As opposed to catholic tradition, which one of my critics seems to imply that as a 2 week catholic I can not speak to catholic issues, I intend to expound on the church and s-x in a few posts.
Today's topic is on the s-x contract which I believe is a more adequate name for the marriage contract. This s-x contract as celebrated in most churches is the permission of the church celebrating the ceremony for two poeple to engage in s-x acts or indeed to allow s-x thoughts. Strike s-x thoughts or actions and substitute "unitive" acts or "possibly procreative acts." 5 young men sit at a wedding and, with various degress of envy, realize their best friend is now free, within limits, of course, to engage in acts and thoughts that they are forbidden to do and have. Their married friend has joy. The others have only cold showers to look forward to.
For example, and as a catholic I would advise thusly: should they see a commercial movie at their girl friends that shows a little 'love making' they should say,"Pardon me dear, I need to take a cold shower." As they leave that evening they should tape their months shut in case a 'good night' kiss trigger lust.
For married couples I suggest the following changes in vocabulary. Substitute "Let's have a little unity tonight" rather than crude alternatives. All good christians should carry a "cold shower bag" around their waists should they see an attractive member of the opposite sex on the street, such bag to be activated by a small battery carried in the armpit.
The words "s-exual organs" should be banned and be replaced with "unity organs" or "possibly procreative organs." Possibly "reproductive organs" could still be allowed if
the person can submit an affadavit that he gets no pleasure, only unity feelings, from s-x.
All catholic elementary kids should be taught never, and I mean NEVER, to touch their unity organs even in bathing in the remote chance it might spark a thought which would bar them from ever being elected pope. Possibly an exception for girls for obvious reasons.
One final suggestion at this time. Disconnect your hot water heater so only cold showers are possible. A bit extreme, but we can never be too careful. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ok, so after mulling this over a bit, I think you need to stop reading whoever it is you're reading and start spending more time with real people. Because none of the people I know think like this. I mean, even the "little, old ladies" that go to daily Mass at my parish have been known to make some "naughty" comments.
ReplyDeleteSex is a beautiful part of life, not something impure. Sure, it can be misused and people spend a lot of time trying to fight our culture's negative attitudes towards sex, but that's only because it really is such a great gift from God.
God bless,
Anna
Gads , Anna, I'm not reading anything in particular at this time, and am spending most of my time with "real people'(?). Certainly you see that B16 and the curia along with clerical fellow travelers are try to reverse Vatican 2 to reassert superiority of clergy over lay people. I think Jeff put in well in saying that the traddies are being used by the higher clergy in a power from the top push. And this is most important. I have refered, and take pride in bringing at least a dozen people to the church because they felt the church was for all, not just a a body to support a chosen few. That is what Vatican2 was about to the average layman--a church of equals.
ReplyDeleteTo me, this negative reaction to Vat.2 is shown beyond any doubt by the churchs' response to the sex abuse crisis. Tepid, almost indifferent response, by the papacy. Anger by the traditionalists that a priest dare be held accoubtability for gross misdeeds ( I have seen this right in my own diocese). What dioceses have reponded without first being dragged into court?.
Centuries of sebservience to clergy have led the hierarchy to near antinomianism. And the attitude toward sex, the raising of virginity and celibacy to THE cardinal virtue---how many good persons, even catholic, laugh and ignore these eunics to
the damage of the church and to those repelled by this monstrosity approach. This uplifting of the lay people, this curb on the excesses of the hierarchy---this is vatican2 to the "real" people I know.
As you may know, Liam is trying to help three young men. They love their future church because it is a 'peoples' church and the people are good. But what are they do to with the church's official position on sex---calling for the total suppression of all sexuality? Ignore the teachings, marry just to get a sex license, or torture themselves trying to follow teachings that virtually all mental health experts agree would virtually destroy them?
Why is the Latin Mass so important to some. To some laypeople it reintroduces the "mystery", yes, the "magic" which they can substitute for real thought, real spirituality. For the clergy, a language only THEY really know. Or understand.
This is the real battle. Is the church B16 or equally Jack's and Anna's. Jack
Ok, now to address all the sex-related comments.
ReplyDeleteDespite the fact that the only infallible person on earth must be a virgin(or celebrate)male; despite the the early church fathers all praised virginity over sexual contact; despite the fact that only celebate males by bring the body and blood of Christ to us(with a very few exceptions)--despite these facts and others let us look at the catechism.
Well, I don't know that I would describe the pope as “the only infallible person on earth”. Sure, he has a special charism of infallibility, but the bishops and all the faithful can have some sort of infallibility. And the vast majority of things that come out of the pope's mouth (or pen) are not protected by infallibility.
If you have issues with the attitudes inherent in the pastoral requirement of priestly celibacy, though... well, then, I suppose I have my issues with that too.
Now it does not take a Whitehead or a Wittenstein to see that it must follow logically that those, not called to virginity or consecrated celebacy cannot give themselves to God alone. Only virgins and celebates are so honored.
Good heavens, Jack, I should hope so! I gave myself to my husband when I married him. If I tried to consecrate myself to God alone I would be committing a serious violation of my vows to my husband and of God's will for my life. You can't give yourself to another human being and then complain that you can't give yourself to God alone, lol.
However, I might point out that not being allowed to give yourself to God alone doesn't mean you don't have just as much of an obligation to give yourself to God.
I cannot accept that Father O'Brien is by definition, all things being equal, my 'superior' because of his virginity.
Mmm. I wouldn't say that the Church teaches that he is by definition your superior. If holiness or greatness were water, and each person's capacity for it was a pitcher, then, at most, I would be understanding the Church to say that a virgin's pitcher is a bit bigger than a married person's. How much water there actually IS, in the pitcher, will vary greatly and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with virginity or sexuality. (For that matter, having only 3 gallons of water in a 10 gallon tank is presumably a greater crime than in an 8 gallon tank... so it's not like virgins wouldn't also be held more highly accountable for their actions, if indeed they have a greater capacity for greatness).
Your words remind me of the passage in the Bible (Luke 9:46-48) where Jesus' disciples are arguing over who is the greatest. Being humble as Christ was humble means not worrying about whether someone else is greater than you Jack, whether it's because of virginity, God's calling them to something higher, or anything else. All that matters is that you follow where God calls you, that you be as holy as you can.
Certainly you see that B16 and the curia along with clerical fellow travelers are try to reverse Vatican 2 to reassert superiority of clergy over lay people. I think Jeff put in well in saying that the traddies are being used by the higher clergy in a power from the top push.
Um, no, no I don't see that. I see B16 trying to prevent the schism with the SSPX from growing any wider by allowing a more widespread use of the old Missal. Other than that, my impression is that he preaches the basics of the faith and doesn't radically change things either in the Curia or theologically (unless you count Limbo).
Some traditionalists might want to overturn Vatican II, certainly. But they're just as likely to rant against their heirarchy as anyone else, so I'd hardly say they want to reassert some sort of clericalist attitude.
To me, this negative reaction to Vat.2 is shown beyond any doubt by the churchs' response to the sex abuse crisis. Tepid, almost indifferent response, by the papacy. Anger by the traditionalists that a priest dare be held accoubtability for gross misdeeds ( I have seen this right in my own diocese). What dioceses have reponded without first being dragged into court?.
I once saw an article by John Allen where he explained that part of the reason John Paul II's response was “tepid” was because of his Polish background; that because he came from a culture where men were “manly” men, the idea of men sexually abusing children sounded ridiculous – it just wasn't something that would sound like it could be a serious problem to him. To me, this is a more likely explanation than that John Paul II just didn't care about kids because he wanted to defend the power of the papacy.
When it comes to the response of individual dioceses, though, I think their poor response was mostly because they wanted to defend themselves. They weren't defending the idea that the Church belongs to the hierarchy, they weren't defending the idea of clericalism, they were (are) defending their own particular positions of power. This is wrong, because they are sacrificing the good of many whenever they respond poorly. But it's not some grand conspiracy to bring down Vatican II.
Centuries of sebservience to clergy have led the hierarchy to near antinomianism. And the attitude toward sex, the raising of virginity and celibacy to THE cardinal virtue---how many good persons, even catholic, laugh and ignore these eunics to
the damage of the church and to those repelled by this monstrosity approach. This uplifting of the lay people, this curb on the excesses of the hierarchy---this is vatican2 to the "real" people I know.
Seriously? People assume that politicians are out there having affairs, lying, cheating, or otherwise not giving considerations to morals. As far as I can tell, higher levels of authority in the Church are not known for any of this. So what evidence is there of antinomianism?
And if you think someone's teaching that not having sex is the cardinal virtue, well, then, laughing seems as appropriate of an answer as any. To think that, though... you have to really not be paying attention to all the preaching against lying, murder, war, genocide, disrespect for the environment, failure to care for the poor, cruelty, etc.
But what are they do to with the church's official position on sex---calling for the total suppression of all sexuality? Ignore the teachings, marry just to get a sex license, or torture themselves trying to follow teachings that virtually all mental health experts agree would virtually destroy them?
Oh my goodness, Jack. I know it's hard to control desires, but yes, sometimes you just have to do it. I mean, seriously, according to this way of thinking, someone who suffers from a condition where they have impulses to kill people that are as strong as a normal man's desire to have sex – why, the Church is cruel to tell him he must torture himself by not giving in to those desires! Honestly, if you take that line with sexuality, that it doesn't matter what's right or wrong, that it only matters whether someone would feel tortured in resisting the desire, why draw the line at only sexual matters?
And since when do mental health experts have a better understanding of the ins and outs of human spirituality and sexuality – a better understanding of what is really GOOD for people – than the Church which Jesus Christ himself (who, I may mention, had a hand in actually designing us) founded? Why do you trust these people to know more than the Church whose teachings are protected by the Holy Spirit? Do you trust in science more than you trust in God? Is that what this is based on? (And, while you're at it, are you sure you aren't just ignoring any science that says hey, the traditional pattern of a married man and woman with kids is actually what's best?)
Why is the Latin Mass so important to some. To some laypeople it reintroduces the "mystery", yes, the "magic" which they can substitute for real thought, real spirituality. For the clergy, a language only THEY really know. Or understand.
Why do you presume to judge the spirituality of someone to whom the Latin Mass is important? Why ridicule it as mystery and magic? As far as I can tell from talking to them, it's mostly about respect for God and for fellow worshipers, about worshiping God to their utmost. This isn't something to scoff at, even if the Latin Mass doesn't do that for you.
This is the real battle. Is the church B16 or equally Jack's and Anna's.
No, this isn't the real battle. That the church is equally mine and yours is a FACT, Jack. It doesn't need to be fought for. Just act as if it's true, and it will be. But that doesn't mean we can just ignore the hierarchy, either, whenever what they have to say isn't what we want to hear. I may be just as important to the Church as my priest or B16 is, but they are the ones whose particular role happens to include teaching and authority. Which means I need to submit to them, even though they aren't necessarily smarter or wiser or holier than me.
You want to know what the real battle is, Jack? The real battle is turning each and every one of us into the transformed creatures that we are supposed to be becoming. The real battle is getting to know who God is and working with his grace to overcome the selfish, petty habits of deed and thought that we have, in order to live lives of self-restraint and love, lives inspired by the Spirit instead of lives inspired by the flesh. The real battle is against our own fallen tendencies and against the demons who prey on those tendencies, not against fellow members of our own Church.
God bless,
Anna
Anna. Basically I stand by what I wrote. Let me respond at least in part.
ReplyDeleteYou accept that virginity is a greater gift than marriage. I do not.
I believe the total suppression of all sexual thoughts before marriage is dangerous. You think it is not.
I think the church's response to the sex abuse crisis is at least, in part, because of the feeling of SOME priest that they are not subject to the laws as others are: You do not believe this. I say look at the interviews with the victims. In almost all cases the priest says that sex with him)the priest) is legimate.
The Latin mass. I quoted on an earlier blog a monsignor who openly said people crave mystery. Our church should not be based on mystery. Do you disagree?
I know at least to Latin Mass devotees. Not a scientific survey to be sure. But each of them, to my knowledge, is totally disinterested in any form of social justice and community and love the idea of the mass as just between them, the priest, and God. I go with Vat.2. Worship is best in a community.
The church teaching is that the pope only is infallible. Grant that. And he must be celebate.
I believe that studies have shown, and I cannot specifically cite them, that the catholic clergy spends no more time on 'spiritual' matters than other clergymen.
Your frank admission that clergy are superior to laypeople does shock me. Are you saying that by marrying I have removed myself further from God and have, even slightly,demeaned myself? Are you saying that being concerned with my wife and my children distracts from devotion to God?
Why are you and the pope so concerned with SSPX and not the many other LOYAL members of the church? What is the position of SSPX on the issues we are talking about?
How can something be both beautiful and demeaning at the same time, as your response implies?
Okay, Anna, I'm being distracted by my grankids. So you win. Just joking.
Oh, I was put down by don't tell me, tell your wife comment.
Look at Liam for what I am a bit upset about. Jack. Happy thanksgiving to you and your family!!
Ten Latin mass devotees not "to". Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I would say virginity is a “greater gift” than marriage, but I guess it depends on who you think is doing the giving and what standard you're using. In general, I will admit that someone who is celibate is capable of a somewhat greater devotion to God than a married person; but I think this is like saying a celibate's capability for devotion to God is 120 vs a married person's 110 – when most people (celibate and married alike) are actually down around the 40s, or maybe 60 for a particularly holy person.
When have I ever advocated the total suppression of all sexual thoughts before marriage? I'm telling you I believe that a man really must not act on his sexual urges outside of marriage. That doesn't mean he has to suppress every sexual thought he ever has. I'd think there was something wrong with a guy if he didn't have some sexual thoughts about a woman before he married her.
I think the church's response to the sex abuse crisis is at least, in part, because of the feeling of SOME priest that they are not subject to the laws as others are: You do not believe this.
You accuse me of such strange things, Jack. I would assume that some, if not most, of the abusive priests do indeed think they are not subject to the laws others are. Although I suppose I would assume many just don't care about the laws as much as they care about their personal satisfaction. Either way, I do believe that clericalism is a major factor in the sex abuse crisis. I just don't think there's some Vatican-level conspiracy going on to support child sex abuse or bring down Vatican II.
The Latin mass. I quoted on an earlier blog a monsignor who openly said people crave mystery. Our church should not be based on mystery. Do you disagree?
Mmm. That depends on what kind of mystery you are talking about. It's actually part of Catholic doctrine that some things are mysteries – the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, for example. I think it's right for us to acknowledge these fundamental mysteries and I think it's right for our liturgies to reflect this in some way. I think it's highly dangerous, however, to make the ordinary actions of the priest or anyone else in the church into a mystery from which anyone is excluded. Does that make sense?
On the Latin Mass devotees:
If they do indeed tend, as a group, to be disinterested in social justice and community, then that's a valid complaint. Every group has their own problems which tend to come out the most, Jack. Traditionalists need to focus more on the community and the poor; liberals need to focus more on emphasizing the absolute God over fellow men; charismatics need to focus more on non-charism-related aspects of life; Marian-devotion devotees need to focus more on other aspects of life. But my point is that you cannot presume, you cannot dare to judge any of these groups as a whole as using something to “substitute for real thought, real spirituality”. All of them are, despite their faults, seeking God, and you must presume that search to be authentic. You can point out the faults of any extreme; but it's not ok to talk about them the way you did.
The church teaching is that the pope only is infallible. Grant that. And he must be celebate.
Mmm. Church teaching is that only the pope has the charism of papal infallibility, yes. But bishops have infallibility, too, even if it is only exercised in a council.
I believe that studies have shown, and I cannot specifically cite them, that the catholic clergy spends no more time on 'spiritual' matters than other clergymen.
So? What's your point?
Your frank admission that clergy are superior to laypeople does shock me. Are you saying that by marrying I have removed myself further from God and have, even slightly,demeaned myself? Are you saying that being concerned with my wife and my children distracts from devotion to God?
I did NOT say that clergy ARE superior to laypeople. I thought I was specifically saying that they often, maybe usually, aren't. I said clergy CAN be superior to laypeople.
By marrying, you have not demeaned yourself. You have merely limited your options by choosing one. Think of it this way. There are a lot of ways you can serve God: by starting a food shelter for the poor, by starting a school for the uneducated, by preaching the gospel to people who have not heard it, by singing in the choir at your church, by taking the Eucharist to homebound parishioners, by donating money to a good cause, by founding a charity to help provide for young unwed pregnant women so that they can choose life for their babies, by advocating for peace, by showing someone devotions to help improve their spiritual life, etc. No one can do all of these. All of them are good. By choosing one, we lose the option of doing some of the others. (If we try to do all of them, we are dividing our heart and making ourselves less effective – definitely not God's will). But that doesn't mean that all paths have an equal opportunity for doing good, for greatness. Some paths might accomplish more than other paths. We should accept this and not care about it too much. If we get caught up in which path is best, we will be less effective, less good on our path. And God wants people on ALL paths, even if some of them do less total good than others. Because those paths still do good which needs to be done. The head is greater than the foot, but the head still needs the foot, and both are good.
I'm a mother. When I'm brushing my kids' teeth, I'm serving God through this. But brushing their teeth also means I have less time to spend in prayer. Prayer is, objectively, a higher good, a more important thing than brushing teeth. But, because I'm a mother, sometimes what God wants ME to do – that is, what is the better thing for me in this particular situation – is to stop praying and brush my kids' teeth. I'm doing God's will, even though I'm doing the lesser good, because God made us to do all sorts of good things, not ONLY the highest good things. That said, someone who has consecrated themselves as a virgin/celibate to God doesn't have as many lesser goods that need to be done; so, yes, they have the option of devoting themselves to accomplish more higher goods. Which doesn't mean they actually do; even a busy mother may be able to devote a good hour to prayer a day, whereas a priest can be lazy and only spend 15 minutes in prayer a day.
And there's nothing demeaning about taking a lesser path. There's nothing demeaning in being the foot in the Church instead of the hands or the eyes. You should only be ashamed of your path if it's not the one God set you on. If you think being a foot is demeaning, then you need to take to heart 1 Cor 12:14-26 and Matthew 18:1-9.
On the SSPX:
I don't know, or much care, what the SSPX's position on every issue is. I'm concerned about the SSPX only in the generic way that I am concerned about all the Church. They seem to me to be a particularly ... injured? ill? aspect of it. But I only mention my opinions on them because you brought them up.
Hope you had a Happy Thanksgiving.
God bless,
Anna
Anna. Just a few responses.
ReplyDeleteIs brushing your child's teeth any less God like than playing golf as many priest to?
You may not suggest suppressing all sexual thoughts be fore marriage but the church so teaches.
the "mystery" the monsignor was talking about was not theological. He was clearly talking of mystery in terms of a feeling of magic.I know this rather well from alice's relatives. young and old, who see Jesus or Mary in every pancake.
Celibates CAN be superior to married, and I submit marrieds CAN be superior to celebates. So what is your point? Are you saying caring for your family or others is less Christian than meditating?
And, of course, Bishops must be celebate so can we say the only people empowered with infallibility are celebate Males?
But thanking you Anna for responding. I think I am on the index of forbidden bloggers.
BTW on a personal note see M...'s response on J...'s blog. Exactly as I told you weeks ago. M. feigns high minded impartiality and always comes down on the church's side; in this case trying to make light of clerical misconduct. And he can not spell thhe German word correctly. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteBrushing my child's teeth is good. Playing golf is good, provided it's in its right place and doesn't interfere with higher goals. Yes, some married people are holier than some celibates. Celibates have the potential to dedicate themselves more to God than married people have the potential to do; since hardly anyone lives up to their potential, this difference frequently doesn't play much of a role in human life. I wouldn't say that caring for my family is less Christian than meditating, but I would probably say that it is a lower good than meditating. But I think part of your problem with this might be that you have no conception of what the phrase “lower good” really means to me. To you it means, “clearly inferior in every way, not what God really wants, just what he'll tolerate because humans are weak”. To me it means, “something actually good, something God built into his plan to make the whole picture complete, something he occasionally demands of us, but which has less inherent resemblance to God than something higher”.
I really recommend you read C.S. Lewis' book called The Four Loves. He goes into this description of the difference between “nearness to God by resemblance” and “nearness to God by approach”; the first is where celibates have an “advantage” over married folk, somewhat the way that angels have an advantage over humans in their built-in resemblance of God. The second, “nearness to God by approach” is what holiness is; and sometimes growing closer to God in this way might mean growing less like God “by resemblance”. I don't think I can do as good a job as C.S. Lewis of explaining why something that is a lower good is not demeaning or deficient, but rather something good; that, in fact, the higher cannot stand without the lower, as Lewis says. The animals are a lesser good than humans, but God didn't hold back in making them. Humans were created as a lower good than angels, but God became a human, not an angel. And whether one was made a human or an angel, what really matters is not our relative statuses, but whether we choose to love and serve God or reject him.
Since when does the church teach that all sexual thoughts before marriage ought to be suppressed?
I think, technically, all lay people exercise a sort of sensum fidei kind of infallibility, and all lay people are not required to be celibate. But either way, I'm not sure why infallibility matters at all to this issue of attitudes towards sex in the church.
There is, of course, no index of forbidden bloggers. I think you are too sensitive to other's reactions to you, but that is just my opinion. Either way, I am happy to keep responding.
God bless,
Anna
Anna, a little late in responding. Frank "has" the computer this week. Page 313, The Essential Catholic Catechism. An unmarried person must abstain from "all that would arose sexual passion." To me that is quite clear. Repress all sexual thoughts---do they not arose sexual passion. If not, what are they, what do they do?
ReplyDeleteI've read much of C.S. Lewis. But he was Anglican and was not infallible and was "subject to grave error." Just Joking. Frank is really excited by your help. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteC.S. Lewis isn't infallible; neither is Alan Schreck. I don't know that I'd take his phrasing of it as the final say on Catholic teaching. (He may be right, though).
I was just reading this week the new U.S. bishop's Catechism, the chapter on the commandment against adultery and their teaching on related issues. I recommend reading that; they do a sort of summary of Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body, and it was the first time I felt like I had any understanding of what that was about. But let me try to sum up some of their points and relate it to this discussion.
Chastity is the virtue whereby we stop treating our sexuality as something to be used, and start treating it as an integral part of who we are.
"The first man and woman did not experience any shame in their nakedness because the attraction of male and female served love alone. This was more than virtuous self-control. The man and woman dwelt so intimately in their bodies that each body expressed to the other the beauty of the human person and the image of God. Bodily sexuality was integrated into the energy of spousal love.
Original Sin caused a rupture in the unity of body and soul. The body now could obscure as well as reveal the person. Christ's saving act included the redemption of the body by which he restored the lost unity of soul and body. This is a process of restoration, partly completed here and fully restored in the next life. "
So think now about the unmarried man. In as much as his sexual thoughts appreciate the whole person (of the one admired) with dignity and as an image of God, then he does not violate the virtue of chastity. If, however, he allows himself to think of her body in a way that separates her body from her person - thinks of her body as a tool to be used, an object for pleasure - then he strays into sin.
On the more general topic of the Church's negative/positive attitude towards sex, let me offer a few more quotes from this chapter.
"God created boy the body and sex as good. Hence, we do not approach sexuality with fear or with hostility to the flesh. It is a gift of God by which men and women participate in his saving plan and respond to his call to grow in holiness."
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human perfomance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude. [quoting the CCC]"
"God created human beings to love one another. ... The miracle is that in the act of self-giving, each spouse gains a greater sense of self while enriching the other spouse."
God bless,
Anna
Anna, I notice I forgot to respond to your last comment. I must say with all respect to you that what you quote to me is sheer babble; and effort to make the church's attitude toward sex sound like it is reasonable makes it seem even more absurd. You might notice that the book I cited is highly endorsed by Cardinal Sconborn the general editor of "The Catechism of the catholic church." Keep praying for Frank. Jack
ReplyDelete