# Sexual Taboos and the Catholic Church



## Jocaste

[Mod note: This is a continuation/derivation (I know that is a bit illogical but I know what I mean, and so should you!) of this thread on sexual education]

I'd like to ask another question if nobody minds 
Did your parents or your teachers (when you used to be a chid) speak easily and naturally about sex with you ?
*Does **sex have to be seen as an awful thing we should be ashamed of ?*
I mean, in some countries, the USA for example (that's the view we have of them in France anyway, that's probably not exactly the truth, I dont' know !), sex and everything in connection with sex (contraception, condoms ... talks about sex ...) really appear to be unnatural : when you hear George W. Bush talking about sex ... ouch, I'm scared ! He recently said that people shouldn't have sex before being married but don't alert those people about contraception methods ... He can't be so simple-minded to keep thinking everyone in his land keep his/her virginity to his future wife/her future husband !
In a country where there are so many young mums ... he's perhaps blind and deaf 
To be serious , here is my question : USA are very practicing religion.
What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex ? I mean, still preaching no contraception allowed ... ? Why do they keep their eyes closed on the today's world ? AIDS, MST ...
The world has changed : why don't they face the actual situation ? Catholic point of view (preaching by the Pope I mean) doesn't really fit today's world, does it ?
What do you think ?


----------



## Kajjo

Jocaste said:


> Did your parents or your teachers (when you used to be a chid) speak easily and naturally about sex with you ?


Luckily, yes, my parents talked freely about sexual and gender issues. We always bathed nude together and still as adults we meet for having a sauna evening in the nude. No shame, no problems, everything very natural and relaxed.



> Does sex have to be seen as an awful thing we should be ashamed of ?


Of course not! It is a most natural thing and should be handled exactly in this way.



> What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex ?


First of all, I think this would be a new topic for a new thread. Anyway...

I am not catholic, so my opinion is just an outsider's view. Let me only contribute two points at this young stage of discussion.

1) Being catholic is voluntarily and a matter of faith. The whole catholicism is a "package offer" and if you want to be part of this religious group, you have to play by their rules. It is your choice and as far as catholicism is concerned, you are not allowed to pick the raisins (the parts you like) out of the whole bunch of rules -- all or nothing, union with God or sin. The pope knows what's good for you.

2) Naturally, I personally consider the catholic rules as very bad. Catholicism contributes to many evils in this world and their rules about sexual behaviour appear to be anachronistic, contraproductive and inhumane.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Jocaste said:


> The world has changed : why don't they face the actual situation ? Catholic point of view (preaching by the Pope I mean) doesn't really fit today's world, does it ?


Sure, but why single out Catholics? Bush isn't Catholic! 
I think that the _Christian_ point of view -- no, the religious point of view in general -- has some weird hangups about sex. The religious leaders of the world should all go to Dr. Phil's show and sort out what's wrong with them before cameras and a live audience.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> Sure, but why single out Catholics? Bush isn't Catholic! I think that the _Christian_ point of view -- no, the religious point of view in general -- has some weird hangups about sex.


You are partly right, that catholicism is not the only denomination with "weird hangups about sex". But there are a lot of Christian denominations who are not so strict and anachronistic, e.g. the protestant-lutheran church in Germany. Thus, calling it simply "Christian" is not entirely correct. I guess, the catholic church is singled out so often, because of her public dominance due to the Pope and Vatican, as well as due to approx. 1 billion members of this church -- by _far _the largest Christian denomination.

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Kajjo said:


> 1)  The whole catholicism is a "package offer" and if you want to be part of this religious group, you have to play by their rules. It is your choice and as far as catholicism is concerned, you are not allowed to pick the raisins (the parts you like) out of the whole bunch of rules -- all or nothing...



Most practicing Catholics I know follow most, but not all, of the teachings of the Church.  In other words, they just ignore some of the things that they judge to be irrelevant to their lives.  For example, pre-marital sex, contraception, and divorce are far from
unknown.


----------



## Benjy

I will probably get a lot of stick for this, but that has never stopped me before 

If people actually repected a little more the concept of chastity that organisations such as the Catholic Church espouse there would be no AIDS crisis, the problem of soaring rates of chlamydia in the UK and so forth.

Maybe this is just a gross oversimplification. Maybe not having sex doesn't really protect you from STDs, unwanted pregnancies and the like. I can see Cuchuflete waiting in the wings with his Mencken quote  ("For each and every difficult and vexatious problem, there is one easy, simple solution.  And it's wrong!")

It is very trendy to say "what we really need is an open attitude to sex and contraception" etc etc. It is never trendy to say that society as a whole is becoming, at least in this person's view, rediculously over sexed. It's true that abstinence education type classes seem to fail miserably, but it needs to be said that, at least in the UK, other types of sexual education seem to be failing horribly as well. Just the other day (I wish I had kept the newspaper) the uni published the results of a (another) survey showing that students are still totally clueless in many repsects as to what constitutes safe sex, and even when they do know they fail to put said knowledge into practice.

So before we go jumping on the Catholic Church and its inhumane ideas it might be worth actually thinking what the net benefits of applying a bit of chastity might be.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> Most practicing Catholics I know follow most, but not all, of the teachings of the Church.  In other words, they just ignore some of the things that they judge to be irrelevant to their lives.  For example, pre-marital sex, contraception, and divorce are far from
> unknown.


After centuries of questionable decisions, one does tend to get a little _blasé_ about Papal infallibility. 

Kajjo, I agree with you that the Catholic Church, because of its centralized, hierarchical structure, generally impacts a larger portion of mankind than any individual church from another denomination. However, it can also happen that a smaller church makes a significant impact, as with Mr. Bush's push for abstinence-only campaigns in the developing world.


----------



## jonquiliser

I'm not so sure religion has hang-ups on sex, in fact, I don't think there's one given attitude one should have to sex, or one idea that is "the" right one about sex. There are many things in life that are personal, and it's not for others to march in and say what is a hang-up and what's the "right way". And religious people differ, anyway; saying religion/"religious people" have a hang-up is a little like saying that "Europeans" have a hang-up. There are of course people who use religion to claim all sorts of things, just like there are people who use biology, science or anything else to claim all sorts of things that they happen to believe.



> Did your parents or your teachers (when you used to be a chid) speak easily and naturally about sex with you ?


 
No. Nudity wasn't ever an issue (someone up the thread mentioned nudity), we'd be naked at home, in the sauna, at the beach or so, and it was never anything strange or extravagant. But my parents never really talked about sex, other than in an embarrass-laughter-sort-of-tone if it came up. My mother might have, sometime, but my father, never.



> Does sex have to be seen as an awful thing we should be ashamed of ?


 
No, of course not. I think it's good that (or when) people feel able to speak openly about it, and not feel ashamed about issues related to sex. (But I find it interesting (to quote someone else) that there seems to be -sometimes- something of an obsession with declaring how "sexually repressed" we are. Hmm...)

Edit: I didn't see Benjy's post before posting, but just to say: while I might not agree with some things, I too think society is  a little "oversexed" - and still the idea persists that we live in a society of sexual repression


----------



## palomnik

I was raised as a Catholic, and it was quite true in my family that sex was a subject that was never discussed. This isn't necessarily true in every Catholic family I've known, but most discussions will still involve Catholic belief as a party to the discussion.

Kajjo's comments about the Catholic Church being a "package offer" is true to some extent, but it doesn't take into consideration the fact that, more than most Christian denominations, Catholicism seeks to establish a unique cultural universe, and that not infrequently people raised in that universe have a difficult time extricating themselves from it later in life, even if they violently disagree with what Cathloicism teaches.

Regarding Mr. Bush and his beliefs, my personal perception is this. Most American politicians traditionally build their popularity around trying to appeal to the majority of the populace, which usually means trying to appeal to what the majority of what the center thinks. The Republican Party in general and Bush and his inner circle in particular have based their political careers on appealing to a conservative base, which they enhanced by galvanizing disgruntled conservative voters and convincing them to provide support since he is "their candidate." This has been reflected in the relatively small majorities that he has won by. It means that he has to continue to support this group or he will lose the most important support that got him into the White House to begin with.  Personally I seriously doubt that he really cares personally about religion, except maybe to believe that God picked him to be president.


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> After centuries of questionable decisions, one does tend to get a little _blasé_ about Papal infallibility.



I'm always ripe for correction, but my understanding is that the popes have made only 2 ex cathedra, infallible declarations.
1. The Immaculate Conception. [Mother of Jesus was born without Original Sin]
2. The Assumption of Mary. [Mother of Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven]


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Most practicing Catholics I know follow most, but not all, of the teachings of the Church.  In other words, they just ignore some of the things that they judge to be irrelevant to their lives.  For example, pre-marital sex, contraception, and divorce are far from
> unknown.


I am sure you right. All catholics I know do as you tell. Obviously they sin all the time in these regards, but use their religion to enforce other dogma upon non-believers, e.g. with regards to abortion, homosexuality and so on.

But obviously does the catholic teaching has more influence in less educated and developed countries. Obviously does the catholic church uses its influence to hinder urgently necessary contraception programs in the starving and AIDS-ridden regions of Africa.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

Palomnik, I may be misinterpreting you, but it seems that you're saying that when Mr. Bush does conservative things, that's not religious; it's just politics. Well, don't you think the same could be said of Catholic politicians?

To speak a bit bluntly, I don't buy that. When political decisions are clearly motivated or supported by religious groups, the religions in question should bear part of the responsibility. They should not be allowed to have their cake and wash their hands of the matter afterwards.


----------



## palomnik

Brioche:  You're right, _ex cathedra _declarations are few and far between.  And in fact, at least one pope was declared a heretic in Church history.

Notwithstanding all that, the Catholic Church is built around the concept of obedience, which it raises to a high virtue.  For example, concepts such as the requirement of clerical celibacy may not be infallible, but violations of it are considered to be sinful all the same.

In general, I believe that the Catholic Church raises obedience to its teachings to such a lofty height that it ends up by making the Church itself an object of worship.


----------



## Jocaste

Benjy said:


> I will probably get a lot of stick for this, but that has never stopped me before


English humour


----------



## Kajjo

palomnik said:


> Kajjo's comments about the Catholic Church being a "package offer" is true to some extent, but it doesn't take into consideration the fact that, more than most Christian denominations, Catholicism seeks to establish a unique cultural universe, and that not infrequently people raised in that universe have a difficult time extricating themselves from it later in life, even if they violently disagree with what Cathloicism teaches.


You are absolutely right. My comments were two-sided and targeted only one specific point. This point was that someone disagreed with the catholic sexual teaching. My point of view still is: If you are catholic and believe in virgin birth, papal infallability, priest's celebacy and so on, you just have to take it as "package offer", not moaning about things _you_ believe in. If you don't believe in -- well, that _should _be easy.

_"Even if you loose the faith, you keep the guilt." _-- Naturally, I agree that it is very difficult to extricate oneself from the fangs of catholicism. This is an entirely different topic, though. 

Kajjo


----------



## palomnik

Outsider:  I'm not too sure that I understand what you mean.  Yes, it is politics.  And yes, I agree church groups should bear their share of the responsibility.  One of the most egregious statements I've ever heard from the Catholic Church is that they were not "responsible" for the Inquisition, but that it was the secular government that was actually responsible for all those people who were killed.

As for American fundamentalists, they adhere to the rather paradoxical position that religion should be kept totally apart from secular government, but morality should influence the government's decisions.  I can't figure out how to get my arms around that.


----------



## Outsider

palomnik said:


> And in fact, at least one pope was declared a heretic in Church history.


Which one are you thinking of?



Brioche said:


> I'm always ripe for correction, but my understanding is that the popes have made only 2 ex cathedra, infallible declarations.
> 1. The Immaculate Conception. [Mother of Jesus was born without Original Sin]
> 2. The Assumption of Mary. [Mother of Jesus was taken up bodily into heaven]


Those are called dogmas, I think.

Check out "Infallibility" at the Catholic Encyclopedia.


----------



## Outsider

palomnik said:


> One of the most egregious statements I've ever heard from the Catholic Church is that they were not "responsible" for the Inquisition, but that it was the secular government that was actually responsible for all those people who were killed.


The executions were undertaken by secular authorities, as the Church did not have the legal authority to execute people. 
I agree that this is a cowardly excuse, though. The Catholic Church certainly likes to "have its cake and eat it too" as much as any other church.


----------



## palomnik

Outsider: Honorius I. Check out wikipedia on him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorius_I

The subject of Honorius I is brought up occasionally particularly by Eastern Orthodox believers when discussing Catholicism.  The subject tends to be something of an embarrassment for Catholic apologists, despite the extensive explanations.


----------



## Fernando

1) UNLUCKILY the number of Catholics is less than 1 billion. Probably you would get that number with all Christian denominations. 

2) I do not mind if you single out Catholicism, but do you mind to say to me which are the libertarian religions (or ideologies)? Islam? Puritanism? Judaism? I find Protestant schools (all of them in their origins and many of them still today) as more Puritans than Catholicism. As said in other posts, Kennedy was a (sinner) Catholic, Bush is not.

3) Opposition to AIDS treatment in Africa has been propelled by some traditional African politicians rather than for C.C. 

4) Maybe Communism has been more liberal on the subject, but I have not seen any communist leader nude (or even kissing his wife). As a matter of fact, they all have presented themselves as "pure" against the "corrupt" (i.e. promiscuous) Western world.

5) Maybe in China or Japan or India (non Catholic countries) promiscuity, "free sex" and nudity is an everyday business. Or is it not?

6) Abortion is not a sex topic. It is about life or not. I recognize the abortist group to defend it, but C.C. has not attacked it on the basis of sex.

7) Said that, I notice that some Catholics (and bishops and Popes) are too anti-sex oriented and their fight against condoms have been ill-oriented.

8) I think that promiscuity and adultery are sins and are basics to any Catholic (or Christian -or human?-) ethics.


----------



## Fernando

palomnik said:


> One of the most egregious statements I've ever heard from the Catholic Church is that they were not "responsible" for the Inquisition, but that it was the secular government that was actually responsible for all those people who were killed.



Agreed. Agreed also Ousider comment. I think BOTH were responsible.


----------



## Etcetera

In Russia, very few parents would talk with their children about sex. 
I knew where babies come from since a rather early age - I was about eight when I read a book called "Encyclopaedia of sexual life". I don't remember if it was written specially for children, but everything was explained very clearly. 
It seems that most children and teenagers obtain their knowledge about sex from magazines - you probably know the kind, a lot of pictures, articles on everything from music to clothes. 
As for the Orthodox Church, in general it is against contraception and abortions, but I've heard that in extreme cases abortion is allowed.


----------



## DickHavana

OK, OK.

Catholic church is too puritan, is really an archaic mentallity.
But, what about another Christian denominations?
Please, see this web:The Signs of the Times. It's sickening. This American Baptist church thanks God for dead soldiers in Irak, and says that 11-S and War of Iraq are a God punishment for the homosexuality in the world. See this, please: God Hates America

And please, listen the "hit parade" of this people: The song "God Hates the world" is really terrifying. See their faces: are they crazy? Are they "the sons of God"? At least Catholic hierarchy (with all their faults) don't permit that madness. 

Is there really any ill in our mind?


----------



## Outsider

In all fairness, I get the feeling that Fred Phelps is seen as a freak by 95% of protestants. People like him are too extreme to ever be more than a caricature of themselves.

P.S. And I believe _his_ Baptist church was founded by himself, and has like a dozen followers or so, most of which are his children (I feel sorry for those). Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check...


----------



## RIU

Kajjo said:


> 1) Being catholic is voluntarily and a matter of faith. The whole catholicism is a "package offer" and if you want to be part of this religious group, you have to play by their rules. It is your choice and as far as catholicism is concerned, you are not allowed to pick the raisins (the parts you like) out of the whole bunch of rules -- all or nothing, union with God or sin. The pope knows what's good for you.


 
You're right.




Kajjo said:


> 2) Naturally, I personally consider the catholic rules as very bad. Catholicism contributes to many evils in this world and their rules about sexual behaviour appear to be anachronistic, contraproductive and inhumane.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Is possible, but I think that the progressive rules are worst for people and at the sometimes that rules contributes for other evils. In other question, is more contraproductive and inhumane the _free sex policy_ for AIDS -for example- than catholic rules.


----------



## tvdxer

Jocaste said:


> [Mod note: This is a continuation/derivation (I know that is a bit illogical but I know what I mean, and so should you!) of this thread on sexual education]
> 
> I'd like to ask another question if nobody minds
> Did your parents or your teachers (when you used to be a chid) speak easily and naturally about sex with you ?
> *Does **sex have to be seen as an awful thing we should be ashamed of ?*


*

*My dad, yes, very much so; my teachers?  I had "sex education" (which is more or less puberty education in the lower grades) in some form or another in 4th grade (age 9-10), 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, and 10th grade (age 15-16).  Teachers who are accustomed to teaching such material generally don't mind it; those who are not might be a little bit more nervous.  



> I mean, in some countries, the USA for example (that's the view we have of them in France anyway, that's probably not exactly the truth, I dont' know !), sex and everything in connection with sex (contraception, condoms ... talks about sex ...) really appear to be unnatural : when you hear George W. Bush talking about sex ... ouch, I'm scared ! He recently said that people shouldn't have sex before being married but don't alert those people about contraception methods ... He can't be so simple-minded to keep thinking everyone in his land keep his/her virginity to his future wife/her future husband !



Not true at all.  Sex is annoyingly omni-present in the American media and on American TV.   Desperate Housewives, Friends, Sex and the City, etc...I know you get these shows in France.

Most of those "people" who have sex before marriage (which, unfortunately, is the vast majority) already know about contraceptive methods.  They learn about them from school, their friends, the internet, etc.



> In a country where there are so many young mums ... he's perhaps blind and deaf



Most of these "young mums" surely already knew about contraception.  Trust me, I know plenty of them.  

Let me say that I don't agree with contraception myself; I believe young people should remain abstinent until marriage.  To do otherwise is immoral.



> To be serious , here is my question : USA are very practicing religion.
> What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex ? I mean, still preaching no contraception allowed ... ? Why do they keep their eyes closed on the today's world ? AIDS, MST ...
> The world has changed : why don't they face the actual situation ? Catholic point of view (preaching by the Pope I mean) doesn't really fit today's world, does it ?
> What do you think ?



The majority of Americans are Protestant, not Catholic.  We Catholics are only about a quarter of the population. 

Nevertheless, as a Catholic and even as a rational human being, I applaud the Church for staying consistent in a changing world.  Rather than adapting its teachings to changing mores and ideas, it has maintained its adherence to the unchanging natural law.

AIDS is generally a result of people _not_ following what is a church teaching - that sex before or outside of marriage is not allowed.  If all Africans, or Americans, or Brazillians, or whatever group, practiced self-control and remained abstinent to their marriage date, and afterwards did the same and stayed faithful to their wife, where do you think the AIDS pandemic would be now?  If you go back to the early years of the crisis, at least in the U.S., AIDS originally manifested itself, for the most part, in the gay community, apparently transmitted through sodomy - another thing the church opposes.


----------



## Jocaste

I don't think we should put everything bad upon the Catholic Church (or any else religion). I mean, saying this is as extremist as some religious ideas about sex.
Everything's not so horrible !
There's a happy medium 

But make young Catholic see sex as something evil before marriage ... that's not really realist. It should say that if you want to have sex before marriage, you should use contraception. That's not a very open attitude to sex but it may be much more helpful !


----------



## tvdxer

Jocaste said:


> I don't think we should put everything bad upon the Catholic Church (or any else religion). I mean, saying this is as extremist as some religious ideas about sex.
> Everything's not so horrible !
> There's a happy medium
> 
> But make young Catholic see sex as something evil before marriage ... that's not really realist. It should say that if you want to have sex before marriage, you should use contraception methods. That's not an very open attitude to sex but it may be much more helpful !



Is it realistic to expect all young Catholics to abstain from sex until marriage?  No.  But it's not realistic to expect young people (or anybody, for that matter) to abstain from any evil.  That, however, does not prevent the act itself from being immoral.

To get an insight as to why the church teaches as it does, I suggest you read this from Aquinas's "Summa Theologica".  If you're not familliar with the format, the first part is objections to what he believes, the middle is a statement of his belief, and the last part are responses to the objections.  ("Fornication simple" is what you're referring to with young people).


----------



## ireney

I shamelessly admit that I have just browsed through the posts but aren't we confusing two different things? Considering sex as an awful thing in general is different from believing that, for one reason or another, people should abstain from sex outside the bonds of marriage (I hate this expression by the way).


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> In all fairness, I get the feeling that Fred Phelps is seen as a freak by 95% of protestants. People like him are too extreme to ever be more than a caricature of themselves.



Now that's a bit of an understatement. Even the most extreme fundamentalists view Phelps as a nutcase. He might as well be the leader of some nutcase hippy cult when it comes to the opinion of any other Christians about him.



> P.S. And I believe _his_ Baptist church was founded by himself, and has like a dozen followers or so, most of which are his children (I feel sorry for those). Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check...



That's true. There used to be also a few people from another family, but I think they got excommunicated at one point.


----------



## Kajjo

RIU said:


> Is possible, but I think that the progressive rules are worst for people and at the sometimes that rules contributes for other evils. In other question, is more contraproductive and inhumane the _free sex policy_ for AIDS -for example- than catholic rules.


Yes, you are right that a modern way of living, modern rules, are not always the best solution and actually can be worse than the catholic way. Surely, there is not a single truth and everything else is wrong: This applies both to modern as well as to traditional ideas.

However, personally I feel that contraception is a very basic right and very personal issue. In times of starvation and general need it would be better if married couples would be allowed to use means of birth control besides celebacy -- because everything else is unnatural and unrealistic.

Kajjo


----------



## DCPaco

I've not read all the postings but I believe the thread should be:

Sexual Taboos and Religious Fundamentalists

Fundamentalists of all sorts would have hang ups.  I think many Catholics believe that there are sins that are wrong but accept that they are sinners and confess their sins periodically and are absolved.

I think religions like the Baptist in the USA are far more fundamentalist and condemning of sex in general.  Afterall, it was Jerry Falwell that had a homosexual obsession--not the pope.  

I believe missionary style sex's normative aspect comes from the whole Adam and Lilith myth where Lilith wanted to be on top during coitus.  So she was cast out and along came Eve.


----------



## Athaulf

palomnik said:


> Kajjo's comments about the Catholic Church being a "package offer" is true to some extent, but it doesn't take into consideration the fact that, more than most Christian denominations, Catholicism seeks to establish a unique cultural universe, and that not infrequently people raised in that universe have a difficult time extricating themselves from it later in life, even if they violently disagree with what Cathloicism teaches.



I'm also speaking about Catholicism from an insider (though heavily lapsed) perspective, and I think it's important to point out that this "unique cultural universe" is by no means uniform over the world. There are drastic differences in all aspects of culture that Catholicism imparts in an average person in different places. In particular, my impression is that the Catholic Church in the English-speaking world has been heavily influenced by the environment of dominant Anglo-Puritan Protestantism, and as such, the cultural attitudes it imparts in its believers are drastically different from those in, say, Eastern European or Mediterranean countries. Thus, it doesn't make much sense to speak of some general "Catholic" influence on how people perceive sexual taboos (or anything else, in fact).

Personally, I think I have enough experience to compare -- for lack of a better terminology -- the Anglo-Protestant and the Continental Catholic attitudes towards sex, which are, in my opinion, only a special case of their overall attitudes towards morality (I'll break my own admonition above and refer to the latter only as "Catholics" for the rest of this post). The Protestant attitude is that there should exist a rigid moral code that is actually enforced in practice strictly and unforgivingly. On the other hand, Catholics support even more rigid moral codes in theory, but the attitudes in practice are far more relaxed, laid back (pun intended), and anarchic; there is much more of an awareness that we are all sinful and in need of forgiveness, and much less of an urge to lash out on transgressors. In practice, this means that despite a more restrictive theory, Catholic countries tend to be more socially liberal in practice, including the matters of sex. 

These patterns of moral attitudes are definitely omnipresent in each modern Western country, regardless of its level of religiosity, and they extend even to people and ideologies that have nothing to do with the traditional religions, or are even hostile to them. This is why it's very hard for me to ever perceive any part of Anglo-America as a truly liberal and permissive society in the sense in which a lot of Europe is, i.e. being truly relaxed and non-judgmental. Over here, even people who are very liberal socially tend to have the same rigid judgmental, guilt-imparting attitudes -- their disputes with conservatives are only about the _content_ of the norms that are to be rigidly observed. In my opinion, it's still the same shared cultural legacy that came straight from the Mayflower. Some things in every culture are far deeper than any conscious adherence to beliefs and rituals.


----------



## Jocaste

tvdxer said:


> Let me say that I don't agree with contraception myself; I believe young people should remain abstinent until marriage.  To do otherwise is immoral.



May you explain a bit more your point of view about contraception and sexual abstinence before marriage please ?
I find this very interesting


----------



## cuchuflete

Please remember to stay within the thread topic, as stated clearly in the first post.



> *Does **sex have to be seen as an awful thing we should be ashamed of ?
> 
> 
> * What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex ?


----------



## Outsider

DCPaco said:


> I think religions like the Baptist in the USA are far more fundamentalist and condemning of sex in general.  Afterall, it was Jerry Falwell that had a homosexual obsession--not the pope.


From what I've heard, the current Pope has some pretty backward ideas about homosexuality, too.

P.S. As does the Dalai Lama, in any case (scroll down).


----------



## mirx

Mexican ultraconservative Catholic, so no, my parents never spoke about sex, and no I don't think I really needed it. Just as I have stated in other threads sex-ed in México starts at a very young age, probably 8 or 9, and finishes probably at 15 or 16 years of age.

I am not a practising Catholic since I was 14 (but mom prays double for me, so it't be ok) but I still support and admire the Catholic church, and if I am ever to become a believer again, I will definitely go back to the religion I was brought up with.

I also believe in the "taking the whole package" thing, and that should apply to all religions, I mean, religion is someone's philosophy of life. So if you don't like that philosophy then get one of your own.

And also it is true that other christian religious -specifically one named above- are much more restrictive. _No dance, no alcohol, no smoke, let a lone sex._

So again, one can not say one is Catholic and then say that the Church should be more open in sexual matters, "either take it or leave it". Religions *should not be changing and adapting* to people's attitudes and trends, but proving time after time that what they preach is the best. If such prooves fail to satisfy the believer, then is time for the believer to look for a philosophy more ad hoc to their believes.


----------



## Etcetera

mirx said:


> should not be changing and adapting[/B] to people's attitudes and trends, but proving time after time that what they preach is the best. If such prooves fail to satisfy the believer, then is time for the believer to look for a philosophy more ad hoc to their believes.


Well said, Mirx. I agree with you wholeheartedly.


----------



## RIU

Kajjo said:


> However, personally I feel that contraception is a very basic right and very personal issue. In times of starvation and general need it would be better if married couples would be allowed to use means of birth control besides celebacy -- because everything else is unnatural and unrealistic.
> 
> Kajjo


 
Well, I have never listen or read Pope saying that the contraceptive methods must not be used inside responsible and catholic marriage. But is possible that I'm making a mistake. In any case, when I read or listen Pope about this, he is talking about extramatrimonial sex. Another thing is that the sensationalits press and groups extrapolate of his words.


----------



## papillon

RIU said:


> Well, I have never listen or read Pope saying that the contraceptive methods must not be used inside responsible and catholic marriage.


Take a look at this encyclical from 1968 by the then pope Paul VI _"Humanae Vida. On the regulation of birth". _The document refers specifically to married couples. Here is a quote:



> Originally Written by *Paul VI*
> Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. [...] Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically *wrong*.


Having said that, the catholic church is so homogeneous that it would be a serious mistake to equate the views of a pope or the Vatican hierarchy with the views of the catholics.


----------



## RIU

RIU said:


> But is possible that I'm making a mistake.


 
You're right Papillon. Thanks a lot.


----------



## Athaulf

tvdxer said:


> To get an insight as to why the church teaches as it does, I suggest you read this from Aquinas's "Summa Theologica".  If you're not familliar with the format, the first part is objections to what he believes, the middle is a statement of his belief, and the last part are responses to the objections.  ("Fornication simple" is what you're referring to with young people).



For the benefit of non-French-speaking readers, here is an English translation of this chapter from the _Summa __Theologica_. Those who expect a simplistic fire-and-brimstone tract will be pretty disappointed. Aquinas argued that fornication is a mortal sin because it's an act of inhumanity towards the offspring that might potentially come out of such intercourse (see the part starting with _"I answer that..."_). One can hardly deny that this was a pretty rational argument at least for his time, when there was no contraception, and the life prospects of an illegitimate child certainly weren't bright.

However, while the _Summa_ is certainly an important work of Catholic theology, it's not a very good source from which to judge about the cultural attitudes prevalent in various Catholic countries. It would be sort of like going through the works of Spinoza to gain a general insight about the culture of the Netherlands. I would quite seriously recommend _The Decameron_ as a classic work with a much better insight into the true spirit of the Catholic Mediterranean world, including the role of religion in it.


----------



## tvdxer

Athaulf said:


> For the benefit of non-French-speaking readers, here is an English translation of this chapter from the _Summa __Theologica_. Those who expect a simplistic fire-and-brimstone tract will be pretty disappointed. Aquinas argued that fornication is a mortal sin because it's an act of inhumanity towards the offspring that might potentially come out of such intercourse (see the part starting with _"I answer that..."_). One can hardly deny that this was a pretty rational argument at least for his time, when there was no contraception, and the life prospects of an illegitimate child certainly weren't bright.



The problem is that the church also does not allow contraception.  

I should note that there were contraceptive methods available at the time, as well as long before (even in ancient Egypt).



Jocaste said:


> May you explain a bit more your point of view about contraception and sexual abstinence before marriage please ?
> I find this very interesting



I've already explained my views on sexual abstinence.  As far as contraception, as a Catholic I am opposed to that as well, because contraception frustrates the sexual act, impeding the possibility of new life resulting from it, one of its two ends.  Modern methods of contraception, being so convenient and effective, have transformed the sexual act, in society's eyes, into a recreational activity done merely for selfish pleasure.  A week or so ago I saw an advertisement for a guide to picking women up with the words "From the bar to the bedroom."

I am not opposed to natural family planning in cases where it is necessary and not motivated merely by selfish intents.


----------



## cubaMania

Outsider said:


> In all fairness, I get the feeling that Fred Phelps is seen as a freak by 95% *more than 99%* of protestants. People like him are too extreme to ever be more than a caricature of themselves.
> 
> P.S. And I believe _his_ Baptist church was founded by himself, and has like a dozen followers or so, most of which are his children (I feel sorry for those). Sorry, I couldn't be bothered to check...  *Yes, you are correct, most of his church members are his (crazy) family*.


Fixed that percentage for you.


----------



## ernest_

What you all seem to fail to see is that vilification of sex is essential to Christianity. It is not an option. It is the very foundation upon which the whole thing is built. They have to vilify everything that is natural. Everything that has any value in itself has to be devalued, so that they are needed later to grant value. They make it dirty and sinful, so that they become necessary to "sanctify" it. They need sins, so that they can grant "redemption". And that's the only reason why sex outside marriage is wrong and evil: because otherwise all those priests would turn irrelevant. Such are the ways of these spiritual parasites. I recommend that you read a book by that German guy with a big moustache called _The Antichrist_ where all these things are clearly and beautifully explained, if you are interested in such matters.


----------



## Jocaste

ernest_ said:


> I recommend that you read a book by that German guy with a big moustache called _The Antichrist_ where all these things are clearly and beautifully explained, if you are interested in such matters.



I was seeking the book in the Internet when I stumbled upon this***... right, people are going mad sometines 


**  **How to Tell If Your Boyfriend Is the Antichrist: And If He Is, Should You Break Up With Him? (Relié) *
      de Patricia Carlin (Auteur), Michael Miller (Illustrations)
*Relié:* 112 pages, Editeur : Quirk Books (25 mai 2007)  ISBN-10:  1594741409 ISBN-13:  978-1594741401

Moderator note: please feel free to reference books, giving all normal details. There is no need to give free promotions to booksellers.


----------



## Benjy

I really don't want to get into a debate about this but I cannot let this pass. I am so heartily sick of hearing these kinds of sideswipes that target essentially all religions and attempt in so doing to reduce them to institutions for exerting power over people.

There are many good well founded reasons for people not to be promiscuous. The family unit, whether people will accept it or not is important, and is fundemental to the working of society. The constant degradation of marriage as a purely religious construct, with no benefit whatsoever other than to bind people to responsibilites they don't want is a problem. And all of these things are related to sex and the way we conceive of it.

The essential central character of any religious teaching is to try and improve people. You might not agree that it always succedes. That's fine by me. You might call me incredibly niaive, I don't really care. Yes there are numerous examples  of abuse of power within religious contexts. We don't see this in any other setting?



ernest_ said:


> What you all seem to fail to see is that vilification of sex is essential to Christianity. It is not an option. It is the very foundation upon which the whole thing is built. They have to vilify everything that is natural. Everything that has any value in itself has to be devalued, so that they are needed later to grant value. They make it dirty and sinful, so that they become necessary to "sanctify" it. They need sins, so that they can grant "redemption". And that's the only reason why sex outside marriage is wrong and evil: because otherwise all those priests would turn irrelevant. Such are the ways of these spiritual parasites. I recommend that you read a book by that German guy with a big moustache called _The Antichrist_ where all these things are clearly and beautifully explained, if you are interested in such matters.


----------



## Outsider

tvdxer said:


> The problem is that the church also does not allow contraception.


I believe the Catholic Church allows "natural" methods of contraception, that is abstinence during the woman's fertile period.



tvdxer said:


> I should note that there were contraceptive methods available at the time, as well as long before (even in ancient Egypt).


I doubt that they were very effective, or in any case very available.


----------



## ernest_

Benjy said:


> I am so heartily sick of hearing these kinds of sideswipes that target essentially all religions and attempt in so doing to reduce them to institutions for exerting power over people.



I don't target all religions, I'm just talking about Christianity although all I said applies to Judaism as well. And that's by no means bashing all religions; there are some highly respectable religions out there, Christianity is just not one of them, in my opinion.



> There are many good well founded reasons for people not to be promiscuous. The family unit, whether people will accept it or not is important, and is fundemental to the working of society. The constant degradation of marriage as a purely religious construct, with no benefit whatsoever other than to bind people to responsibilites they don't want is a problem. And all of these things are related to sex and the way we conceive of it.


I don't know whether promiscuity is a good thing or not, all I am trying to say is that it makes no difference to them. Take my parents for instance, they have lived together all their lives, never being unfaithful to each other (as far as I know); however, they were not married, so in the Catholic Church's eyes they were living in sin. Then they got married and that was it, all sorted. No more living in sin, even though in practical terms nothing had changed. Everything was exactly the same, except that now they had the approval of the Church. And that's the only thing that matters after all. They grant value, give approval, that's what they do. But for this to work, they have had to vilify everything in advance, so that they can un-vilify it later on, at their convenience.


----------



## Fernando

ernest_ said:


> I don't target all religions, I'm just talking about Christianity although all I said applies to Judaism as well. And that's by no means bashing all religions; there are some highly respectable religions out there, Christianity is just not one of them, in my opinion.



Well, you have condemned to Hell all major religions in Western World. You have left Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism if we widen our sight for the whole world. Could you please tell us which of them are the religion you "respect"?



ernest_ said:


> Then they got married and that was it, all sorted. No more living in sin, even though in practical terms nothing had changed. Everything was exactly the same, except that now they had the approval of the Church.



Mmm, that resembles just the same as civil law does. Strange. 

Do you mean is the same living together as standing up in the middle of the community and say in loud voice: "I will stay with this men/women for all my life long"? I think not.


----------



## cuchuflete

ernest_ said:


> What you all seem to fail to see is that vilification of sex is essential to Christianity. It is not an option. It is the very foundation upon which the whole thing is built. They have to vilify everything that is natural. Everything that has any value in itself has to be devalued, so that they are needed later to grant value. They make it dirty and sinful, so that they become necessary to "sanctify" it.



As one who is not a member of any institutional religion, I look at such organizations in two ways.
First, I am interested in what they do—or don't do, as the case may be—in terms of promoting and aiding what I think of as a spiritual message.  In addition, I am interested in the institutional or organizational behavior of such groups, from a more or less anthropological viewpoint. I have, from time to time, attended services conducted by various religious groups.  I have listened, with genuine interest, to friends and acquaintances and strangers speak of their religions.

Based on all of that, I have to agree with one small part of the quote above:  I fail to see that
vilification of sex is essential to Christianity.  I fail to see that it is essential to Judaism.  I fail to see that it is essential to Islam.  I fail to see that it is essential to Buddhism. 

The religions with which I am most familiar do–from time to time–address sexual matters.  They suggest that sexual relations within a committed relationship are just fine.  They suggest that
honest commitments are good.  Other than that, I've just not come across any strong references to sexual practices.  I have never heard a Catholic priest or Jewish Rabbi or any other religious
leader except one whacko TV evangelist (Protestant?) call sex "dirty and sinful". Even the nutty
TV evangelist seemed to limit his irrational tirade to adultery, which is usually a violation of trust.

Religious institutions, of which I have never been a member, and do not anticipate joining, make mistakes and do good things, just as most institutions.  Vilification of sex is not something
they devote much attention to, in my experience.


----------



## Jocaste

> *tvdxer *: I should note that there were contraceptive methods available at the time, as well as long before (even in ancient Egypt).





> *Outsider *: I doubt that they were very effective, or in any case very available.


Oh sure they were !
Very natural methods, and definitely not rare at that time : 
bit of robinier, carob, dates crunched in a honey vase.
Then a vaginal tampon is satured with the mixture and put in the vagina.
This used to be very efficient.


----------



## ernest_

cuchuflete said:


> I have never heard a Catholic priest or Jewish Rabbi or any other religious leader except one whacko TV evangelist (Protestant?) call sex "dirty and sinful".



You have never wondered why they call it Immaculate Conception, have you? I'll tell you: because the guy was conceived _without_ sex. Therefore, it follows that sex is... well, _maculate_.


----------



## Fernando

I checked in the Catholic Encyclopaedia because, maybe I did not remember my Catequesis classes:



> In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, *was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin*."


----------



## ernest_

Fernando said:


> Well, you have condemned to Hell all major religions in Western World.



If by "condemned to Hell" you mean "pointed out that they are the greatest scams that this earth has ever known", then yes.



> Mmm, that resembles just the same as civil law does. Strange.
> 
> Do you mean is the same living together as standing up in the middle of the community and say in loud voice: "I will stay with this men/women for all my life long"? I think not.


Of course it's not the same; civil marriage is a mere formal declaration for bureaucratic purposes, it has nothing to do with the good and evil of sex. Religious marriage, on the other hand, is a religious ceremony by which the Church grants permission to have sex (only in certain ways, mind you); in other words, a ceremony that turns something _sinful_ into something acceptable.


----------



## DCPaco

Very good point Fernando.  During my years at a Catholic university,  I was told that Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth were often confused--even by Catholics.

Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception in the womb of her mother Anna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception

Virgin Birth (aka:  Virginal Conception) refers to the conception and birth of Jesus in and through Mary's virgin birth canal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth_%28Christian_doctrine%29


----------



## Fernando

ernest_ said:


> If by "condemned to Hell" you mean "pointed out that they are the greatest scams that this earth has ever known", then yes.



I am glad we understand each other.



ernest_ said:


> Of course it's not the same; civil marriage is a mere formal declaration for bureaucratic purposes, it has nothing to do with the good and evil of sex. Religious marriage, on the other hand, is a religious ceremony by which the Church grants permission to have sex (only in certain ways, mind you); in other words, a ceremony that turns something _sinful_ into something acceptable.



In civil law, marriage gives you sexual "exclusivity". If performed outside marriage, they call it dirty words, such as "adultery". For some reason, it gives the "non-guilty" party the possibility to divorce. The society (religious or not) does not look good to the "guilty".

I could agree with you that priests have given too much "sinfulness" to pre-marital sex, but religious (or even civil) marriage is not a bureaucratic process.

As said before, one man stands up and, in front of the community and God, explicitly declares that he loves one particular woman, he is going to stay faithful and his companion for ALL his life. Ditto for her.

I think this step is so serious that I do not foresee to have the guts to pass through it.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> You have never wondered why they call it Immaculate Conception, have you? I'll tell you: because the guy was conceived _without_ sex. Therefore, it follows that sex is... well, _maculate_.



It seems like you were sleeping in your religion class.  According to the Catholic dogma, Mary was conceived immaculately (i.e. without the Original Sin), even though her conception was as sexual as anyone else's. This is not to say that there isn't a strong tendency of portraying sex as inherently dirty in the Catholic theology, but your above observation is still completely off the mark.



ernest_ said:


> If by "condemned _[traditional religion]_ to Hell" you mean "pointed out that they are the greatest scams that this earth has ever known", then yes.



There are scams and superstitions in today's world that make anything ever peddled by traditional religions look as mild as an April Day joke. This is the reason why, even though I don't believe in any religion, I don't sympathize much with the loud atheists of today -- most of them eagerly swallow (and perpetuate) one such scam or another. 



ernest_ said:


> I recommend that you read a book by that German guy with a big moustache called _The Antichrist_ where all these things are clearly and beautifully explained, if you are interested in such matters.



Well, Nietzsche talking about anything sex-related is sort of like an anorexic talking about fine dining; it's well-known that this guy never got any p*s*y in his life without paying for it explicitly (and not much of that either).  He did have a rare talent for witticism, and I'll even admit that I had a phase of fascination with his writing, but even if I observe things from the perspective of his own philosophy, the Übermensch fantasies and the scorn poured on the weak and inept look pretty pathetic when coming from an über-dork such as him, who made most of the religious people I know look like James Bond in comparison. _Res, non verba.


_


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> It seems like you were sleeping in your religion class.  According to the Catholic dogma, Mary was conceived immaculately (i.e. without the Original Sin), even though her conception was as sexual as anyone else's. This is not to say that there isn't a strong tendency of portraying sex as inherently dirty in the Catholic theology, but your above observation is still completely off the mark.


I kneeeeew that. I was testing you 

Anyway, it doesn't take a genius to see what's behind the idea of Mr Christus's alleged sexless conception. Christianity has always repudiated sensuality in any of its forms. The first thing they did after re-conquering Spain from the moors was to shut all public baths.  They thought it was better for people to live surrounded by filth and bodily emanations rather than risking seeing each other's nipples. Now they say contraceptives are immoral, even though they are known to save lives. It's been hundreds of years and they haven't learnt anything.



> There are scams and superstitions in today's world that make anything ever peddled by traditional religions look as mild as an April Day joke.


Okay. Then name one other scheme that has reached even remotely such massive scale and has been as long-lasting and financially successful as Christianity has been so far. I'll be glad to know. 



> Well, Nietzsche talking about anything sex-related is sort of like an anorexic talking about fine dining; it's well-known that this guy never got any p*s*y in his life without paying for it explicitly (and not much of that either).


Well, I didn't know that not having seen a minge would render you unsuitable for talking about_ morals_. Does not having seen an elephant make you unsuitable for talking about tennis too?


----------



## cherine

*Moderator's note:*

*There's a number of posts here worth comments, so I'll just use the last one:*


ernest_ said:


> Anyway, it doesn't take a genius to see what's behind the idea of Mr Christus's alleged sexless conception. [...]
> Okay. Then name one other scheme that has reached even remotely such massive scale and has been as long-lasting and financially successful as Christianity has been so far. I'll be glad to know.


*The tone of this thread is veering away from the atmosphere sought and encouraged by the forum's second guideline, which says:*


> II. The Forums promote learning and maintain an atmosphere that is serious, academic and collaborative, with a respectful, helpful and cordial tone.


*Calling a religious figure (be it a prophet, a saint or a god) "the guy" or "Mr. Christus" is far from being respectful.*

*You have every right to have different views, and you have every right to defend your views. But you also have the duty to respect other people's feelings and beliefs.*
*---*

*On another note, I'd like to remind everyone that this thread is about Christianity in general, we are not a religion forum, but about the Catholic view of sex and sexual taboos. So please, let's try to respect the topic of this thread as brought up in the first post:*



Jocaste said:


> [...] here is my question : USA are very practicing religion.
> What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex ? I mean, still preaching no contraception allowed ... ? Why do they keep their eyes closed on the today's world ? AIDS, MST ...
> The world has changed : why don't they face the actual situation ? Catholic point of view (preaching by the Pope I mean) doesn't really fit today's world, does it ?
> What do you think ?


 
*Any further posts dedicated to criticise the Catholic views just for the sake of attacking them will be delete as off-topic and against the forum's guidelines, and the whole thread will be closed.*

*Thank you.*


----------



## safronlove

Overall conclusion is that this is really interesting subject and discussion never ends...


----------



## tvdxer

DCPaco said:


> Very good point Fernando.  During my years at a Catholic university,  I was told that Immaculate Conception and Virgin Birth were often confused--even by Catholics.
> 
> Immaculate Conception refers to Mary's conception in the womb of her mother Anna.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception
> 
> Virgin Birth (aka:  Virginal Conception) refers to the conception and birth of Jesus in and through Mary's virgin birth canal.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Birth_(Christian_doctrine)



YES!  I had the two confused until a few years back, and I am a Catholic who has done a fair amount of reading on Catholic subjects.  It's not hard to do...

And as for Christianity considering sex "dirty", this is not the case.  Indeed, there have been some, if not many in the tradition who have had a pessimistic view of human sexuality (e.g. Augustine), but this does not render the whole religion's view of sex a dirty thing.  Rather we believe that sex is a wonderful thing when done at the right place and time; otherwise it is deficient in some way and often has disastrous consequences.  

Christianity also values virginity, not because sex is bad, but because complete continence requires effort and devotion - a sacrifice to God.  Hence the significance of the Virgin Birth.

In recent years, society has striven to 1) remove almost all restrictions from sex and 2) put sex everywhere.  So from the viewpoint of an unchurched person in modern Western society under these influences, Christianity might appear to "vilify" sex, but this is an erroneous and misleading perception.


----------



## faranji

tvdxer said:


> ...but this does not render the whole religion's view of sex a dirty thing. Rather we believe that sex is a wonderful thing when done at the right place and time


 
A slightly different arrangement of the words *sex*, _*dirty* _and *right*, by Woody Allen:


_Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right_.​ 

Now, this next passage from Genesis 19: 



> _That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. _
> 
> _The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. _


 
strikes me as pretty *dirty*. Could it be *right*? The Bible itself doesn't help a lot in this case as it lacks any moral comment on the whole freaky business.


----------



## Benjy

This is becoming childish.

First and foremost. God did not lie. The story or whatever you wish to call it is at least internally consistent. Before the Fall there was no death. They ate the fruit and introduced death into the world (cf Genesis 3:22, They had access to the tree of life). Then as a consequence of what they did instead of living forever they died. Is that clear enough for  you?

Next: not wanting to flaunt something on the street corners does not make it dirty.

How do you treat something that you consider special? Do you give it to everyone? Do you leave it on display? Consider anyone who has a hobby and they way they treat the things that relate to it. Does their taking care of them and restricting the usage thereof to people they trust make them ashamed of their hobby? 

I love bike racing. I have a really expensive bike. I don't even let my best friend ride it (but that's a story for another time). It is special to me and I am immensely proud of it. What makes it special? Partly the hours I had to work to purchase it and more importantly the way I treat it adds to the value it has for me.

And as for something a little more religious : The Jews held God's name in such regard that they would not even utter it. Is that again because they found it dirty and were ashamed?


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have gathered further evidence. According to the Old Testament...



Quoting the scripture to prove a point as a layman is _extremely_ un-Catholic, and quoting it to prove a point about Catholic doctrine reflects a lack of understanding of how the teaching of the Catholic Church is formed. 

In Catholic teaching, the Bible is merely a kernel around which are wrapped immensely thick layers of official teaching and interpretation, layers so thick and convoluted that as a layman, there is no way you can derive the Catholic doctrine about any particular point by merely reading the Bible -- and as a lay believer, you're supposed to listen to this official teaching and interpretation, and _absolutely never _attempt to derive conclusions from the scriptural texts yourself. Similarly, if you are to attack the Catholic doctrine, it's entirely pointless to base such an attach on your own interpretation of the Bible, regardless of whether it seems to you as more logical than the official Catholic one.


----------



## ernest_

Athaulf said:


> as a lay believer, you're supposed to listen to this official teaching and interpretation, and _absolutely never _attempt to derive conclusions from the scriptural texts yourself. Similarly, if you are to attack the Catholic doctrine, it's entirely pointless to base such an attach on your own interpretation of the Bible



Let me ask you: Is there any way to attack the Catholic doctrine that is not entirely pointless, according to you?

Never mind that I wasn't attacking anything. I was merely pointing out what is written in this book that is nothing less than the main source of "inspiration" for the Catholic church and Christianity. What a fool I am, haha, how on earth could it occur to me that the Holy Bible had something to do with Catholicism.


----------



## Athaulf

ernest_ said:


> Let me ask you: Is there any way to attack the Catholic doctrine that is not entirely pointless, according to you?



Yes. You can take some source that actually exposes the Catholic doctrine, e.g. the Catechism, and address the content found there. I'm sure you'll find plenty of objectionable stuff there; there is no need to engage in speculation as in your above post to get some meaty material for discussion. 



> Never mind that I wasn't attacking anything. I was merely pointing out what is written in this book that is nothing less than the main source of "inspiration" for the Catholic church and Christianity. What a fool I am, haha, how on earth could it occur to me that the Holy Bible had something to do with Catholicism.


It does, but in a very indirect way, as I explained in my previous post. In fact, one of the principal traditional objections of Protestants to Catholicism is that its doctrine is based on the tradition and authority of the Church, rather than a straightforward reading of the Bible. There is certainly no doubt that someone's personal interpretation of some Biblical text is likely to be completely disconnected from the actual Catholic teaching on the subject.


----------



## Kajjo

Let me return to the main topic:
*
What do you think about the position of the catholic church about sex?*
*
The first issue to solve is "What do we call sex?"
The second issue is to clear up "What is the position of the catholic church about sex?"
The third step is "What do you think about that position?"

*Sex is not only "vaginal intercourse in Western standard position", but also lust, love, joy, thinking about having sex, engaging in various sexual techniques and positions, masturbation as well as side-issues like contraception, sex before marriage, priest's sex and so on. At least it is my point of view that we should not limit our discussion to a small part of the wide scope of sexual playground.

Secondly, as far as I know (I am not catholic), the church severely forbids a lot of sexual practices like masturbation, thinking about having sex with people you are not married with, lust is one of the seven deadly sins [term?], while I believe libido is a normal and healthy biological reaction. Celebacy of priests is hold as a high virtue as is celebacy before marriage. The catechism gives quite lot insight into by which _thoughts, words or deeds_ you can sin that I would consider healthy sexual behaviour. Contraception is prohibited and that in turn strongly influences the liberty and enjoyment of sex.

Third, I believe the catholic position about sex to be anachronistic and very restrictive. It takes a lot of liberty and joy away from their flock. Since many sexual thoughts, physiological libido, masturbation is more or less unavoidable, it directly leads to committing sin -- which in turn drives the flock back for confession.

What a fine circle of dogma, sin and absolution, artificially created for the best of the church --but for the best of man?

Kajjo


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: Please keep the conversation on topic.

Edit: You will see that some post that had a more or less tentative relation to the topic have also been deleted. The main reason for this is that off topic and on topic remarks were interlaced. Feel free to post them again focusing on the topic. Since I'm doing on of them "mod notes" I take this opportunity to ask you to make sure your tone is friendly and constructive.

Discussions on the original sin in relation to the topic of the thread are welcomed. Discussion on the topic of the original sin in general (did Adam and Eve know good from bad etc) are off the scope off this discussion.


----------

