex in the church's eyes: 1) To create life 2) To join a husband and wife to one being (and give both pleasure)
When you remove effectively half the point, you make the act much less powerful right then, and you make it less powerful in general because the two aspects are no longer tied.
Consider a very weak analogy: I like Jello. As a kid I would greatly look forward to family gatherings and holidays because someone would usually make Jello. When I lived in the dorms, Jello was available at every meal and so I took advantage of it much more often than I had before. Unfortunately this had two effects: 1) I appreciated Jello less as it was always available, and there was no special hullabaloo needed to get it. 2) There was one less reason to be excited about family gatherings
The same is true of sex. Even assuming I am married and monogomous, if I can just have sex at the drop of a hat with no need to think of reprocussions etc then it lessens the act compared to if we had to make sure we were both completely on the same page, willing to bring new life into the world and add to the family...
As for the whole Tradition thing, I'm sorry I don't have better backup on this. I'm reaching back to theology notes from years ago which I don't have around anymore. To the best of my knowledge in any kind of official cannon form, Catholicism is among very few Christian religions that calls out the Tradition of the Church as approximately equal in authority to the Scripture. Other denominations that may/probably have similar views would be the Anglican and Orthodox churches. Effectively we're also among the few that have enough of an established hierarchy for that kind of claim to make sense as well... it was not meant at all to be a sleight to other churches, just a statement that Catholicism (I believe) puts more weight on previous teaching without necessarily requiring it all to relate directly back to scripture. The whole presence of Papal Encyclicals, Canon Law, Doctors of the Church etc... Though this argument is largely an unrelated topic to the main discussion at hand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Grimace. I should state for the record that, for me (and in contradition to you and the Vatican), neither marrying my partner or having children is necessary for that kind of extratordinary/special/unifying - I would say transformative - act.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote: there are two important facets of sex in the church's eyes: 1) To create life 2) To join a husband and wife to one being (and give both pleasure)
When you remove effectively half the point, you make the act much less powerful right then, and you make it less powerful in general because the two aspects are no longer tied.
According to that logic having sex while you're already pregnant is "less powerful." Without further elaboration, I will respectfully disagree with this argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
There is certainly a balance to be struck between sex only as a special ritual, and sex casual as sneezing. I think modern American teenagers swing too far in the sneezing direction. But I also think the Catholic church, along with most other versions of Christianity, has been way too far in the only-for-procreation direction for the past millennium or so. And really, I think if you are going to err, better to do so on the side of sneezing. Practice makes perfect, and besides, sex is good for you. It's about the only exercise some people get.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Sorry, I forgot to mention another important aspect of the Chruch's view on Sex... It is meant to unify the husband, wife AND God... and by closing yourself to the possibility of life you are closing yourself from God. (or at least it's a overly simplified summary of it)
Basically I'd strongly reccomend reading the catechism's statements on the matter (I'll provide links if I can)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grimace, you will have to trust me on this. I do not advocate actions that close me off to God. Sex is a sacrament for me - a sign and symbol of God's love.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
Keep in mind that I'm not saying it's perfect, just explaining what the logic is.
Keep in mind though that the key is NOT: "to have sex in order to procreate" it IS "to be open to the act of procreation". So while having sex while pregnant will not result in further procreation, you've already shown your openess to new life, and you're not actively doing anything to hinder it, it's just not an issue. Similar to if you are barren, it doesn't mean it's immoral to have sex, because you aren't actively interfering with the act.
As for "natural" methods such as the rythem method which are specifically intended to avoid procreation while still engaging in sex... they are a much more grey area, but the basic logic is that since you are not adding any external things to the act it's still open to life, just hoping to steer it away from that route. But I freely admit that this is a questionable argument at best.
kmb, as for the marriage thing... <shrug> In my opinion, the mindset is the important thing more than the actual ceremony etc... (i.e. my best friend has "known" that his fiance would be his wife for a year or so, and wont be getting married for another year or two for financial reasons, and I have no real issues with them sleeping together...)
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:And really, I think if you are going to err, better to do so on the side of sneezing. Practice makes perfect, and besides, sex is good for you. It's about the only exercise some people get.
Err on the side that increases the incidence of STDs, illegitimate children, and emotional distress, for the sake of exercise? Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I think this discussion is interesting. I still see the idea that natural methods leave open possibilities to be simply inadequate. The proponents of natural methods seem to say that they are equally effective to other methods which would leave the possibilities about equal. Also, starting from the premise that all things are possible for God, there seems to be no reason that any method would be too hard for him to overcome if that was his will.
I can see a bit more a mental difference in the participants depending on the method used but I think that is very user dependent. For me, a requirement to engage in sex with someone is a willingness to have a child with that person. I am not trying to have a child and am actively trying not to conceive but I certainly am open to the fact that it is a possible consequence of my choice.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Sorry, I forgot to mention another important aspect of the Chruch's view on Sex... It is meant to unify the husband, wife AND God...
I'm fairly certain that the church speaks out rather vocally against threesomes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
..and if you take the whole Trinity into account, you're having yourself an orgy!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, I don't think an 'illegitimate' child is a disaster; I disagree about which side causes the more emotional distress; and in any case condoms prevent both STDs and children. You should perhaps be aware that I am looking at these things from a Norwegian perspective, where these things are indeed much smaller problems.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Good point. When you're clinging to barren rocks in a frozen wasteland, who cares whose kids are whose?
(In case you're curious, I'm joking.)
[ May 05, 2006, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I don't know about the rest of you, but I find that there are a lot of different sex acts that have nothing to do with procreation, bring me closer to my partner and bring me closer to God, in that they typically end in a loud, repetitive call out to Him: "Oh, God, Oh, God, Oh, God!"
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Oh, brother.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
Just what does it mean, though, to get "Closer to God" when you're having sex? The state of bliss during orgasm? Can atheists have the same enjoyment as theists, since we don't have a God to get closer to?
And how does it work that I have to use certain, specific sexual positions in order to do it? Is God checking us out? Does he say things like, "How does he make his back do that? No closeness to me for them!"
But in all seriousness--what IS this added dimension?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If you are serious about getting an answer to that question, you're going about it in a less effective way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Becoming closer to a beloved human being, experiencing being loved, is touching love which is Divine.
It is explained pretty well in the encylical actually. Did you get a chance to read it?
It isn't about "position". In theory, part of that tapping into the Divine is the possibility of creating new life.
For a long time (did you read my long post on the history of this?) pleasure for its own sake was considered bad, so the only part of sex that was recognized as good was the procreative part. That is changing.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I have never been able to reconcile the idea that it's OK for a couple to actively try not to conceive by using the rhythm method, but it's not OK to try not to conceive by other means.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Ouch, I didn't think any one would read what I said much less respond. But for the most part I stand by what I said.
Some people seem to have objected to my statement -
"Sorry, but being a healthy male college student, he was certainly going to ignore that particular sin."
Admitedly, that was a clumsily worded sentence. I'm just saying that this particular person had a healthy sexual appetite, and had no qualms about expressing it. He also has a general disregard for authority, legal and religious. Further, I seriously doubt that you will find any variation of Christian Religion other than a few fringe groups who will not agree that Pre-Marital Sex is a sin. Some seem to question my moral judgement on that issue. Although, I think we can all acknowledge a few extremely rare circumstances where it would not be; trapped on a deserted island for example with no sanctifing authority.
In no way, did I intent to imply that people who make a different choice are in some way unhealthy. I simply meant that this was a healthy man with healthy appetite that he had no qualms satisfying.
Now, specifically to this one man who was my close friend, I felt more than justified in asking him to justify his obvious hypocricy. He had already chosen to sin. Once he was past that, he was faced, in my opinion, with the question of sinning responsibly or irresponsibly. In my opinion, he chose to sin irresponsibly. I don't believe one can be selective in their sins; Sin is sin.
True from the context of sin, he was compounding the sin by adding another, but he had already establish that the concept of sin was not going to prevent him from getting what he wanted. So, the sin element was already decided; he didn't care. But in his sin, he chose to ignore a sin that helped him get laid, but ignored the potentially extreme consequences that could have resulted from that sin.
So, I, a non-Catholic, can only reasonable conclude that if you are going to sin, at least do so safely and responsibly.
Regarding my explanations of safe and safer alternative sexual practices. That was in direct response to some one who asked -
"There are sexual positions that might not result in pregnancy?"
Again, I acknowledged that my statement hinge on my definition of 'sexual positions'.
Part of my point was that kids today are much much to quick to leap into sexual activity. At least with a staged approach, a girl has a chance to take some time and determine if this guy is really serious before she commits to 'going all the way'.
Further, I think kids today jump much to quickly into oral sex. Though I note it is usually the girl giving the oral sex. My advice to any very young women out there would be when your alleged boyfriend brings up oral sex, ask him to go first. Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
One additional point, that I think all girls should know. This is a squicky point that most people would rather avoid discussing, but I think it is critical for girls to know.
Sadly, for nearly all boys, and a substantial number of men, sex is just an elaborate form of (the squicky part) matrubation. When a guy tries to talk a girl into oral sex, he's not thinking about a relationship or anything remotely along that line. He is thinking of his own pleasure. In a sense, the girl is merely an uncooperative device in his (squicky again) masturbatory fantasies.
Now, any girl faced with that request should ask herself if that's what she really wants? Does she want to be nothing be a wet warm device that satisfies this man? I really don't think so. And since the guy is looking at it from a self-satisfaction point of view, asking him to go first, to give her pleasure, is probably going to put an end to that particular fantasy very quickly. If he does say yes, if nothing else it indicates a level of commitment.
Now personally I don't think pre-marital sex is a sin, but at the same time, I do not claim that it is universally sin free. It is sinful in a context, and that context is found in the three magic words that I decline to tell you. All sin is found in those three words. And no it really is NOT 'God said so'.
Don't know if I made it better or worse, but there it is.
Steve/BluewWizard
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote: Part of my point was that kids today are much much to quick to leap into sexual activity. At least with a staged approach, a girl has a chance to take some time and determine if this guy is really serious before she commits to 'going all the way'.
Further, I think kids today jump much to quickly into oral sex. Though I note it is usually the girl giving the oral sex. My advice to any very young women out there would be when your alleged boyfriend brings up oral sex, ask him to go first. Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
Because all girls are so into getting oral sex, right? And guys are, by default, not into giving?
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
It seems to me that kmbboots is saying what Paul did. Rules serve to cause infractions, because they're imposed from the outside. The only hope is to renew your mind.
[edit: Didn't see page 2 and 3. This is in response to last post on page 1 ]
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
If my "alleged girlfriend" asked me to "give first" I'd be pretty happy.
But I understand your point about women giving oral sex more often than men. I don't think changing that will make oral sex less frequent, though.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm kind of of the opinion that if you have to ask...
-pH
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
kmbboots,
This appears to be the critical passage from the Encyclical:
quote:Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man's great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing
I don't see his point. If I am reading him correctly (and I admit that I may not be), he seems to be claiming that to have sex for reasons other than procreation (the biological function for which sex evolved) is to, somehow relegate it to the purely biological sphere, thus making it "debased."
I await correction.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
By the way, no one should ever "jump in" to oral sex. You could put someone's eye out.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
kmbboots - May 05, 2006 09:44 AM "Sex is never "safe". It is a powerful gift and anything powerful carries risks ... For me, doing sex right means extraordinary vulnerablility and openess."
"I do think that condoms are important to protect people (to an extent) from the physical repercussions of sex. But, too often in this age of "sexual revolution", we try to insulate ourselves from the risks both with latex and by shutting ourselves off from the depth and power of sex."
I think kmbboots is on the right track here, and has touched on the three magic words related to why kids shouldn't have sex.
While I am a very strong advocate of complete and comprehensice sex education, too often the instuctors can not give a moral, logcial, reasonable, and most important, believable foundation for why kids should NOT have sex without resorting to religion, and religion is never going to be accepted as a reason. Saying to kids 'because God said so' is roughly the same as saying nothing at all, and in some cases worse than saying nothing at all.
But kmbboots has touched on the reason why from a very practical stand point, there is great risk in sex, risk that goes far beyond getting a disease or getting pregnant. There is tremendous power here that is not immediately recongised by teens who only see the mechanics and pleasure of it.
Because secular sex education is unable to find this moral, but non-religious, foundation, they are stuck with nothing but mechanics, and that tremendously fails in the effort to put sex into a practical perspective.
For a majority of young participants, the greatest risk of sex is emotional. It is the risk of betrayal, of being casually used and, in a sense, thrown away. Remember what I said about sex for young guys simply being a more elaborate form of mastrubation. That steals the humanity from the female (or male in some cases) partner. That reduces another human being to an object, and that brings the risk of emotional pain. Some one trusts you deeply and completely, and then you just throw them away like so much used tissue paper.
Trust me, you have never felt pain until you have felt the pain of a heartache, or the pychological pain of feeling worthless and unloved. Even when both partners enter into the act willingly, there is still great risk. Once kids are made to understand the more abstract risks, and the potential for risks and patterns that will effect a persons life negatively for their entire lives. Once the true and complete risk of sex are known, I think teens would proceed a little more cautiously.
I think this is reflected in the prevalence of oral sex among young people. Notice, as I illstrated before, that it is usually one sided. That to me is a strong indication that this is pure mechanics. That it is simply a guy engaged in a more complex form of mastrubation, and I can't believe that girls will let themselves be used and degraded that way.
Because oral sex for a young guy is an elaborate form of mastrubation, I say, if the girl asks the guy to go first, that really will put an end to 90% of the oral sex that occurs among young people. It's not about a shared encounter or experience, it's about self-pleasure and there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
Another tip that is sure to kill a young guys requests for oral sex. More than likely the guy is trying to talk the girl into it, and more than likely, greedy as he is, he doesn't want to pull out at the last moment. So, he will try to convince the girl that there is nothing wrong with getting 'fluid' in her mouth. That it's perfectly natural, perfectly normal, and perfectly safe. Well, if he really believes that, then tell him to put some in his mouth and see how quickly his attitude changes.
Since I have greatly strayed from the central subject, let's get back to condoms. No they are not perfect, but they are something; they do offer a level of important protection. Seat belts and air bags are not perfect, but just because they don't help in each and every accident, doesn't mean we should disregard them. Just because one in a million people might suffer injury, doesn't mean we should leave the other 999,999 people unprotected.
The problem again is that too many sex ed instructors are unable to put thing into the proper perspective. The implication is that if you use a condom you are safe, but under the best of circumstances, you are merely safer, and condoms do nothing to protect from emotional vulnerability.
I believe earlier in this thread I gave a long list of alternative sexual practices, something I referred to as a 'staged' approach to sex. I also pointed out that some of those restricted methods of sex still carried the risk of pregnancy. 'Virgin Birth' while rare, is not unheard of, and I am speaking practically here, not religiously. It is possible to get pregnant without having intercourse, again, while I recommend young people start with some of these milder alternative methods, I also highly recommend that they use some method of birth control; most logically condoms and spermacide.
One last point in this long hyper-rant about the inadequacies of secular and religious sex education. Again, it has to do with the inability to establish perspective. Certainly, any competent, and I use the term loosely, sex ed teacher can not avoid the more extreme sex practices and the alternative sex practices, but acknowledging the existance of bondage, fetishes, and other sexual practices is pointless if no prespective is established.
I will use oral sex as an example. Yes, oral sex exists. Yes, some people engage in it, some people enjoy it. BUT, just because somebody is doing it doesn't mean everybody is doing it, and it certainly doesn't mean you have to do it. I can hear every young guy saying 'everybody's doing it' to his girlfried. But everybody is not doing it. Just as everybody is not engaging in bondage. So, again, the reasonable perspective is, yes, some people do this, but not everybody does it, and you certainly don't have to do it if it doesn't appeal to you. Simple as that.
Thank you for allowing me to rant and rave endlessly.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: For a majority of young participants, the greatest risk of sex is emotional. It is the risk of betrayal, of being casually used and, in a sense, thrown away. Remember what I said about sex for young guys simply being a more elaborate form of mastrubation. That steals the humanity from the female (or male in some cases) partner. That reduces another human being to an object, and that brings the risk of emotional pain. Some one trusts you deeply and completely, and then you just throw them away like so much used tissue paper. ...
Because oral sex for a young guy is an elaborate form of mastrubation, I say, if the girl asks the guy to go first, that really will put an end to 90% of the oral sex that occurs among young people. It's not about a shared encounter or experience, it's about self-pleasure and there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
This doesn't have to be an issue. Just like condoms can go a long way towards protecting people from STD, sex education can go a long way to protecting people from emotional trauma.
If we're talking about adults here, or relative adults, and they're consenting, there's not reason that they can't treat each other with respect, or both enjoy sexual activities. It sounds like you're saying that women shouldn't give men oral sex, because they won't get it back, and that's not fair. If so, preventing both partners from practicing isn't going to make them better
It's really an odd turn to the discussion. I've never heard the argument that teens should abstain from sex because they won't like it, and they'll have hurt feelings after. Everything about being a teenager hurts your feelings.
I am not suggesting that teens should be out having sex, but this seems like such a stretch for a reason not to do so. In my mind, the reason teens shouldn't have sex is because they're not mature enough to reliably use their head instead of their hormones to make the choice. STDs and teen-pregnancy are the important issues to me. You can get over a bad relationship, but herpies is for life.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
I suspect that you are basing this on people that you know or some actual basis, but what you're saying sounds so foreign to me. It seems to me that whoever wants the oral sex (male or female) tends to perform it on their partner first with the hope that they will reciprocate. Then again, perhaps the people that I know are the abnormal ones.
quote:there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
I disagree.
Posted by Chungwa (Member # 6421) on :
I somehow missed that quote. And I also disagree, very strongly. Many of my favourite sexual experiences involve me not being pleasured.
I'm sure you all wanted to know that. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote: Ask the guy to pleasure the girl first. Personally, I think that one request would cut out about 90% of the oral sex that is occurring.
Actually, statistics show that this is a false assumption.
I read an article in Reason that referenced a CDC study:
quote:A study by the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released in September 2005, that found 25 percent of 15-year-old girls and half of 17-year-olds had engaged in oral sex.
...
The study did say something about one aspect of the alleged oral sex craze, something that contradicts conventional wisdom. Girls and boys, it turns out, are about equally likely to give and to receive. Actually, at least among younger adolescents, boys overall reported more oral sex experience than girls, but both boys and girls were more likely to report receiving oral sex than giving it—which suggests a lot of respondents are fibbing.
This finding was so counterintuitive that some “experts” chose to disbelieve it: Joe McIllhaney Jr., chairman of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, told The Washington Post he doubted that girls were really enjoying oral sex: “I’d like to know a whole lot more about the pressure boys put on girls.” Others, such as James Wagoner of the reproductive health organization Advocates for Youth, argued that the new data subverted the stereotype of boys as predators and girls as prey.
quote:BlueWizard: there is no self-pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
Another disagreement here.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Perhaps what Wizard meant was that there is no selfish pleasure in pleasuring someone else.
It's still not entirely true, as even the most self-centered jerk in the world could still enjoy the idea of someone else really, really liking something he's doing to them, even if it doesn't give him direct physical pleasure.
But still. I think his real point was that the motivations behind wanting to be pleasured are sometimes different from the motivations behind pleasuring another, and if someone has a purely selfish motivation for the former, suggesting the latter might be a good way to find that out.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Puppy "Perhaps what Wizard meant was that there is no selfish pleasure in pleasuring someone else."
"But still. I think his real point was that the motivations behind wanting to be pleasured are sometimes different from the motivations behind pleasuring another, and if someone has a purely selfish motivation for the former, suggesting the latter might be a good way to find that out."
Yes, puppy has a much closer handle on it (no pun intended). I was not speaking universally of pleasuring someone else, I was speaking in what I thought was a well defined context.
Certainly, there is pleasure in given someone else pleasure, but there is a limit to it, and the limit is when the person receiving the pleasure is a greedy self-serving bastard who can't wait to dump you and run off and tell his friends. Who, by the way, will probably all be calling you next weekend.
In situations where giving pleasure is truly a pleasure, I suspect that there are other aspects of the relationship beyond those few minute (or seconds) of given pleasure that balance it off. In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
Just so we are clear, all statements are IMO.
So, does that help?
Steve/Bluewizard
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlueWizard: In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
First, I think there's a myth that women are the unwilling partners in sex, and that men are aggressors, tricking or coercing women into sex for the selfish pleasure of the man. In my experience, and from what I've discussed with friends, this is far from the case.
As to the idea that men need to "make love" for it to be good for the woman, I don't believe that either. First of all, either or both partners can be really bad, and the sex can be unsatisfying, even if they're "making love", however you want to define that.
Second, why does sex have to be a "mutually shared experience taking place on many levels?" Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As to there being no self gratification...
There are plenty of guys and girls out there who pride themselves on their mad crazy sex skills and who employ these skills merely to boost their own egos.
-pH
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:BlueWizard: My statement that challenging a guy to 'play fair' elimintating 90% of requests for oral sex, is more of an illustation than an example, but especially amoung very young people, I think it is a very valid illustration. It takes a certain degree of maturity in a guy to make the transition between having sex and making love. Until that transition comes, nearly all sex for men is an elaborate form of mastrubation. It's self-pleasure, not a mutually shared experience taking place on many levels.
Whether you think it's a valid illustration of anything or not, it's still statistically false.
Furthermore, "having sex" vs. "making love" is a false dichotomy. Sex takes many forms, and restricting it to such black-and-white categorization is wrong. I agree with MightyCow here:
quote:Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex. That doesn't make it a bad thing.
Sex is different for every couple, and can vary widely even between different nights for the same couple.
quote:BlueWizard: In situations where giving pleasure is truly a pleasure, I suspect that there are other aspects of the relationship beyond those few minutes (or seconds) of given pleasure that balance it off. In otherwords, it's part of a relationship, rather than a greedy little piggy trying to talk some sweet innocent girl into something (admitedly, that's a little overdrawn).
I don't think the "greedy little piggy" mindset is nearly as common as you seem to believe.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
I don't think the "greedy little piggy" mindset is nearly as common as you seem to believe.
I assumed that statement would be extreme enough that everyone would understand that I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole. I think if you simply take the first sentence relative to this quote as a stand-alone, my point is clear. To bad they don't make a 'tongue in cheek' emotocon.
Whether you think it's a valid illustration of anything or not, it's still statistically false.
I'm absolutely sure that you can find statistics to disprove what I said, but those statistics will have a context to them. In fact, someone already posted statistics that disprove what I said, but that same person also pointed out that the statistics themselves contradicted each other.
Statistics gathered from a question and answer survey, are only as good as the quality of questions and the integrity of the answers.
For example, several years back, some of the town-mothers put together a survey on drug use to be taken by the local high school students. Some of my friends denied every thing in the survey (pot smokers, one and all), and others claimed they had done every imaginable drug under the sun and did them often.
Especially, on a sex survey amoung teen, I would be very suspect of the answers. I suspect many student are claiming activities that are far more likely to have occurred in their fantasies than in their real life. Not universally so, but enough to make any survey suspect.
No one wants to be characterized as a whimpy vigin even if the survey is anonymous.
MightyCow Second, why does sex have to be a "mutually shared experience taking place on many levels?" Often times, even among married couples, sex is just sex.
Yet, even when sex is just sex among a married couple, it is certainly a 'mutually shared experience taking place on many levels'. How could it not be? I guess if the woman is eating chocolates and reading Cosmo while the husband takes care of business, that might be a different story. But quick to the point sex, between two people who have an established relationship, is probably not going to fall into that extreme of circumstance. And, if it does, then I certainly concede the point.
Remember, I am speaking in a context which I keep assuming I have clearly established. The context was that sometimes giving pleasure is pleasurable, and sometimes it is a greedy self-serving act.
'Taking place on many levels' simply confirms that sex does have levels that go beyond reciprocity. It confirms that pleasure can be given with NO reciprocity and it can still be satisfying and pleasurable for both people. BUT there is still an exchange even without reciprocity, that exchange makes it a shared experience.
Again, I keep assuming I have established a context for the statements I make, but apprently I'm not establishing it as well as I think I am.
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: There are plenty of guys and girls out there who pride themselves on their mad crazy sex skills and who employ these skills merely to boost their own egos.
-pH
:nonplussed:
I'd like to meet some of those people!
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I know at least one girl like that, and I know several guys.
It's really not all that awesome.
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BlueWizard I suppose that I have an issue with the context you're trying to establish. I don't believe that married sex is inherently different than unmarried sex. Neither do I believe that men are the sexual "takers" and women are the "givers."
I feel that both of those ideas are inherently flawed, so that discussion set within that context is unrealistically limited.
Orincoro
pH No, it's pretty awesome.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BW, I have no idea (and no interest in gussing your "three magic words". Mine are that sin is "hurting other people".
Also, generally feeling a little smug. In my experience men would rather perform oral sex than almost anything else. I am always a bit surprised to hear that this isn't generally true.
Boothby, I will respond to you in more detail tomorrow.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
pH No, it's pretty awesome.
I'm gonna come down on pH's side here. I have a lot to say on that subject, but am not sure how, or even if, I want to say more than that.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
MightyCow "I feel that both of those ideas are inherently flawed, so that discussion set within that context is unrealistically limited."
Of course, I am not trying to make a statement that is all inclusive and all defining. I am speaking of an aspect of relationships that I see very clearly occuring in the world, and have even been guilty of on occassion myself. Fortunately, I am more enlightened now than I was back then.
No men aren't universally 'takers' and women aren't universally 'givers', but, with apologies, you are either blind, inexperienced, or naive if you think NO men are takers and NO women are being taken. Though perhaps I should say 'partner' or some other gender neutral term since it's not alway men 'taking' women. Sometimes it's men 'taking' men, or women 'taking' men.
I'm not trying to focus on older experienced people, although it does apply, just to a lesser degree. I am primarily thinking of teens who are new to sex and relationships, and haven't quite got their priorities set right. Again, all teens do not universally fit this pattern, but a great many of them do. I know because I've met them. I've met them in high school. I've met them in college. I've met them later in life. I've even slept with a few. I've even been one of them.
kmbboots "BW, I have no idea (and no interest in guessing) your "three magic words". Mine are that sin is "hurting other people"."
No need to guess, you already know. IF I were teaching a Sex Ed class, this would be the first assignment; 'Why doesn't the world want you to have sex?' Why does a father worry about his daughter when (assuming she is a teen) she is on a date with a teen boy?
We can say 'He doesn't want her to get pregnant', or 'he doesn't want her to be used', but when all the excuses are in, it adds up to 'People Get Hurt'.
Once I had given my hypothetical students a day to ponder the question. I would explain to them the full range of the meaning of 'HURT'. One of the problems with teens is they have a distorted idea of what 'hurt' means. To them, if it doesn't kill you on the spot, then no harm done.
I feel to establish a non-relgious moral base to sex eductation, the full spectrum of the concept of 'hurt' needs to be explored. It needs to be explored on an emotional, spritual, physical, psychological, and practical level. Once the full spectrum of the concept of 'hurt' is undertood, then follow-up concept of responsibility can be explored.
This is the one elements that I see missing from modern (religious or secular) sex education; a practical, real-world, understandable, and believable moral perspective is never established. It's either pure mechanics, or it's abstinence and 'because God said so'. Neither of which adequately does the job. Neither of which serves the real-world needs of the students.
I once summarized all moral philosophy in six words; actually, two sentences of three words each.
Do No harm. Do Some Good.
'Do no harm' is very good, but to live a truly moral life, it's not enough, you also have to 'do some good'. None of us achieves this to perfection, but, in the fewest number of words, it is the moral goal we are all striving for.
Those six words could very easily sum up the better nature of sex and relationships. If you go into them with the intent to do no harm, and with the hope of doing some good, then you are probably on the road to very healthy relationships.
Just rambling off on my own path here.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BlueWizard: As you point out, most sexually active people are going to go through a "taking" phase. I don't doubt that it happens, I know it does.
You worry that people will be hurt. I think that is noble, but it's going to happen. It's part of life, it's part of growing up. It happens in every relationship, whether or not sex is involved. We can't expect teens never to date, because they'll be hurt when they have a fight or break up.
I don't think it's positive to reinforce the stereotype that men are aggressive and greedy sexually, and that women are submissive and don't receive pleasure. I'm glad to see that you are willing to change that to "partner."
Again, I'm not proposing we encourage teen sexuality. I think we're all just kind of throwing around ideas here, which is good. Entertaining at least
Edit: You know, the more I think about it, maybe the more your theory makes some sense. I personally see the flaws in the ideas, or at least the gaps, but then again, I'm an adult with some experience.
Maybe it forces young adults to gain some perspective and think about their choices before jumping headlong into things, which might be the best we can hope for. In that regard, I can see where you've got a good thing going. I'll certainly give it more thought before I give up on you completely Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
MightyCow,
I quess now that I've trimmed back at least the quantity of my words, we are more on the same page. The foundation of what I am saying is based on perspective, and the fact that in the USA, kids are given very little perspective on any aspect of their lives (driving, drinking, sex, relationships, school, values, etc...). Again, not universal, but still somewhat obvious.
By establishing the risks of sex across the full spectrum of risk (emotional, spiritual, physcial, psychological, practical) and by establishing it in a real-world context, we could build a non-religious moral foundation for secular sex education; the one thing that I feel is missing. If you can establish that moral foundation, then you have something upon which the discussions of birth control, STD, fetishes, abortion, gay people, and other critical issue can be placed. You have a framework that can put these things in perspective.
Upon that moral foundation, we give our kids the tools they need to make better sexual decisions in all aspects of sex and relationships. As it stands now, the only moral foundation seems to be religion, and that can't be allowed in public schools or colleges, and is close to universally NOT accepted by teens. So rather than TRY to think of a non-religious moral context, the sex educators give no moral context at all, or at best, a very weak token moral context.
In the end, people will do what people will do. The greedy jerks will be jerks, and the nice guys will be nice guys. But, it is important that kids know that there are truly greedy jerks out there, and that there are truly nice 'guys' out there; again perspective. Having layed a sound non-religious very practical everyday moral context, a great many of the kids in the center of the bell curve will shift toward a more responsible and considerate attitude toward sex and relationships. With a reasonable, genuine, and BELIEVABLE moral context and perspective laid before them, I don't see how they can not do so.
Keep in mind, that I am not against pre-marital sex. I'm not really sure I would want a lover who was a virgin, or at least, inexperienced in sex and relationships. I think you need to do a little living before you can truly understand you own place in life.
I'm not even against gay sex, I put it on the same moral plane as straight sex.
But gay or straight, if you have no practical perspective, how can you be expected to make practical decisions?
Just passing it along.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
MightyCow, part of the issue with your statement on "people get hurt... it's part of life..." is this:
Certainly pain is a part of life and it will never be wholly elimintated, and were it to be, it would probably be a bad thing in the long run. However, this doesn't stop us from trying to prevent as much pain and suffering as possible...
If you were to say: "Teens get in car accidents, it's part of life and they learn from it." then that could logically be follow to the conclusion: "you should be able to drive at the age of 12, or whenever you can see over the steering wheel and reach the pedals..."
I know this isn't the kind of thing you're proposing, but I'm just pointing out the dangerous path that that line of reasoning can lead down.
BlueWizard, I think you make a lot of good points about ways to bolster the arguments for absitence/careful sex without delving into the religious reasoning.
Something to consider for people who have been picking apart the "dangers" of sex is that in general you get them all if you get one. -Possible Emotional Trauma -Possibility of disease -Possibility of unplanned pregnancy Now you can argue that using birth control eliminates #3, and often cuts down on #2 a great deal, but none of the methods out there are perfect (especially with respect to #2). So I'd argue that at most you can discount the pregnancy issue (although never fully)
So, saying that everyone will have emotional pain doesn't lessen the fact that it IS a reason to be careful in your sexual relations...
As for the previous arguments about sex bringing one closer to God: In my mind this concept is multi-fold... 1. By bringing two individuals together as one you are merging bodies, emotions and spirits, thus creating a stronger connection to the divine. This is associated with marriage, but I think the real key is a loving and respecful relationship (in my mind the best example of this is a good marriage). 2. By opening one's self as a possible conduit of the creative power of God (i.e. allowing for procreation) you become closer to the Divine.
Eliminating some part of this can not help but diminish the act (assuming you agree with my initial statements). Now you said that within marriage not all sex is this kind of fully-giving, spiritual-oneness kind of sex, but the argument is that the possibilitiy for that connection remains.
Additionally, if you have issue with the "marriage" caviats in the Church's teachings, or pretty much anything I've said just feel free to replace "marriage" with "loving committed relationship" because that's effectively what I mean by it (whether the pomp and circumstance are added in is largely irrelevant in this discussion)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: By opening one's self as a possible conduit of the creative power of God (i.e. allowing for procreation) you become closer to the Divine.
I think that there are all sorts of creative possibilities that don't include pregnancy. And that in many situations, the possibility of pregnancy can cause enough distress that it closes off those other possibilities. I think that people need to make their own decisions about what kind of creativity works for them and, having made those responsible decisions, be open to God working.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boothby,
That isn't how I read the passage. I see it more as saying that the seperation of body and spirit isn't working (no kidding!) and that, rather than uniting the two elements we have kept them separate and merely focused on the body. What we really need to do is to re-integrate them.
As far as the view of creation of life being purely biological. Remember that you are looking at this from a 21st century point of view. The seed of these concepts lie 20 centuries ago - more if you go back to the Stoics. Their idea of "how babies are made" was somewhat less "biological" than ours. Try and bear this in mind.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Wow. I'm agnostic and I've had a vasectomy, so apparently because I am unable to feel the love of the divine or the feeling of creating life, sex for me will never be as good.
Which is for the best, I suppose, since things are great now and anything better would probably kill me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Chris, even knowing you as little as I do, I can't imagine that sex for you is just about the physical sensations. I could be wrong, but I would be very surprised.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It's not, and wasn't even at the beginning -- OK, maybe a little -- but God's love and the hope of new life don't enter into it. Not for me, anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah, but see for us, God is love and love is God, if you are tapping into love you are connecting to the Divine - whatever that means for you and whatever you call it.
And, as I said earlier, creation can mean a lot of things other than babies.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, not in the sense that I was referring to it.
opening one's self to the possibility of procreation is the ONLY way for us to be a part in the ultimate gift of God, that of creating life. (cloning aside)
the logic is that denying something that important is sinful (according to the church) as it purposefully separates yourself from God, and lessens the possible good to come from sex.
And to Chris, yes, that's basically what the Church is saying, but since you don't perscribe to the church's teachings I wouldn't worry yourself over it (and I doubt you do).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Grimace,
And there we will have to disagree. I think that our purpose here, that God's will for us is to love - whatever that means. For some it means having babies. That is certainly not true for everyone. I refuse to believe that, if someone doesn't have a child they are somehow excluded from participating in "God's ultimate gift".
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Seconded.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Yup.
Me, I just always react poorly when someone tells me things like this. "You should only read Good Literature, anything else is just wasting your time." "Movies must be Art or they're crap." "Sex is to procreate and to unite a married couple in divine love."
I would not disagree that sex between two people in a loving, committed relationship is a wonderful thing that's hard to beat. There's an added emotional element that brings a joy and a passion that casual sex can't offer. But, as a female friend of mine once said, "sometimes you just want to get thrown on the couch and pounded like a cheap steak."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can certainly empathize with that! I have indulged that desire often enough to realize it only scratches some of that itch and it had better be with someone that I am at least prepared to be kind to ever after.
Also, I have learned that, even in those situations, for me, there is at least in that moment a connection that is more than physical. A genuine, if temporary, combination of tenderness/affection/concern for my partners happiness that at least approximates love.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
KMBBOOTS,
The Encyclical Letter is from the current Pope. Of course I'm looking ast it from a 21st centure point of vierw. But so is he. if he wants to carry ancient concepts into the moddern light, then that's his choice. If I enter a Ford Model T into a nitro-fueled dragster race, then no one's going to handicap me a minute and a half just to keep me from looking foolish.
The concept of "reintegrating body and spitrit" is cute. How does he plan on doing it? By maintaining the Church's continued, rigid attempts to control the sexual/physical nature of its adherents? It's wonderful that a lot of Catholics have a FTS attitude towards the Church and its control--but we're not talking about normal, well adjusted people: I opened this thread to discuss the Church.
Chris, "Pounded like a cheap steak"!?! I don't even want to begin to describe the wonderful visual image you've now planted in my mind. Remind me: I owe you one!
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
again, apologies on unintended double-meaning. the 'ultimate gift' was the wrong way to put that. I (and the church) believe that there are certainly other paths that can lead one to just as great happiness and to be just as close to God(i.e. Single life, Religious Orders). I was just trying to establish that procreation through sex is the only natural way to participate in the creation of life.
Also keep in mind that while I'm defending the church here I'm acting more as a "pope's advocate" (didn't think "devil's advocate" was quite the appropriate turn of phrase =p) in this conversation, trying to establish the logic behind the Church's official stance on the issue.
Chris, I'd advise just taking it like this: Seventh Day Adventists (and others) tell me that dancing is sinful. Hindus tell me that eating beef is sinful. I think it's the Sky Cloud sect (stretching the memory on the name here) think I should sweep the ground in front of me so I don't crush microbes... They all have good reasons for these beliefs, but I respectfully disagree with them.
If you are a non Catholic, the church isn't even necessarily saying you have to perscribe to this practice (or non-practice as it were) (read the stuff on relative acceptance of other religions as valid paths to God). It's just saying that to the best of its understanding, these rules are the best the Church has come up with (though obviously the dissenting voices within the hierarchy calls even that into question some amount).
I guess further comment on Kmb's comment about "to love" being our true goal: I agree, and I think the idea of the Church is that the best way to express that love in a marriage is through love of your spouse, as well as loving/creating children. now, this we could respectfully disagree on if you'd like. =p
and back to the "ultimate gift" comment (with apologies for the fragmented thought process) perhaps the "ultimate gift" in a marriage is procreation, while in ordained life it may be the consecration of the eucharist, while in single life it may be using that freedom to do whatever good works God has for you to do...
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
The Grimace,
Interesting: one of the ways that humans are separated from animals (not all, but most) is that we can have sex just for the fun of it. Interesting that the Church wants us to act more like the basest animals in order to become closer to God.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
boothby, are you saying that no "normal, well adjusted" person could agree with the church on this issue?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
No, I think that it's great that people let their sex lives be run by a bunch of wizened old white guys half a world away, who are either asexual or prefer sex with young boys, and who base their concepts on a 1600 year old document.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boothby, when discussing Church doctrine it is helpful to understand how it is changing from what has come before. It does not spring from nothing. Doctine evolves.
What exactly do you mean by "rigid attempts to control"? What any religion does it put forward opinions, strategies, for living in such a way as to be in relationship with God.
And where on earth do you get the "basest animals" thing? How is following an instict towards procreation "base"? And how is following an instict for pleasure less so?
I am beginning to doubt that you want to learn anything and are really just interested in being smug.
Grimace,
Or for married people the "ultimate gift" could be their relationship with each other and how they helpd each other to be whole. Or for parents it could be doing wonderful charity work. Or for priests it could be the counseling that they do, or wonderful writing, or art...
God does not limit our choices to either having children or devoting our lives to good works or the priesthood. I think that God has a unique "ultimate gift" for each of us. And, honestly, it is a bit irritating when someone assumes that their particular "ultimate gift" is the "ultimatest".
I appreciate that you apologized for the word choice, but the assumption is still there.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Or, you know, there's that whole sending his son to die for our salvation thing. I thought that was pretty much God's ultimate gift to mankind, the chance for everlasting life?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boothby,
I apologize. It could be that I am misunderstanding and that you are coming from a place of hurt rather than smug. If that is the case, perhaps it would help to express your own views rather than asking for ours just so you can take shots at them without a real attempt to understand.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I am beginning to doubt that you want to learn anything and are really just interested in being smug.
That fact that you're only beginning to doubt about this is evidence that you have a far more charitable outlook than I.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, I can understand frustration with the teaching. I am frustrated with them myself and I have know a lot of people hurt by these teachings. Although I do understand why, I think that they are changing too slowly. I hope that I have made that clear as well as making clear that I don't believe the Vatican's position reflects the position of the Church as a whole.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, note the "perhaps" I honestly don't know if there is one prime objective for any walk of life. And certainly each path has various aspects that can bring us closer to God/perfection... Though I would stand by the fact that there is something "special" about certain things, such as consecration of the eucharist and/or procreation, as they are in principle reserved for one walk of life or the other, whereas charity, loving relationships, counselling etc. can be available to anyone, be they priest, nun, husband, wife, single etc. And also keep in mind that this is really all about being open to life, not necessarily actually creating it.. I dunno I'm kinda rambling now.
Personally I see it less as "using prophylactics is a sin" and more as "using prophylactics may be less good".
boothby, what's the difference with a bunch of rich white guys that have been basing decisions on a 230 year old document telling me what taxes I have to pay and how old I have to be to drive? It really sounds like you just think the concept of the church establishing any kind of rules is bunk, and if so, why are you even bothering with this argument since it seems you've already made up your mind?
I've been trying to explain how there are logic, if imperfect reasons behind these teachings, that is all, and I thought seemed to be the point of this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So. Grimace, do I get points for being willing to have kids and just not able to get someone to marry me? Or would I be more "special" if I had been a bit more careless? Or made the attempt more often?
I sing. It is a way that I do God's work in the world. How arrogant would it be for me to say that people who don't sing "may be less good"?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How arrogant would it be for me to say that people who don't sing "may be less good"?
This is not an apt comparison to the TG's statements about the use of prophylactics.
quote:Well, I can understand frustration with the teaching. I am frustrated with them myself and I have know a lot of people hurt by these teachings. Although I do understand why, I think that they are changing too slowly. I hope that I have made that clear as well as making clear that I don't believe the Vatican's position reflects the position of the Church as a whole.
His frustration with the teaching isn't somehow made better by you pointing out that others disagree with the teaching.
He's been quite dismissive and fairly insulting about the teaching, and shown zero intent to refrain from mocking it in search of understanding. I know several people on this board probably have much better thought out objections to the Church's teachings on these issues who manage to ask questions about it without being a jerk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't see how it is made worse.
I mentioned it to explain why it may be easier for me to have a "more charitable outlook".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think it's made worse, nor do I think there's anything wrong with any of your posts in this thread.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I'm glad. But then I'm not sure I understand this:
quote: His frustration with the teaching isn't somehow made better by you pointing out that others disagree with the teaching.
edit to add: Thank you.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
KM,
You're actually right, and I've been wrestling with this for the last few..,pages. I am coming at this from a place of hurt, and that's inappropriate. I think an interesting dialogue has arisen--despite me--and I'm not in a mental/emotional frame of mind to contribute much to it.
But I don't think it's "bunk" for the Church to establish rules. If you don't like the rules, there are other churches (and, it seems, there are a lot of rules from the RC Church that a lot of people don't like, and they have moved on to other churches). And if I don't like paying taxes, I can always move to another state, or another country.
Out of frustration with things..that I really don't feel comfortable talking about here (is there a "constructive abandonment" thread on this site?)...I've raised a question about why an organized group that exists to bring people closer to (an alleged) God feels fit and justified to tell people what to do with their sexual organs, and why it's so bad to anything other than "that" with them. While, of course, they (the Church) puts 'em in all the wrong places themselves.
The Church's logic, I would assume, would start with the equality
Orgasm = Coming Closer to God
and move forward from there. Otherwise, why not impose the same restrictions on eating, sleeping, tying one's shoes, talking with members of the oppposite sex, etc. Oh, wait; except for the shoes thing--some do.
BTW, KMBBOOTS, you've never heard me sing.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boothby171: The Church's logic, I would assume, would start with the equality
Orgasm = Coming Closer to God
I think you are confusing Trent Reznor with the Pope...
*looks around for someone to high five*
seriously, Boothby, that last post was, I think, pretty graceful. Thank you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Boothby, if you would like, I would be happy to continue the discussion via e-mail if that would help. I have had some experience with how these teachings in particular have effected people for good and ill and know people that are spending their lives trying to make it better.
Believe it or not, despite the attention they get, these issues are only a small part of what it is to be Catholic. They are not central to what Catholicism is. Similar to any particular government policy is not central to what being an American is.
In both cases I prefer to do what I can to effect change from the inside and improve the institution.
Do feel free to e-mail me. I hope you do.
edit to add: And for what it is worth, I am very sorry for your pain.
[ May 09, 2006, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, I think you're misinterpreting my statements: on the "less good thing" the better analogy would be that singing death metal MAY be "less good" than singing hymns, or perhaps that not using your beautiful voice would be "less good" than using it for all to enjoy.
i'm in no way saying that anyone who doesn't have sex is "less good" than anyone who does. I am saying that people who have sex with contraception may be making that particular act of sex "less good" in the eyes of God. Whether this is actually the case or not, I may know when I die, then again I may not, since I'm a fairly weak individual who tends to sin more than I'd like.
As for your first statement in that response, I'm not really sure what you were getting at.
boothby: the child molestation stuff really has no bearing here, if the people involved actually preached that it was ok to do then perhaps it would be valid. As it is, it is universally accepted that this is an abhorrant practice, and even those engaging in it would say that it was a mortal screw-up etc...
Even assuming that the very people who are guilty of these crimes/sins were the ones directly responsible for coming up with these rules on sexuality doesnt negate the logic behind them. Corrupt people can still make valid judgements, even if not all their judgements are valid. i.e. if I steal a stapler from my office, does that make me incapable of judging that grand theft auto is a crime?
On regulation of anything perscribed by a religion... in fact the church DOES have a stance on eating and sleeping and many other issues (gluttony is a sin, sloth is a sin, eating when you're not hungry might even be frowned upon under the right circumstances if it is inherently selfish or self-destructive...)
I seriously don't see where you are separating what you think it is reasonable for a religion to place strictures on and where it isn't.
as for your personal hurt on this issue I'm honestly curious as to what the nature of it is so I can better understand others' issues with these teachings. Though I know a public forum with a bunch of strangers isnt' the best place to voice one's personal history...
Jim-Me: e-highfive
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*high-fives Jim-Me*
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow. Do you really want to compare molesting children to stealing a stapler and using birth control to grand theft auto in the same sentence?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Grimace, I may indeed be misinterpreting it. My singing analogy was along the lines of, "you use your voice; the way you use it is less good than singing."
I do think that the issue of molestation is relevant here. For a couple of reasons. One is that the Church's views on sexuality have directly impacted both the molestation itself and in the Church's response to the molestation. Another is that, certainly, the abilty of those who made descisions regarding how the abuse was handled bears some scrutiny when it comes to defining doctrine on the subject. And they are the same people. I do think that they are doing better than I expected them to.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
technically they were separate sentences, though I was going for the extremes to make a point... how about this analogy:
There have been any number of senators, presidents etc that have used drugs before, and some are probably still using them. does this make the US government incapable of passing drug laws?
I also meant to include the whole "there are thousands of clergy world-wide and only a small percentage or guilty of these acts" thing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, you might have gone with, "Do you think that the corporate fat cats who have made off with the pension fund and covered it up should be reprimanding people who make phone calls on company time."
I do understand what you are saying, but I think your extremes were in the wrong direction.
edit to add: and while only a small percentage of priests abused children, the folks at the top protected the abusers, covered up the crimes, and caused further harm to the victims.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: i.e. if I steal a stapler from my office, does that make me incapable of judging that grand theft auto is a crime?
Not that it matters, but if they are technically separate sentences you wanna show me where you put the technical period in there?
But yes, I do think your second comparison is better.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
ElJay, what you just quoted was a complete sentence (barring a missed capitalization and my being unsure of how "i.e." works in properly in grammer anymore) and the previous sentence about molestation ends in a period =p
either way I freely admit that the comparisons are all flawed, as kmb's alternate comparison also proves(i.e. disproving my point). it does not change the fact that I've been trying to establish the at least somewhat valid logic behind the issues.
maybe a better comparison? A certified lunatic telling you 2+2=4 doesn't necessarily mean it's not true. and if he gives you his complicated proof as to why it's true should help separate his other flaws from this statement.
Certainly the molestation issues are a valid point regarding the church's stance on sexuality, and can be at least partly attributed to it's stance on sexuality, but I don't see it being intricately related to this topic. Unless any of us have taken vows of celibacy that is.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry if you're feeling a bit piled on, Grimace! Well, just as celibate men can decide questions of sexuality, non-celibate men and women can debate how celibacy impacts those creating church doctrine.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Right, but the previous sentence wasn't part of the comparison. The previous sentence was a statement, and the sentence I quoted was the comparison given as an example. yourself.
Like I said, it doesn't matter, but if the first thing you say when responding to my post is that I'm technically wrong, I certainly reserve the right to nitpick right back at you.
Regardless, one of the beauties of discussion boards is that any point is as valid to the topic as the participants feel it is. Obviously this point resonates with Boothby on this topic.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
kmb, that's why I think all your points so far have been valid. I'm certainly not saying that the church is 100% right, or that anyone disagreeing with the church is wrong. Especially in this (and other similar) issues it would definately be helpful to have some representative body of the single and married members of the church also weighing in. Part of the problem is that the married and single members that have an extensive background in theology are pretty few and far between.
this is similar to a recent discussion with some of my friends where laws regarding abortion were drawn into question because there haven't been many women in teh courts, congress etc making those laws.
I like to think that a great deal of thought and consultation is put into decisions like this, and that the clergy do their best to address the concerns of the rest of the chruch, but you're right that there does need to be input from the rest. That's what Vatican 2 was attempting (and partly succeeding in), and hopefully the pendulum will swing back in that direction.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I hope so, too.
There has been input from the rest:
quote: 1965. Vatican Council II. Constitution on the Church in the Modern World. Proposed that the governing principle in human sexuality be "the nature of the human person and his acts." Pope Paul VI requested that no developed teaching on sexuality be presented until he heard from a commission on birth control that had been established by Pope John XXIII.
1963-1966. Meetings of the Birth Control Commission established by Pope John XXIII. The Commission consisted of theologians, priests, bishops, cardinals and laypeople from a variety of professions. They met to consider issues of marriage and sexuality, with special emphasis on the birth control question. After numerous meetings, prayer, and consultation with professionals on all sides of the issue, the commission agreed that the current teaching of the Church was not infallible, that artificial contraception was not intrinsically evil, and that Catholic couples ought to be given the liberty to decide for themselves concerning methods of family planning. The report was taken to the Pope on June 28, 1966 after the Comission agreed that there was to be no majority or minority report. Two Commission members broke this agreement and issued a so-called "minority report," in which they disagreed with the conclusions of the Commission and urged Pope Paul VI to uphold the traditional teaching lest the Papal authority be diminished.
I am glad that we are really on the same page, Grimace.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
ok, now that kind of evidence I'm completely in favor of (I know you had mentioned something relating to this much earlier in the discussion, but did you actually have this link/quotage before?)
it's the perfect example of how the teachings, while well-founded are certainly imperfect. I have to think, however, that there is at least a little more to the story of the "coverup" if you will. Though I don't recall much of Paul VI, I would hope that the papacy is above that kind of somewhat petty politics. (though I know in the past it hasn't been, I'm the first to bring up individuals like Pope Alexander (I think the first, and maybe only Alexander) who had dozens of illigitimate children amongst other varied discrepancies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that John XXIII was miraculous.
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
indeed
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm glad. But then I'm not sure I understand this:
quote: His frustration with the teaching isn't somehow made better by you pointing out that others disagree with the teaching.
edit to add: Thank you.
It was part of expressing my frustration with being told I'm not well-adjusted (as well as the rest of the insults) because of my religious beliefs. Not aimed at you, and it's moved on since then, so it's probably best not to dwell.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: After two years of study, the lay commission voted 60 to 4, and the clergy voted 9 to 6, to change the position on birth control, even though it would mean a loss of papal authority, because it was the right thing to do. However, a minority report was submitted to the pope. The co-author of that report was a Polish archbishop, Karol Wojtyla, who later became Pope John Paul II.
A Roman Catholic historian and theologian, August Bernhard Hasler, tells the story in his 1979 book, How the Pope Became Infallible. He provided the following quotation from that minority report, which actually was the one accepted. It clearly sets forth the basis or reason for the current Catholic crusade against birth control and family planning:
“If it should be declared that contraception is not evil in itself, then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit had been on the side of the Protestant churches in 1930 (when the encyclical Casti Connubi was promulgated). and in 1951 (Pius XII’s address delivered before the Society of Hematologists in the year the pope died).
“It should likewise have to be admitted that for a hall a century the Spirit failed to protect Pius XI, Pius XII, and a large part of the Catholic hierarchy from a very serious error. This would mean that the leaders of the Church, acting with extreme imprudence, had condemned thousands of innocent human acts, forbidding, under pain of eternal damnation, a practice which would now be sanctioned. The fact can neither be denied nor ignored that these same acts would now he declared licit on the grounds of principles cited by the Protestants, which popes and bishops have either condemned or at least not approved” (page 170).
Dr. Hasler concluded: “Thus it became only too clear that the core of the problem was not the pill, but the authority. continuity, and infallibility of the Church’s magisterium.”
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dagonee,
Not dwelling at all. Thanks for clearing up my confusion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd be a LOT less suspicious of the conclusions drawn about that report if they excerpted any of the other reasons listed in the report against making birth control licit.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those are two different sources. And both new to me today (a quick search online for info about the commission). The results of the commission itself are pretty well documented as is the event of the minority report. Both in several pretty well researched books. I tend not to trust info that I only get online.
Do you have an (I assume translation) of the actual minority report?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
assuming there's nothing else here (which seems like it could very well be) then this is a good example of the church being stubborn, which has definately happened in the past, though I do find odd. A good example is the excommunication of Gallileo, which was only apologized for hundreds of years later... no one is going to argue that the Church isn't a ponderous organization resistant to change.
What I find odd is that these reports seem to claim that part of this would call into question papal infallability. Seeing as the pope very rarely invokes papal infallability, and I'm about 99% certain that no pope has done so on this issue, they would seem to be mostly unrelated issues. It would certainly call into question the validity of any church teaching, but...
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Just a comment about the "Base Instinct" and procreation.
Most of the "lower" animals operate on instinct regarding procreation. They really don't have sex for fun. I'm thinking, you know, earthworm sex, moth sex, hamster sex. Not that I'm thinking about it a lot--really! I can stop thinking about it anytime I want to! Like right now! I can stop right now!
No, I can't! [cries uncontrollably]
But, seriously:
Some of the higher animals (dogs, apes, dolphins, and I'm sure there are others) actually do have sex for the enjoyment of it.
My thought was that the RC Church (as many have described here) wants sex performed only in terms of its procreative value. Take us back to our early earthworm, moth, and hamster days, as it were.
And if you have an anecdote about your hamster humping the water-bottle every night at 2:00 am, at least I hope you get the point I was trying to make.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm kind of of the opinion that if you have to ask...
-pH
Ugh... your of the "read my mind" variety of women? Don't you girls know that is like, the hardest thing for guys?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by pH: I'm kind of of the opinion that if you have to ask...
-pH
Ugh... your of the "read my mind" variety of women? Don't you girls know that is like, the hardest thing for guys?
Dude, it's not like I'm asking him to read my mind and know that I want a white gold replica of the One Ring of Power on a chain for my birthday or something.
I mean, seriously. If I have to ASK a guy to do something like that, he's not the kind of guy with whom I need to be in any kind of remotely sexual situation.
Think about it. How would you expect a girl to react if a guy said, "Sooooooo baby, how do you feel about [going down on me]?"
-pH
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I don't see anything wrong with two adults in a sexual relationship to be open and honest about their desires. Communication is the foundation for a good relationship.
You can't blame the other person for not giving you what you want if you don't tell them what it is.
quote:Think about it. How would you expect a girl to react if a guy said, "Sooooooo baby, how do you feel about [going down on me]?"
I would expect her to give me her honest feelings about the subject. Seriously, if you're both doing it, why should you be embarrassed to talk about doing it?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:But, as a female friend of mine once said, "sometimes you just want to get thrown on the couch and pounded like a cheap steak."
This has been bothering me. It reminds me of when Ian Fleming wrote "All women secretly want to be raped".
While it is compelling in theory, it is seldom actually a good thing.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
MightyCow, it's not about being EMBARRASSED. It's offensive to me that a guy would ask that, since every time I've been asked that question, what he REALLY meant was "Go down on me right now." If I ever DID feel comfortable enough to make that step, the timing would be up to ME. Any "coaxing" on the part of the guy would be entirely counterproductive.
-pH
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
pH is right. It is offensive and also disingenous.
Of course, the guy could simply be THAT submissive, inexperienced at reading signals, and timid, and while some people may love that kind of personality, I believe I am in the majority of women who don't.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The problem with this line of discussion is that it went from talking about asking for a particular sexual activity to a horrible parody of asking ("Sooooooo baby, how do you feel about [going down on me]?")
The ineptitude of the latter does not mean that the former is not appropriate.
You should be able to ask for a particular act from your partner. There's nothing wrong with it, and, in fact, it's a healthy thing to share one's sexual desires with one's partner.
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Dag,
It seems to be centered about people's approach to their sexuality, both from a personal point of view ("Hey, baby...") to an establishment or institutional point of view (condoms = always bad...um...probably?), and how people deal with the contradictions.
As long as we don't get into any sick, perverted mutant human/animal hybrid sex, we'll probably do fine. That sort of sex is outlawed by the current Bush administration, anyhow.
Posted by Kristen (Member # 9200) on :
Dag: I was responding to what originated the discussion: the disruption during an activity to ask to do something to someone or to ask for something yourself that you have never done before. I do find that disingenous because the former is timid and shows a lack of responding to cues and the latter is *pushing* and can be construed as demanding. From BOTH sexes.
But, eh, that's totally my opinion. Moving on...
Are there any other religions which forbid contraception for the same or different reasons as Catholicism?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I think that Pastafarians prohibit the use of contraception between consenting pirates, but I'd have to check into that.
[ May 10, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Boothby171 ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
...trying to remember the last time I had to be asked...or ask, for that matter. I am so spoiled! (Okay, I have to brag a little or with all the religious talk, you'll think I'm a nun!)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here's another article that talks about birth control and papal teaching authority and gives some history on the commision:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ...trying to remember the last time I had to be asked...or ask, for that matter. I am so spoiled! (Okay, I have to brag a little or with all the religious talk, you'll think I'm a nun!)
*high five*
I'm with Kristen, by the way, on her feelings about asking.
I don't ask. He'd better not ask. I can DISCUSS, but not within a sexual situation, and only if it is clear that there is absolutely NO expectation involved.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Here is another article. This one is from someone who was a member of the commision. Pretty stunning stuff. I would be really interested in hearing what you guys think of this.
quote: I long for a church that is honest about its teachings, that admits its errors and faces the effects of rigidity with openness. One impact of Humanae Vitae's teaching has been a credibility gap between the church and young and not-so-young couples.
I continue to claim my right to be part of the church for I believe that it is all of us who are the church. As a result of this experience, I am saddened and do not trust the church's search for truth.
I only hope that within the lifetime of my children and grandchildren the church will admit its error in this regard. It took centuries for the church to accept Galileo. May it only be decades for the commission.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What's stunning about it?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dag,
Everything I have read or heard indicates that Humanae Vitae reversed the overwhelming majority opinion of the commission. I looked into this a lot for my own reasons three years ago, again, because I had the responsibilty of answering the questions of adults converting Catholicism and again now, online, for the purposes of this conversation. I have yet to find anything that contradicts it. Honestly, if you have such information, share it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't have any such information. But I still don't see why it's stunning (which I'm interpreting as "inducing surprise."
One of the hallmarks of the views of authority in the Church is that someone has the ultimate responsibility for stating what Church doctrine is. Such a mechanism would not be required if we expected commissions' views to always be adopted.
Is it the mere reversal you find stunning? If so, I'm not sure I understand why.
quote: have yet to find anything that contradicts it. Honestly, if you have such information, share it.
BTW, at no point have I stated that the Pope did not reverse the commission At most I've questioned the conclusion that the only reason the commission was reversed had to do with papal authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: One of the hallmarks of the views of authority in the Church is that someone has the ultimate responsibility for stating what Church doctrine is.
Why? And why does that have to be the Pope. There has certainly been precedent in Church history for that authority resting in Councils, in Bishops, in theologians, and in the people themselves. At one time, Bishops were elected by the laity, for example. Because the Vatican has gathered more authority to itself doesn't mean it has the right to.
quote: BTW, at no point have I stated that the Pope did not reverse the commission At most I've questioned the conclusion that the only reason the commission was reversed had to do with papal authority.
Okay, why do you think the commission was reversed? What other reasons have you found? I really would be interested to know what you think rather than just - "not what I think."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why? And why does that have to be the Pope. There has certainly been precedent in Church history for that authority resting in Councils, in Bishops, in theologians, and in the people themselves. At one time, Bishops were elected by the laity, for example. Because the Vatican has gathered more authority to itself doesn't mean it has the right to.
We've discussed this before; I'm not sure it bears repeating at this point. That sentence was related to why I don't understand how it could be a surprise, not whether it's right or wrong.
quote:Okay, why do you think the commission was reversed? What other reasons have you found? I really would be interested to know what you think rather than just - "not what I think."
Humanae Vitae says it far better than I could.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:my being unsure of how "i.e." works in properly in grammer anymore
Grimace, i.e. is an abbreviation for the Latin expression 'id est'. Literally meaning 'it is', it's normally translated as 'that is'.
If that helps at all.
On the asking for oral thing, I'm with kmb. Not literally. I just agree with her.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We've discussed this before; I'm not sure it bears repeating at this point. That sentence was related to why I don't understand how it could be a surprise, not whether it's right or wrong.
I think it is surprising that this is not more widely known. I think it is surprising that so many people who diligently gave their time and opinions were dismissed and ignored. Perhaps that's naive.
So do you think it is right or wrong? And why?
Dagonee, you are an interesting, smart, articulate guy. I think it would be a wonderful thing and edifying to me personally to be able to have a discussion with you where you actually state a position instead of just pointing out the flaws in the positions of others. I know that is kind of "your thing", but, because I respect you it ends up being a little frustrating.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's actually a time thing right now.
I very much believe in the apostolic succession and the ultimate authority of the Pope in particular and the episcopate in general. Not that either are immune from mistakes, nor that we are excused from weighing their pronouncements in our conscience. But that there is a moral duty to defer to their authority in most situations (i.e., barring private revelation and a few other circumstances).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am interested in having that discussion - about why - when you have time. Thanks.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
]
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
yourself.