I'm 66, born and raised a Catholic like yourself, but no longer practicing. Please let us know how you continue to believe that the Church has the absolute correct teaching on homosexuality,(or most other doctrines on sexuality as well). You have evidentally done an excellent job in personally living up to those teachings on but obviously at great cost to yourself. I honestly don't know whether to admire you or consider you among the world's best suckers alive.
Fair comment and request, but a bit off topic for that post. So here goes.
In the first place, I think Catholic doctrine fits well with the biological function of the reproductive system (species continuation) and the sociological requirements of child-rearing (family unit). One could perhaps envision other ways to achieve the goals, but the Catholic doctrine of sex within marriage is the "organic," "no artificial ingredients" approach.
Beyond that, of course there is the theology of sex itself, which makes sense to me. The first of several commands to be fruitful and multiply comes in the context of the creation of humanity with the two characteristics of being male and female and in the image and likeness of God. John Paul II, in his "Theology of the Body," makes the point that being male and female is part of how humanity is in the image and likeness of God. It is in the marital act of a husband and wife that the two who have become one flesh give a bodily image of the enduring and creative love of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (and also, as St. Paul says of the love between Christ and his Church). John Paul's teaching not only shows the sublimity, the divine meaning, of loving sexual activity between husband and wife, but also implicitly points out the failure of other sexual activity to measure up to the divine purpose in creation.
To me, it is not a problem to recognize that there is disorder in the world, both in the physical world and in the human spirit. Based on the foregoing, I do not have trouble seeing same sex attraction as one of the many forms of disorder in our world. So the Church's teachings on sex in general and homosexuality in particular seem to me to make good sense.
I have said a bit more in some earlier posts. On November 14, I made two posts titled "Belief and Orientation: Reconciling the Contradiction … " and on December 12, "Quitting." You might want to glance at those, as well as any others in the archive with the label "morality" or "sex." You might also want to check out the U.S. bishops' document whose url is in my "First Things First" statement in the left column of the front page of the blog. I think it gives a good exposition of the rationale for the Church's teaching.
As my banner says, this is all intended to provide an opportunity for discussion. If I can't persuade, I hope at least to promote understanding. So further discussion is always welcome.
As I indicate in the banner, what I post is for purposes of discussion. I hope to persuade, but if I don't persuade, I hope at least to bring greater understanding, as well as to deepen my own. So discussion of this post is certainly welcome.
9 comments:
Well I can say that you certainly have convinced me that there is an internally consistent argument to be made for catholicism. I believe the axioms of your beliefs are wrong, but admire your consistency. As I've said before I have never met anyone like you before... although in other settings I probably wouldn't even care to continue a conversation either. I appreciate your intelligent and knowledgeable responses.
This of course doesn't change my (rational, well reasoned, IMHO) belief that the factual nature and authority of christianity is 100% fabricated, but its a respectful disagreement at least.
In response to your post: sex has multiple functions either direct or indirect: (1) reproduction, (2) emotional growth with others, (3) natural enjoyment via brain chemistry. Yes- the pleasure of sex certainly has evolutionary basis, as does 'fright' via adrenaline that you might experience on a roller coaster. Therefore, going on a roller coaster is (a) self-serving, (b) abusing a natural, biological process for pleasure. However, the catholic church (to my knowledge) doesn't mention this blatant disregard for the body as a sin, or does it? Or is sex just 'special' because of reproduction? In that case, what if you have a sterile man and woman...can they have sex for fun?
I know this is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I want to understand the real problem... abusing a biological process or self-gratification? Because I think there are probably other examples of each that the church doesn't bring heat on. My point is that if its just because sex's role in history has always been taboo, and religion (mirroring its authors) carried forward this notion, then that would seem to be an inconsistency to me, which you could then use to justify to go out, meet a nice man, and have sex! See- Im looking out for you here! :-)
Steve
Well, it's entirely your choice to continue to stick with the narrow Catholic view or "theology of sex" as you put it that sexuality is solely for reproduction. That of course is entirely consistent, as Planetx says, with its conclusive teaching that not only bans every expression of sexuality outside of marriage, but seeks to control its expression even within marriage itself.
The problem is that few people adhere to that (in my opinion) outdated scholastic thinking that confines all actions to a single purpose. This medieval thinking, that the Church cannot seem to get itself out of, is taught like it originated from the mouth of the Lord himself.
As Planetx says, if you continue to accept defined premises, you're stuck with the conclusions. At least you owe it to yourself and your intellect before you die to reconsider the fact that knowledge of truth is an evolving process. You are confining yourself to a phase of that evolution that may well be already obsolete.
Thanks for the comments.
Steve — I do think sex is special. As JPII says, marriage is the primordial sacrament. So the abuse of it would be more serious than the abuse of some other bodily organ or function. That said, however, I also think that it is possible to abuse other bodily functions in ways that are sinful. For example, the digestive system exists to get nutrients into the body, but often we eat with the conscious purpose of enjoying the food, without too much consideration of our need for nourishment. It seems to me that this is okay as long as we do not harm ourselves by gluttony or take steps to frustrate the body's ability to get the nutrition from the food because we want only the pleasure of eating. I am thinking here of the ancient Roman practice of gorging themselves at banquets and then going to the vomitorium to regurgitate so that they could eat more. To me that seems a clear abuse of the digestive system, and sinful. OTOH weight-loss surgery, which also has the effect of inhibiting digestion, is okay because the purpose is to improve the health of the patient, and it doesn't entirely exclude digestion of any food that is eaten.
Of course, the degree of abuse is also a factor. For example, piercings abuse the epidermis more than tattoos, IMO. I'd regard tattoos as frivolous, but harmless (and ugly). Piercings always carry a bit more risk, I think, and when it comes to lips, tongues and penises, it mat not be seriously wrong, but IMO it's wrong.
Howard — I don't think that reproduction is the *only* purpose of sex. I did not intend to say that. I realizes that there are the other purposes as well: to strengthen and express the love of husband and wife, to provide a joy which is a foretaste of heaven — in these ways as well it provides a bodily image and likeness of God. Sex without love is an abuse; sex without an enduring commitment is an abuse; sex which is forced is an abuse. All of these things distort the image of God. So does sex which precludes the possibility or reproduction, because reproduction is "one* of the intrinsic purposes of sex. The openness to procreation is what makes sex an image of the creative dynamic of God's love. Without that, sex becomes selfish. But God shares his being.
You are so succinct it isn't funny.
You really did a good job of summarizing the issue into such a short space.
I must read this "Theology of the Body" document. Can I find it at the Vatican website?
Planetx_123,
You said:
...abusing a biological process or self-gratification?
If I may add (I have not yet read naturgesetz's reply as of writing this, so I may be redundant), I think it's about abusing and/or misusing a sanctified/divine biological process for self-gratification.
Unlike an adrenaline rush, sex has been sanctified within the bounds of a marriage relationship and has been treated extensively in the Bible as a God-invented process that is of particular use in understanding God and his relationship to man.
The same cannot be said to any degree with many other biological processes.
Although, I might add--many,many people have abused themselves and others while looking for adrenaline rushes.
A. Friend — what you say about a sanctified biological process is kind of what I was thinking when I said that "sex is special."
The "Theology of the Body" was originally presented as a series of talks at he regular weekly audiences the Pope has for the visiting public on Wednesdays. Altogether there were 133 talks, delivered in four series, with breaks, over a four year period. They are available on the Vatican website at
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/index.htm
The first was on Sept. 5, 1979, and the last on Nov. 28, 1984.
the first series is gathered under the link Catechesis on the Book of Genesis" (1979-1980).
The talks have also been gathered in book form. The version I have is titled "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body," published by Pauline Books and Media. The talks take up 533 pages of a 663 page book (before the bibliography and index. There is also extensive introductory material. Slightly more manageable, perhaps, is "Theology of the Body Explained," by Christopher West, also published by Pauline Books and Media. West tries to put the content in more understandable language for those who do not have a background in philosophy and theology. And it's about 150 pages shorter.
Maybe you should click on the Catechesis on the Book of Genesis link, and see how that goes. Then you can decide if you want the original words or West's explanation.
well i dont know catholic stuff that well but i can see its not much different than southern baptists so if you ask me its all f-up they say anthing to hurt a group of people and to me thats teaching hate and i dont know how everyone else feels but i dont think god hates me. and he made me gay for a reason.
Ryan, we agree that God loves you, as I said a while back. And that's what the Catholic Church says too. So I'm disappointed to see you describe the Church's teaching as "hate."
One question is whether God *made* you gay. I think that there is stuff that happens in this world that God allows but doesn't personally choose. Does God make bipolar people bipolar? I don't think so.
But if he does make people bipolar, then does that mean that they shouldn't do what they can to control it? I think they should try to control their condition. And I don't think that means I hate them. Even if they do things that I think are unwise, I don't hate them.
In the same way, to me and my church, the question of "What is moral behavior for gay men?" is not resolved by the answer to the question whether God made you gay. Whether a homosexual orientation is part of God's perfect creation, or part of the fallen state of the world, there is still the question of what kind of life God is calling you to. If the passages from Genesis, taken together, don't tell you that God wants us to use sex in ways that are open to fulfilling the command to be fruitful and multiply, then do what you believe God wants or allows you to do.
Again, the Catholic Church officially teaches that God loves you as much as he loves anybody else, and that nobody should hate you because you're gay — or for any other reason. The Catholic Church says God calls all people to love you and treat you with respect.
Peace be with you
Post a Comment