Celibacy is Superior The church is not a democracy.

Blogging over the last couple of years has confirmed that catholics put forth the argument when pressed that "the Church is not a democracy." This is true and is not necessarily bad. Burke said something to the affect that 'men should be weighed, not just counted.' But, of course, there is a danger in 'weighing, not just counting' in that it CAN be a receipe for the dominance of one group over another.

I see this most clearly in the Church's attitude toward human sexuality all the way from masturbation to abortion. My approach is this: What would a society or group who were all pledged to celibacy have to say about human sexuality. From this I conclude that the Catholic church's teaching on sexuality fits perfectly what we would expect from a society of celibates.

One. It is clear that the church since the earliest times held sexual desires and actions to be inferior to celibacy. And that is putting it mildly. The Church for centuries regarded sex as degrading but necessary to keep the species going.

Two. The church has always held that celibacy is necessary for the complete devotion to God. And thus the celibate should be superior to the married in the service of God .This belief is clearly still held today, if we look past the effort to soften this attitude today.

Three. The church has always argued that the principal purpose of sex is procreation. They offer no proof of this from natural law or logic. It is simply true because the church says so, despite the fact that throughout human history procreation has been an occassional outcome of sexual intercourse, but has in no ways been the principal motive of sexual relations.

Four. Beginning in the 1930's the church has added the "unitive" principle as a reason for sexual relations. JP2 was the culmination of the two purposes of sex approach. It should be pointed out that the church, before 1930, must have been teaching falsely in that virtually no emphasis was placed on the "unitive" aspect and JP2 doctrine was considered a great 'breakthrough."

Five. The two 'purposes' approach is totally inadequate to most. The must have possibility of preocreation argument simply means no contraceptives or no orgasm outside of sexual intercourse. The unitive principal would take incredible subtlety to follow. Example: to assume that both parties are in total unity as to the pleasure of the sex act is almost impossible to determine. I'm watching a football game on TV and my wife desires sexual relationship. I put her off---has the unitive principle been violated. Even if sexual relationships are performed, but I am less interested, Have I failed the unitive effect? The unitive effect really comes down to don't rape your sponse. Good point, Yes.

Six. The church's teaching of no orgasm without male penetration is far-fetched. Great excitement in foreplay can lead to orgasm. I notice in checking the Catholic Answers site they suggest the unse of benzacaine to deaden sexual feeling. A bit artificial it seems to me.

Seven. The church desires the banning of contraceptives. Do they also desire to dictate the legitimacy of sexual foreplay and positions.

Eight. In its wisdom the Church developed NFP. That is a way to have sex not open to procreation, or, at least, so they claim. It is not like a condom, for example, because it is not artificial. That is a condom is something physical. The rigors of NFP achieve the same result with calendar counting, temperature, etc. Perfectly natural the church says.

Nine. Life begins at the moment of conception. Clever, but transparent. All aspects of the human body are human life. The real question is when does a cell become a person. The church knows their position that a single cell is a person is not accepted by most;so let's change person to life. No one will notice the difference. So a fertilized egg is a person just as much as a billion cell body. It has all the rights of any person. This is so unreasonable even to catholics---a pregnant person is not counted as two people, a single cell is not baptized, billions of these "persons" are eliminated by nature in spontaneous abortions, people do not weep over these simple cell forms which are expelled by nature, if they are full persons what is their physical in an afterlife, and on ad infinitum.

Ten. The church shows no particular interest in life after birth. It supports with great pride the African churches with their incredible records of female sexual mutilation, starvation sized families ( if only all Africans could have a NFP course), their opposition to sex education, the spread of aids, the suppression of women, their support of or neutrality toward dictatorial regimes. Well, the church says, we must not interfer with local customs.

Now all of the above are exactly what you would expect from those who are self claimed superior because of their celibacy but realize they cannot totally control human nature. The church can and should be great. But as long as ALL decisions are made by practical eunuchs to protect their superiority, there is little hope. After all the church is not a democracy. So what laypeople think and do is without significance.

I did not write this in anger and was holding it off because of my two boys. I was "inspired" by a flagrant example of naked clericalism that I experienced this week effecting my grandchildrem. Jack