what is this trash doing in a Catholic newspaper????

Now this is what I call “engaging the culture”!! It’s how we should be building the Kingdom of Heaven! Good for these guys, and thanks for sharing, Matt!

I dunno, robert waligora.  That’s where our culture is right now, so in terms of how to engage it, I guess we all gotta start somewhere.  The graphics are at least provocative, meeting the culture where it’s at, and then prompting it to ask particular questions.  The “100% Organic Sex” one is ingenious:  indeed.  In a culture where we tend to fetishize fair trade and everything being organic and helping the planet, and obsessively not having any artificial hormones in our food, our homes, and this, that, and the other thing, why is it that we turn a willfully blind eye to hormones in our bodies that supposedly make sex “consequence free”?  Both George Weigel and Mary Eberstadt have drawn attention to this insistence on everything being “natural.”  ...except that insistence curiously does not extend to sexual intercourse.

Robert Wligora - would you mind explaining a bit more what you think makes this “trash”?  I’d really appreciate it, thanks!

Matt, I love it!  I think that meeting the culture where it is, causing people to look and see that we are saying not “these are the reasons why you are wrong” but “here’s a way it can be better.”  The idea of positive instead of negative reinforcement.  Works with kids and adults!

Hurray!!  I am the mom of 11, married almost 30 years and couldn’t be more happy about teaching young people (and old ones) about all the joy, happiness and sheer pleasure that comes from 100% organic sex.
-
And considering God’s first words to Adam and Eve were about ‘filling the earth’ (verse 28 of Genesis), God doesn’t consider sex to be trash.

This is the kind of “in your face” engagement our over-sexed culture needs! Is it edgy? Yes. Is it obscene? Not hardly. These kind of bold atetments need to be made to restore sex to its proper place, and not simply used as a way to make money.

I really appreciate a site like this, and I really hope and pray it catches on. I never had stuff like this growing up and it is such a great time even in the midst of all the troubles going on, to be a real witness. I hope they get more content on the site.

matt….the whole world is obsessed with sex of any shape or form….it says in scripture to keep your mind and body pure and holy for the Holy Spirit…do you think Blessed Mother Mary and Saint Joseph would sit there and look and read this stuff…..

Robert - the fact that the world is obsessed with sex is exactly why this site is so important. It needs to hit the reset button. The world is obsessed with an empty and shallow twisted abuse of sex.

There is nothing impure or unholy about sex itself. That’s where you seem to be making some mistaken conclusions here. It is when sex is abused and misunderstood that it becomes impure and unholy. That’s a HUGE difference and we need to point that out. A site like this does that very well and it is much needed.

I gotta say, Marc Barnes is one amazing kid.  I wish I had a daughter(mine are a tad young..) or a sister to betroth to him!

I think Mary and St. Joe would get a kick out of this site, actually. They’d probably “like” it on Facebook:)

Love et! I really like the idea of “rebelling against the rebellion” - sort of a great twist on Matthew 7:15-20. Let’s be false prophets to pop culture and bring them over to Christ. Instead of a wolf in sheep clothing, we will have a sheep in wolf’s clothing and that sheep be none other than the Lamb of God! Frontal Assault against culture is akin to the American Revolution where we were fighting the English rank and file.. it’s time to go bananas with some guerilla tactics! (pun intended :D)

Okay, so upon visiting the website 1flesh, I’m having one heck of a time getting it to work.  Is it just me?

I think they said on FB that it’s slowing down from all the hits they’re getting today. Brandon Vogt linked to the site today too so I’m sure they’re getting a lot of unexpected traffic!

Katheryn, you are not alone. I can’t get it either.
I’m going to try googling

tried googling. Still can’t get it (just and error message)
I’ll try again tomorrow.
By the way my email moniker means
I am grandmother to four and I would love to find
a site that I can recommend for them
Take care, Ellen

“Birth control does not reduce unplanned pregnancies”

OK, I think the clever “organic sex” branding could be effective, but the statement above is simply untrue. I’m sure that many unplanned pregnancies have occurred since 1962 and were carried to term. But family size decreased dramatically as well. And abortion rates have not varied enough to account for this decrease in family size.

Cowalker, unfortunately we don’t actually get the numbers any more as most of the
abortionists do not publish the rates.

Cowalker, that statement certainly is hard to believe!  But it’s true (coming from someone who does statistics for a living).  When you look at the RATE of unplanned pregnancy, or the percentage of unplanned as opposed to planned pregnancies it becomes very obvious that contraception isn’t helping decrease the number of unplanned pregnancies. 

As 1flesh.org points out, “In 2011, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, despite the near-universal use of contraception, 49% of pregnancies are unplanned. It’s a similar story when considering out-of-wedlock pregnancies: The use of artificial contraception has increased since its introduction in the 1960’s, and the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies has increased along with it, from 89,500 in 1940 to 1,240,172 in 1993. Whatever artificial contraception is doing, it isn’t helping.”

“In 2011, The Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported that, despite the near-universal use of contraception, 49% of pregnancies are unplanned.”

The unplanned pregnancy rate may still be 49%, but clearly women are very successfully limiting the absolute number of their children to one, two or three in the United States. The RATE of unplanned pregnancies has stayed high compared to the number of planned pregnancies because the number of planned pregnancies has greatly decreased. A couple who planned to limit their family to two children by using birth control, and who had one oops (a 33% unplanned pregnancy rate in their family!) know quite well that if they hadn’t used birth control there would have been many more oops.

It would be honest to say that birth control hasn’t reduced the rate of unplanned pregnancies compared to planned, but it’s not honest to say that it doesn’t reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies. The claim reduces their credibility with all the couples who have successfully used birth control.

With catchy slogans and a history of !@#$% kids with absolutely no apology, Catholicism proves to be the tobacco industry of religion yet again. Way to go !@#$%!

I’m not sure that the “better off naked” graphics actually send the right message. The idea afer removing the condom is still…sex.

Matthew, you must be a graduate of the Catholic parochial schools who make it a point to get youth to think about their bodies and not the salvation and the Final End of their souls.  You must be a product of the sexualized catechetics being taught by collaborators willing to place before the eyes of youth scandalous materials that has been proven to impede their natural potential and growth and once considered a crime.  You bring the N C R to a level of adoring the passions of the human body instead of using ‘your talent’ to present Catholic doctrine.  You abuse valuable teaching space and opportunity to smear.  Matthew, you’ve got too much time on your hands and you are in desperate need of a strong Catholic praying counselor.  If I was in charge of this paper you would be gone yesterday.  Give an example of a Saint who has taught in this manner and I will apologize.

cowalker, if you’re just looking at the absolute number of children, you have to consider miscarriage also.  It’s shocking how many women have miscarried at least once (please don’t ask how I know, I’d rather not say). 
Joe, you seem under the impression that our bodies have nothing to do with our eternal souls.  You may want to clarify, but last I checked, that was a heresy.  If our young people don’t get a good message or any message from faithful Christians, don’t think they are just not going to discuss or hear about it: Planned Parenthood and the like are all too eager to fill that vacuum.

God supports sex.  Otherwise HE would have created man and woman much different than HE did.

Posted by enness on Saturday, Jun 30, 2012 10:31 AM (EST):
“cowalker, if you’re just looking at the absolute number of children, you have to consider miscarriage also.”

I’m not sure what you mean. I would expect a couple who didn’t use either contraceptives or NFP to have more miscarriages than a couple who used one of those methods correctly. But that would only be because they experienced more pregnancies. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. However the rate may be higher than that, with embryos with particularly lethal dfects being lost before the woman misses a period.

Enness, there is a suitable place for this kind of discussion and it is never in a public forum with men and women or students in a class room.  These are immodest headlines as so often happens in N C R.  Are they competing with ‘playboy’ magazine?  We are living in a highly sexualized society and it appears that N C R strives to be considered modern or up to date with the culture and not at all interested in teaching what to do in order to combat these assaults in the public square.  People aren’t even safe in this blog.
More souls are being condemned to Hell for the sins of the flesh than any other sin so Our Blessed Mother said at Fatima.  If that would sink into Matthew’s persona, he would think twice about what he’s doing.  Obviously he’s unattached to Holy Mother the Church and the ways of the Saints.  His is not a holiness venture but a very reckless, distorted warped presentation of the purpose of our existence.  A more suitable headline would be: “We were made to love and to serve God”. 
I’ve been through the series by Christopher West on “Theology of the body”.  The message is that man does not know his greatness and he (or she) is a gift with his body.  This claimed vanity of human greatness is demoralizing, is destroying marriages and weakening societies. 
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and we are to speak, act and demonstrate holiness.  Because of original sin, we will battle concupiscence until the day we die.  Vices need to be controlled practicing the steps of humility which is necessary for salvation.  This blog should strive to teach what is uplifting.  Can any deny that these discussions intend to relax control of the passions?
When headlines in a claimed Catholic blog are about becoming ‘sexy’, than one must speak against its lack of discretion and lack of respect.  We have the duty to speak against such writings.  We are all called to be Saints.  Let us assist one another in the pursuit of Sainthood. 

Joe - “We are living in a highly sexualized society and it appears that N C R strives to be considered modern or up to date with the culture and not at all interested in teaching what to do in order to combat these assaults in the public square.  People aren’t even safe in this blog. “
  The point of this site is to reach those who are lost in the noise of our highly sexualized society. These blogs aren’t meant to inform you specifically (or most faithful Catholics for that matter), about the value of sex or other immoralities praised by our society.  As Catholics in the modern world we have to adapt our Christian message **NOT change our doctrine** but adapt the message to help those who are lost. To speak their language using the tools we have. 
  It’s unfortunate that the most confused out there can’t simply hear the Good news of the Gospel, be healed then turn to the Lord. In today’s day the most effective means of communicating the truth is to explain it in ways that people understand and can relate to. Pope John Paul  II believed very much in the importance of media and it’s use in spreading the Gospel. 
   It is important to realize that when using the media, you simply won’t make any impact if your content is boring, unappealing or not thought provoking. Especially if it is meant to reach those who are over-saturated with media content - or in this case those who are over sexualized. If it doesn’t appeal to those who you intend to hear your message, your efforts are useless.   
  Just as certain things might piqué your interest or make you think, these images and sayings are used to capture the minds of those on the pill or using a condom and make them think differently about it. It’s clear that those abusing sex don’t have a clear understanding and these provocative statements are meant to get their attention. I definitely wouldn’t advise using this campaign to teach young Catholic children about sex but in the atmosphere it is intended for - it is extremely appropriate. 
   It would be extremely detrimental  remaining blind to the reality of how severely confused much of our younger generations are about the great importance of marriage, sex and family. Because sex is private act and not talked about many people, some get the wrong idea or believe that it is a bad thing. By making it clear what the Catholic Church and Her followers actually believe will do much to help our position as the Universal and forgiving church that we are. 

  Prayer is our most powerful option - we need to rely firstly on that. Pray that our message will be heard and our society will improve for our young children to grow up in. 

Joe - thanks for your comments. Just to clear things up - blog posts (not the news articles, etc.) here at the Register are not specific editorial decisions made by the staff, they are the expression and opinion of each blogger themselves. That’s the point of blogs, to get some various opinions and thoughts on various issues. And the Register does a great job of allowing a lot of diverse perspectives to be played out here and then discussed.

Additionally, I appreciate the criticism and feedback. That’s how we all grow and learn and it’s wonderful when we can have such discussions while giving each side due charity and not jumping to conclusions about them and their attachment to Holy Mother Church.

Finally, many saints talk about the goodness of sex. The Church teaches about the goodness of sex. The greatness and beauty of it even. If sex can be such a good thing, then so can being sexy. The problem is that the culture has distorted and twisted what it means to be sexy. They’ve turned it into a shallow, empty, degrading thing not worthy of man and certainly not worthy of God. It MUST be reclaimed. That is why it is not only acceptable to speak in terms of being sexy and about having “great sex,” but it is ABSOLUTELY necessary - if we are to reclaim the terms and teach people their beauty and goodness and plan for it within their life.

If you read my post - and not just the headline - then you know that I am talking about a “sexy” that is very different from the shallow meaning most attribute to it. The same goes for 1Flesh.org. And if we talk about that enough - and convincingly so - then we’ll eventually bring sexy back. And we’ll help a lot of people take a step closer to Christ - and therefore sainthood - in the process.

JoanFrankie - The means to the end must be morally appropriate each step of the way.  Giving more sexualized messages is offensive.  Matthew is expecting a good result using words meant to be sacred in a wrongful manner.  It heaps more burden upon souls who have already been harmed by a sexualized culture.  “Bringing sexy back” is not spiritually up lifting.  Why would any one in their right mind want to consult “crazy buddies” for needed direction or correction?  Matthew stated it’s the Church that holds all the solutions but he does not name any.  Hey, Matthew, you’re over your head, man.  Admit it; you don’t know what you’re talking about.  All you’re doing is making a lot of noise and just lovin’ to use sexual words.  What have you been smokin’?
Matthew can’t even name one good Saint to follow.  Matthew can’t even sight encouraging Scriptures to follow.  What “Church” is he following?  Having gone so far with sexualizing his column, he’ll not mention how God loves us so much that he gave us the Ten Commandments to assist us and not to heap condemnation upon us.  We all need to know boundary lines.  None are mentioned here!!  That would be an impediment.  Why does Matthew point the direction to “These crazy buddies at 1flesh” and not to Catholic readings or encyclicals of Holy Mother Church, or prayers and practices to put the proper focus on who man is in perspective who God is?  Are these ‘too dry and boring’?  I suspect he’s not read any. 
‘Blessed are the feet of those who bring the good news’ to a dying world.  Don’t short change human nature.  God designed us for Himself and not for bringing back sexy.  Our sexual nature is only one aspect of our total nature.  Human beings have a spiritual nature and bringing back sexy is not the way to strengthen our spiritual nature.  Yes, God designed the nature of sex.  He loves us; He wants us to multiply in order to share more of His love.  The Sacrament of Matrimony is not once mentioned in this column where the use of it applies for regeneration.  Once more, these are teachable moments lost.

JoanFrankie, you said sex is not something talked about; -  please see how youth are bombarded with sexualized catechetics beginning in kindergarten of parochial schools.  It’s talked about alot and in the way that is most Unbecoming.  See the following on the “Growing In Love” series taught in parochial schools:
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/12/6/ - Part 1

http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/15/6/ - Part 2

Read:  Randy Engel’s book, “Sex Education, the Final Plague”.  Youth get so much of it that it is an impediment to their development.  Randy talks about the ‘new barbarians’ we are raising.  Good men are doing nothing as youth’s minds are being spoiled putting all society at risk.

Matthew - when ever I see this term “diverse perspectives” I know this to be an inversion of what Holy Mother Church teaches.  That’s the same concept in parochial schools.  Have you not read the studies how students are losing their Faith.  Don’t you think faith is being lost because of teaching ‘diverse perspectives’ instead of teaching the virtues, or the practice of saying the family Rosary daily, or parents giving their children a blessing each day, or how about utilizing the Sacrament of Penance and receivng the Most Holy Eucharist often to combat the vices?

  The novelty of ‘diverse perspectives’ is not working my friend, Matthew.  What has happened is that good writings like St. John Bosco’s directions for the family have been buried.  I know of a priest who is resurrecting them and other saintly writings to assist families.  Wish I could get you on his e-mail list.

Families are in desperate need of Holy Mother Church’s teachings to combat the high rate of annulments, STDs, abortions, use of contraceptives, drugs, alcohol, suicide….  But you say reinventing the wheel will do it!!  Not buying it, Matthew.  How can I get a blog spot on N C R?

I am 69 years old.  It is time for us to once again realize that marital love (sex) is an affirmation of God’s love for His people.

Much like Benjamin Franklin said, Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy!

Joe, if you really think this site is comparable to Playboy I don’t know what to say to you.  I didn’t think this would be terribly controversial here.  I guess I was wrong…gosh, I don’t know where anyone would get the idea that we are prudish.
Cowalker, you wrote:
“But family size decreased dramatically as well. And abortion rates have not varied enough to account for this decrease in family size.”
“...clearly women are very successfully limiting the absolute number of their children to one, two or three in the United States.”
All I’m doing is reminding all of us that while contraception may be a large factor in family size, it is not the only factor among ones that are not so obvious.  Usually it’s in a different context that one would bring this up (reminding our fellow Catholics to be charitable).

Speaking of scripture, I hate to be this person, but…if your kids ever read the Song of Songs they’re in for quite the surprise.

I thought hard, perhaps not long enough, but, if Catholics(Christians) have far fewer children than our Muslim brothers and sisters,Western Civilization as well as Christianity will die!

Why the equivocation of “sexy” with “sex”?

Are CR editors also confused by the difference between “chased” and “chaste”?

Joe and others, I’m sorry you’ve had such a terrible reaction to the formation of a group/website that is meant to lead good Catholics away from bad practices.

1) Using “Bringing Sexy Back” is simply a parody of a pop song, and mainly meant to catch your attention.  Which it has.

2) This site is not meant to encourage pre-martial sex or other risky behaviors.  No one wants to see the rise of “unwanted” pregnancy just because people stop using their birth control.

3) Rather, this site was created to reach out to young Catholics in a way that is graphic eye-catching and accessible get young, married couples to truly thinking about how they are participating in their God-blessed physical relationships.  It is to get those couples to consider the moral implications of what many believe to be the “Accepted” choice in family planning and to accepting their new responsibility (to be open to life) and grow up.

Nowhere on this site is Matthew flaunting a “free-love” type of attitude or encouraging people to give into every sexual urge that strikes them, but rather it is to encourage those who want to be good Catholic wives and husbands to separate themselves from the mainstream, secular culture and use what is encouraged as part of their sacrament to do God’s good work.

You people disgust me with your lies

I think Mathew should propagate the holiness of sex and the resultant joyful family of loving parents and children. Sex is sacred and sex is for love and not for lust.

Our Bodies, Minds and Souls - ALL gifts from God. Sex is a God ordained/intended act designed to create intimacy and a bond in the marital relationship which encourages a healthy family life and aids procreation. We nurture and refine ALL - bodies minds and souls - not one OR the other. Somwehere we’ve adopted the notion that sex is BAD and if we say or indulge “we’re not spiritual” Spouses in healthy sexual relationships can very definitely be very SPIRITUAL. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. I believe some of this thinking in the Catholic church community has come about because priests are not allowed to marry anymore. Our first, Jesus appointed Pope - Peter - had a mother-in-law whom Jesus healed… The presumptive logic is “priests don’t indulge in sex therefore they are more spiritual and closer to God”.

Molly,  Matthew’s approach in using ‘flashy’ words is a cowardly approach to holiness.  He’s using the concept of forbidden fruits to attract and leaves everybody hanging because he does not correctly direct to the clear understanding of what is right and what is wrong.  Plain language always wins. 

This ambiguous approach on how to straighten out the family and social ills of the day is what caused a lot of people to leave the Catholic Church.  And rightfully so.  The newly contrived ‘pastoral approach’ is a stark contradiction to the lives of Saints, the Virgins, Martyrs, Popes, and Confessors.  Make no mistake; our lives are to be a sacrificial offering just as Christ on the Cross.  But that is where the safety and beauty of holiness will be found, in humble obedience to the laws of God.
 
Matthew sites no credible, wholesome Catholic practices or readings to increase in virtue in order to combat vices.  Furthermore, only a credible religious priest or bishop should be writing on these tender, personal, private, and sensitive matters.  No I’m not prudish; I’m prudent.

  It is difficult for non-Catholics to understand the anointing God gives to Spiritual Fathers on family matters.  God has granted them the grace to advise in spite of not being natural fathers.  Now, not all priests or bishops have it; not all priests or bishops are true to the Sacrament of Holy Orders.  St. Alphonsus De Liguori writes on the “Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva”.  St. Alphonsus says the priest is responsible for all the sins of the people in his care and great is the account he will have to render to God.  Matthew would do well to read as a natural father:  “Parents, Children and the Facts of Life” by Fr. Henry V. Sattler, C.SS.R. Ph.D. and stop the groovin’ boogie woogie stuff.  It’s a narrow road to walk, Matthew, and many will not follow because of the sacrifices needed to counteract these sacrileges against God.

Joe, I appreciate your point, but if priest are the only ones who should speak on this topic and it is so unholy to even look upon this particular post then why have you commented no less that 6 times?  And if it’s only a topic on which a priest should speak on then can mothers and fathers not tell children about “where babies come from?”; should wives and husbands just close their eyes and poke around in the dark hoping they eventually get it right; should a woman or man not be able to talk about their fertility and general reproductive health with a doctor? 

Yes, it would be great to see more Catholic sources quoted on 1flesh.org, and I hope that Matthew intends to include them.  But supporting and spreading the word of wholesome and holy sex with in a sanctified union for the sake of drawing a couple closer to God through the openness to life is not a subject only for a priest in a private setting.

Matthew W. - Thank for such a great website; I look forward to using it as a resource when talking with friends who are curious on these topics and need some straight forward information on the subject.  While it is not an overtly Catholic website, I do believe that the subject matter and appropriate links can and will help those with a basic misunderstanding of Catholic teaching on the subject to see the Truth.  I know my eyes were opened to the Truth of the Catholic teaching on this subject from an initially more secular approach and am now eagerly awaiting the start of my RCIA classes this fall.

p.s. Though I’m “new” at all of this my understanding of our “saints and martyrs” is that many of them became so not from shutting themselves away from the everyday person (including the sick and the sinful), but by surrounding themselves by such people and reaching out to them at a very human level.  In fact, didn’t I just describe the actions of Jesus and his disciples?

Joe - you say plain language always wins, but then when somebody gives you plain language on sex you say it should be reserved for priests and bishops to talk about and that we should just regurgitate church teaching on the matter.

It wasn’t just ambiguity on Church teaching that has led to so many losing their faith. It’s also the unwillingness of so many in the Church to talk “plainly” and openly about these issues and in the language that the culture uses. It is that unwillingness that has allowed the culture to twist and redefine what “sexy” is and to degrade the full meaning of human sexuality.

I’ve done no subverting of Church teaching here and countless times celebrate and promote the genius of what the Church teaches on human sexuality.

This is a blog post about a new website that is (I guarantee you) going to bring people closer to God and help reclaim the full meaning of sex. It is not a post primarily on Catholic teaching on sex or on all of the great wisdom of the saints on the matter. I share and point to and promote and read and celebrate all of those things as often as I can. But to expect every blog post to be a comprehensive restatement of the Church’s position and body of wisdom on every matter is, quite obviously, an unrealistic standard, completely impractical, impossible and embarrassingly unjust (another Catholic principle you seem to be ignoring).

You have to see a site like 1Flesh.org (not my website, btw, as some people seemed confused) for it’s purpose. It’s one link in the chain that will lead people to Truth. It’s purpose is to get people to think differently about these sexual issues…and which will make them more open to the Church’s position on them. These are people that will not listen to a saint - simply because they are a saint. And they will not listen to the Church - simply because they “already know they disagree with the Church.” You have to open such people up in different ways by meeting them on common ground, legitimately undermining their strongly held beliefs, and then - and only then - are they softened and prepared to hear more.

Also, there is no commandment against the groovie boogie woogie stuff. For somebody who insists on everybody else quoting scripture and saints to support every statement they make, you certainly make a lot that are impossible to defend using the same.

God bless you and I’m praying for you. I thank you for your prayers as well.

As a young Catholic, I can’t say how much I appreciate Marc Barnes. Sex isn’t bad. Sex is great! (from what I hear, anyways) No, this site isn’t for children. Neither is the Song of Songs! Living in a hedonistic world, going to a public university, I (and the rest of my generation) desperately need people like Marc, and sites like 1flesh to remind us of who we are, and what we are capable of. Sex isn’t dirty, nor should it be treated like ice cream. Marc, his blog and his website, great teachers like Jason Evert, Christopher West, and Blessed JPII have helped so many of my generation see through the lies of our culture and see the beautiful gift that God gives humanity in the expression of marital love: sex.

In defense of the word “sexy” used in this post: Let’s define terms. “Sex” means the marital act.  One of the reasons sex outside of marriage or while using contraceptives is wrong is because the marital act becomes a lie. By nature, sex says, “I give myself to you completely”; contraceptives add “except my fertility and the charity needed to become a good parent”, and not being married adds, “except my entire life”.  So in a way, you could call chaste, godly sex within marriage “real” and sex with contraceptives or outside of marriage “fake”. Now we call counterfeit money “fake” money, but if I just said, “I work my job because I need the money” you would assume I meant real money. In the same way, what Marc Barnes and a lot of other Catholic writers do in certain contexts is to use the word “sex” unqualifiedly to mean “real sex”, or godly sex.  And sex is good.  Therefore what is truly sexually attractive is also truly godly and truly good.

“Bring sexy back” is a good slogan for certain puroposes, just because it makes people think, “Wait a minute. I think I see sexy all around me! What can they mean by bringing it back?”  And then you realize that all the sexy you see is the fake kind—the impure, unchaste, conraceptive kind. And that’s wrong. The word “sexy” ought to bring up connotations of marriage and happy family life, not sin; we should try to change that.

I get the feeling that 1flesh.org doesn’t explicitly market itself as Catholic, because the creators (though Catholic) feel that just getting rid of contraception in our culture would be a change for the better. I agree.  Of course we should ultimately be concerned with saving people’s souls by getting them into the Church, but the first step is getting them to stop being hostile to Church teaching.  It’s a lot easier to become Catholic if you are already living the Catholic life. further, there are a lot of very good reasons that artificial contraception is bad that aren’t directly founded in the Bible or Church teaching.  By getting rid of contraception in our culture, you’d be getting rid of a whole mentality that leads to pornography, misogeny, fornication, and abortion, and opening up a path to the Church.

Molly,    Parents have the grace from the Sacrament of Matrimony to speak to their children individually about matters of human sexuality.  Priests have the duty to remind parents of these responsibilities and to set good examples in their homes.  Parents are to seek out the clergy of the Catholic Church when they need assistance.  Pontiffs have given direction about how these sensitive matters are to be handled and they are not for public discussions.

I hang in here because of my direct experiences that discovered the Matthew approach is dangerous.  Broadcasting sex for discussion is as if Holy Mother the Church has been silent or as if Holy Mother the Church got it all wrong. 

I’ve recognized the dangers of making sexual matters an open forum. Theology of the body is a horizontal focusing upon one’s self as a gift and betrays how humanity is made worthy of anything only by the Sacrifices of Christ on the Cross.  It is not on how wonderfully we use our bodies.

Thinking differently from Holy Mother the Church is what has caused the sexual revolution.  Dr. Meg Meeker, M.D. in her book, “Your Kids At Risk” speaks about the not epidemic, but pandemic rate of STDs.  Youth were safer when they learned about sex out behind the barn so to speak.  Now that sexualized catechetics has replaced commonsensical traditional teaching, we are witnessing horrific actions by youth at a very young age.  It is a falsehood to claim that to teach sex in classrooms will prepare and harden youth.  The motive behind public discussions is to get not only youth but married couples overly focused upon the body and not the salvation of the soul.  Teach and talk about sex in a forum excites the human frailness and will cause them to start experimenting with it.  It weakens boundary lines.  These discussions fear to include:  ‘thou shalt not’  making people believe God’s commandments are harsh and He takes away freedom.

From personal experience children beginning at the age of 4 love the Stations of the Cross.  It is inspiring to watch them gaze upon them.  They get it!  They ask wonderful questions.  They do not receive them as a fearful experience but are truly awakened to who they are.

The topic of this column is topsy turvy.  Matthew claims “public” sexualized talking is going to assisted those harmed in sexual matters.  Does he think it will soothe the conscience if we jive and grove with colorful sexy talk?  It has no precedence for success and the opposite, traditional approach does.  The statistics of family sizes, Sunday Mass attendance, the numbers of priests and religious were strong and vibrant before ‘the Matthews’ came along.

The truth sets people free.  It cuts like a sword.  Mass attendance is down because people are not getting what they need in the watered down homilies of a socialized Gospel of do gooders.  It doesn’t cut it.  As I’ve already mentioned, reinventing the wheel never works.  We were made to love and to serve a merciful God who loves us more than we love ourselves and is ready to forgive.  Show the spiritually starving people how to be relieved of their sins and stop this mamby pampy stuff.  Sin harms the soul; sin is hatred of God and is working for the devil.  Eternity is forever.  Where does one want to spend it in Heaven or Hell?  Each action decides whom we serve.  Thank you for your prayers.

The graphics for 1flesh are absolutely fantastic.  Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Internet culture, specifically memes, can agree.

Joe, your posts are thoughtful and I understand what you are saying, but trust me when I say that if you made similar posts on any of the popular secular sites you would get a “tl;dr” from one of a myriad of Internet trolls or worse.  The people that most need reaching out to are the ones whose attention needs to be captured by something like the short, provocative messages in the 1flesh graphics.  I applaud the website heartily.

Dear Joe
Ok, 1flesh is a good thing. It provides a different perspective on contraception. It is destined to reach young adults, those preparing for marriage and those already married but interested in natural forms of birth control.
Wow, are they using the word sexy? What a shame, you shouldn’t say so in front of the kids. Come on, come on! Get real!
They’re trying to rescue the word from our extremely sexualized society. They’re trying to place sex as an important part of the adult life, a part requiring responsibility and moral codes. They follow the Church’s teachings and this is something good.
Ok, did Matt mention that the guys behind 1flesh.org are crazy buddies? Well, I LOVE IT!
I’m a crazy buddy myself. Is it so complicated to notice that Matt was adjusting his writing to young audiences? Is it so complicated to notice that being a crazy buddy is a good thing? By crazy buddy Matt means someone courageous enough to create a cool website(cool! not boring) to provide young adults with the necessary knowledge for embracing natural birth control! It is not easy presenting himself as someone who advocates chastity and natural methods. Our society ridicules those people.
Having you ever thought of Jesus as one of those crazy buddies? Are you shocked? Am I going straight to the hell by saying that? Well, Jesus confronted the logic of His time. He talked to a samaritan woman, he met and had dinner with sinners, He gave special attention to the women, he defied the current understanding of saturday as a sacred day. He condemned divorce, even though judaism accepted it at that time…A crazy buddy, indeed, in the figurative sense. Being a crazy buddy, in the sense presented by Matt, is being someone strong enough, courageous enough, virtuous enough, sensitive enough, to tell the entire world: Hey, there’s a different and better perspective on human sexuality! Porn stars are not your teachers!
Concerning the web design, it’s well known that the Church is trying to reach out young people. Pope John Paul II and now Pope Benedict XVI created the World Youth Journeys. B16 (this is how Catholic News Service calls Pope Benedic XVi on twitter. You know, only 140 characters) asked Cardinal Schönborn to prepare a cathecism dedicated to our youth. It’s the YouCat. B16 asked the youth to read it, study it, discuss it on the internet. If you take a look, YouCat is extremely well designed, in a fresh, contemporary way. And so it is 1flesh.org.
YouTube videos, twitter, facebook, blogs, new media, young audience.
The website wasn’t designed to present an entire course on the theology of body, or mentioning Humanae Vitae and dissecating every single part of it, in a doctrinal way. It is supposed to present a clear understanding of natural Birth control methods, in a single website.
Accusing Matt of being incapable of quoting one saint or a Church document is offensive. How do you know? Have you been following Matt for weeks, all day long, hacking his computer, Ipad, smartphone, to make such a solid accusation?
The truth is: you have no idea if Matt knows the magisterium or not. And if can’t say so for sure, please, don’t say it! Because it is offensive.
Concerning myself, I’m a crazy buddy: I’m a catholic lawyer, who loves movies, and fantasy worlds like those described by Tolkien and C.S.Lewis, who love Tintin and Mafalda, and super-heros, and sports, especially soccer. I read philosophy and theology, and science, and psychology and I love twitter.
Viva those crazy buddies!
And what about trying to be more open to new initiatives, insteadof discharting them in the first place? Have you ever considered what would happen to Christianity if those jews following Jesus weren’t open to novelties?

Love the new site!  Waiting for t-shirts!  And I have already shown it to my kids (the teenagers) They get it, they can talk about it with non-Catholic friends in way that makes it accessible. And yeah, they are talking about it anyways, so may as well give them the truth!  Their non-Catholic friends tune out everything that begins with “the Church says…” but this! This they can say “did you know…?” and follow up with “for 2000 years, people did this….” and it works!

Lea, can you substantiate your opinion?  Which Saint, Virgin, Martyr, or Confessor advocated that is was ‘provocative messages’ that led them and will lead others to holiness?

Dear Crazy girl,  “birth control”, natural or by any means is NOT a Catholic concept.  If you are interested I can give you what Holy Mother Church teaches in regards to not thwarting the conception of a new life.  Even during non-fertile times the married couple must be open to a new life.  Matthew is “courageously” (using your word) teaching against the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
‘sexy superlatives’ are an insult to humanity most of all towards youth who are extremely vulnerable and do not have the basics of the virtues.  Matthew, you say is finding out that it is not easy presenting himself as someone who advocates chastity and natural methods.  Count be as one of them who advocate Matthew’s Catholic conscience lacks a grasp of the dogmas and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.  Which Church does he come from?
Cardinal Schönborn‘s “YouCat” is being recalled for the errors it contains. Do you want the link to this information?  Furthermore, he’s an ecclesiastical advisor at the Ave Maria claimed Catholic college in Naples, Florida.  He has twice awarded the St. Gregory XVI special award for merits to Pro-Aborts.  Schönborn has developed a reputation of very reckless behavior.  Yes, I can substantiate this if you are interested. 

A few years ago, a woman I worked with brought her new baby in to work to show him off to her co-workers. All the girls gathered around and coo’ed and ah’ed over the adorable little one. Then one of the ladies commented for all to hear, “that baby is so cute, it makes me feel like going home and having sex with my husband.”

A world of meaning in that comment. Never forgot it.

Ok, it’s up to you to prove that Matthew is a bad as you say he is. I think you’re saying things you can not prove and this kind of behavior is not correct.
About the errors of YouCat, apparently there were some problems with translations.The petition asking for a recall is something very nebulous, as Mark Shea has pointed out : http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2011/08/youcat-recall-petition-looks-dodgy-to-me.html.
I was not talking about Matthew when I mentioned those crazy buddies were courageous. Apparently, the website was created by Marc Barnes, not by Matthew. I can not say what dogmas Matthew know or how versed he is in catholic teachings. Since I can not say for sure, my strategy is keeping my mouth shut.
I think you are overreacting, but you have the right to overreact.

Priests have studied these conciliar novelties and what they have done to the Faith.  Two good books are:  “What Has Happened to the Catholic Church?” by Fathers Francisco and Dominic Radecki (twins) and another book by them is “Tumultuous Times”.  Read the chapter on Statistics in the later book.  It details the steep decline in Catholic morality, Church attendance, Catholic marriages, priests, seminaries, seminarians, religious brothers and sisters, convents, Catholic grade schools, colleges and universities, and the skyrocketing number of annulments, suicides, abortions, and the use of contraceptives.  BTW, only 10% of the teachers in parochial schools follow the teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to contraceptives and they have access to our youth!!  If they approve of contraceptives, they approve of abortion.

Dear Crazy girl,  A Catholic’s Faith is obvious and is not a game of discovery.  The infallible Magisterial teachings of Holy Mother the Church should never be hidden and/or expressed at a later time.  In the prayer, “An Act of Faith”….. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed them, Who canst neither deceive not be deceived”.

Thank you for bringing our attention to this needed new site!  I wish I had these resources and messages as a teen/young adult to help me navigate the world.

In His infinite goodness, God wills that His glory should be identified with our good and our happiness.  Should we not then try to make our good and our happiness one with God’s glory by seeking them in whatever gives the most glory to God?

My prayer for you, Matthew Warner:
Almighty God, living for you is the destiny of Matthew Warner.  Clarify that desire within him.  Give him knowledge of holy things; make him honorable in his endeavors.  May Matthew’s delight in Your Commandments attract others to the divine life.  May he radiate with goodness, wholesome happiness of innocence, a strong serenity of daring to be and do good, a quiet contentment of unselfish-sacrificial love of You that awakens the hardened of persons.  Strengthen him so that no enemy shall have advantage over him and the son of iniquity shall not harm him.  Give Matthew perfect spiritual health with the proper disposition to go forth each day of his life in the name of God the Father who created him, in the name of Jesus Christ who died for him, in the name of the Holy Spirit who poured out grace for him. 

First off, it’s great that as Catholics we are actually engaging in a dialogue about the topic of sex in this capacity even if it may seem controversial and uncomfortable for most.

My husband and I, who are both in our early 30’s, have worked as pastoral workers for a Catholic lay group serving in the youth and young adult ministry.  We have a combined 16 years experience between us. I am now a stay at home mom to two hatchlings, while my husband continues working for the ministry.  During that time we have witnessed so much brokenness, heartache, and confusion in the young generation as a result of living unchaste lives.  Even for both my husband and myself as teenagers we were not spared this heartache. Which is why, as a young mom I am very concerned about much of what the young generation is facing.

1flesh.org is being persecuted as we speak, and with good reason, because they are presenting truth that is counterculture to the lies that most people have already accepted as truth. They are presently inundated with many angry comments on their facebook page; comments by people who don’t believe in chastity, that contraception is bad, and are most likely pro-choice and the like. Obviously they have struck a nerve. (There are of course others who are very much supportive of this type of movement - you just have to dig through all the trolling.) This is precisely the group, along with impressionable youth that 1flesh.org seeks to engage in dialogue and present the truth to. It’s just packaged in a medium that is hipper and cooler for the youth to grasp that may be jarring for the older generation.  Think Fr. Claude Burns and Fr. Stan who both utilize rap to attract the young with their messages of Christ teachings.  I know much of the older generation dislike rap music but these two priests are able to utilize rap as a tool to connect the youth with the broader message of Christ.  Those who disagree and have encountered 1flesh.org’s is already a win in my book, because perhaps they have never heard much of this stuff presented otherwise and we have already caught their attention.  Who knows? The truth will bother them, linger, and possibly take root in it’s on way in these people.  We leave the rest to the workings of the Holy Spirit.

These “provocative” messages serve as a “bait and hook” to a younger generation who are not exposed to the fullness of Truth when it comes to Catholic teaching on sex and are rather beyond knee deep in the lies that have been fed by our secular and anti-Christian culture. Take a look at the pop culture of the youth like MTV, magazines like US Weekly, Cosmo, Victoria Secret ads and the like.  This is what the Catholic Church is competing against when it comes to winning the attention of the youth.

It is still in the very early stages of development and is very much a work in progress. As a former pastoral worker for youth ministry this is something that the younger generation need.  When you’re relaying a message to a particular group you need to know your target audience and tailor fit your message for them. In other words - speak their language! Youth today are bombarded and assaulted constantly with sexual imagery.  Pornography, another controversial topic not openly addressed in Catholic forums is still seen as taboo.  We as Catholics need to openly address these issues and not be afraid.

Thank goodness someone like Christopher West has the special charism to translate JPII’s TOB to the younger masses in a way that they can easily grasp and understand so they can value themselves and see sex as something beautiful that should be saved specifically for married life and respect and hold in high regard chastity and celibacy and not treat it like it’s a disease. Leave them to read Blessed JPII’s original text of TOB and you have already lost them. It’s great that Matthew has posted this and his assessment of 1flesh.org and how it relates to the current youth culture is spot on. Also Marc Barnes founder of 1 flesh.org, who is 18 years old, knows what his generation is up against so that’s why he’s initiating a campaign and awareness project that gets the Truth out.  God bless them!

Let us continue to dialogue and many of us will continue to agree to disagree on this subject matter – and that’s OK.  If anything, I know all our passionate feelings stem from a good place and I pray that we all continue to pray for our younger brothers and sisters that they be led to a deeper relationship with Christ. May the Holy Spirit lead us in all things and guide 1flesh.org and many others like it who truly desire to bring others to the fullness of your Truth.

+JMJ+

“Lea, can you substantiate your opinion?  Which Saint, Virgin, Martyr, or Confessor advocated that is was ‘provocative messages’ that led them and will lead others to holiness?”

First, you realize that the word “provocative” can be used in more than one way, yes?  Otherwise, we may not get very far…

Are you saying you can name Saints, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins….who advocated provocative language to gain holiness, Lea?

Joe:  I believe you are well-researched and are right in all of your statements.  I personally agree with you, however, I see the beauty of what Marc Barnes is doing.  I also reiterate what most of the commenters are saying regarding our culture.  I am a homeschool mom who prays constantly for the purification of our world, to the level of which you present.  I am a huge St. Alfonsus Ligouri fan, but it’s not practical for his writings to apply in all situations today.  It’s a message that would simply go unheard.  With kids aged 21 down to 8, God has revealed to me that perspective and experience level of the various peoples’ stages will affect how the Gospel is heard.  Truth is Truth, but we grow in spirituality and catechesis through various means.  St. Teresa’s interior castle applies well - teens today may not be able, through lack of experience and surely their own desensitization, understand and even block the “preachiness” (in their minds) and purity of the message.  THE MESSAGE IS JUST TOO BRIGHT.  These men are simply trying to bridge the culture over to the message of Jesus Christ, which is what a great catechist does.  In heaven, we will be glorified and each of us will have no need to discuss sex in these or even in any more pure ways, because true Communion at a much more glorified level will be completed. 

What we need to do is pray fervently for the likes of Matthew Warner, and especially for Marc Barnes and his crazy (mostly Steubenville) buddies to be protected from the evil ones.  They, like all of us, are living in times of extreme distortion.  In order to make straight the lines of distortion, they must take our culture head on.  Purification will take place for sure as Our Lord has promised us that.  There are many mansions in God’s house, and on earth, they are certainly not perfected yet.  May God bless our efforts.

“Are you saying you can name Saints, Martyrs, Confessors, Virgins….who advocated provocative language to gain holiness, Lea?”

You didn’t answer my question, but as far as yours goes, why of course, naturally. In the sense that the word “provocative” means “to excite discussion or controversy” (in a good way), which is how I used the word, then that would be pretty much all of them.  I’m thinking the Apostles in particular, since Christianity itself was a pretty fresh concept back then…any discussion about it was probably quite provocative for people back then.

Lea, please….. quote a Saint, Virgin, Martyr or Confessor using provocative sexual catechetics or please ......show in Sacred Scripture where the Apostles applied “sexual” provocative language.  Matthew and his crazzie buzzed-up buds maintain it’s appropriate to bait with Sexualizing the discussion and you support them.  Can you connect the dots?——-  Can you lead one towards holiness by using intimate phrases in the public square?  Does Matthew intend to lead towards holiness?

Is Mark Barnes 18 years of age?

Joe, have you honestly looked around the 1flesh.org website, and read some of the posts on it?  Yes, the images are rather edgy, and personally some of them do seem a little over-the-top.  But they are meant to be attention-grabbing, and the underlying text is pretty solid.  We unfortunately live in a world where there are lots of things competing for our attention, and more often than not the messages attached with those eye-catching images go very against our Catholic worldview.  What 1flesh.org tries to do is combine eye-catching images and slogans with research statistics about the not-so-rosy truth of contraceptives.  This is a truth that is very much obscured, and so it needs to get out there and heard.  Not just by practicing Catholics, but by every one of our brothers and sisters on the face of this planet.  This website is not aimed purely at Catholics.  It is aimed at educating all men and women, but particularly those in their teens and twenties, who are constantly exposed to the lies of the secular culture about “safe sex.”  So yes, in a way I agree with you.  I wish we could get everyone in the world to read Humanae Vitae, and the Catechism of the Church, and Theology of the Body, and the wisdom of the Church teaching would permeate their understanding and convert them away from the sins of premarital sex and towards the virtue of abstinence.  That may work for some people.  But for others, they need something like 1flesh.org as a first introduction to a drastically different way of viewing sex.  I also agree with you, that it would be nice if we had enough priests and religious out there who could educate every human being in the specifics of Church teaching.  But again, the reality is that their numbers are still too low that they cannot possibly reach everyone (let alone the fact that so few Catholics actually practice their faith and attend mass and listen to their Church leaders).  That is why we, as the lay faithful, have been called by Pope Benedict to participate in the New Evangelization.  It is our task to reach out to our brothers and sisters in Christ, and to lead them, with patience and charity, away from sin and towards truth.  We as Catholics are called to promote both faith and reason (read Bl. John Paul II’s Fides et Ratio), which is why it is important to point out the statistics linking breast cancer and the Pill, and how the chemicals in birth control affect the environment.  To those who criticize the “celibate, old white male” Catholic clergy for making “unrealistic” demands of lay Catholics (this is a criticism I have heard too many professed Catholics and non-Catholics say), this website is a great response to show them how the Church actually has a great deal of wisdom in what She teaches us.

Many saints and even Christ said some pretty provocative things (I’m thinking of St. Francis of Assisi referring to his body as “Brother ass,” and how provocative is Christ’s statement “This is my body”) to grab our attention.  I’m not saying Matthew or even Marc are saints.  I don’t know either of them personally so I could not make a judgment, either way.  And that’s one area where I feel called to ask you, Joe, to read through your previous comments on this blog and consider whether you have been truly charitable in what you said and how you said it to and about others.  Fraternal correction is one thing, but all things should be done with charity and patience if we truly wish to lead others to Christ.  When I have noticed myself becoming zealous in the past, and when I’ve examined the motivating force behind that zealotry it has occasionally been less for the betterment of my brothers and sisters, and more for demonstrating my own rightness (which is rather prideful).  I am not saying these were your motives, only you can examine your own conscience.  I pray that the goodness of your zeal for sharing the Church’s truth is able to draw the hearts of others into relationship with Christ.  We need people who passionately love the truth of the Church to share that message!  God bless!

Not sure of the point of this question regarding Marc Barnes’ age.  Asking personal information is not really necessary nor prudent, since there is no official outlet by which to police the internet (although plenty of sites supposedly “verify” ages, regarding content.

Joe, certainly many holy people of our Church have talked about sexual matters using thought-provoking language (I’m going to use this term instead of “provocative” because using “provocative” was obviously a mistake, even though they mean the same thing):

“By Lust I mean that affection of the mind that aims at the enjoyment of one’s self and one’s neighbor without reference to God.”
—St. Augustine

“Lust indulged became habit, and habit unresisted became necessity.”
—St. Augustine

“When you have sought the company of a sensual satisfaction, what loneliness afterward!”
—St. Josemaria Escriva

“Faced with today’s problems and disappointments, many people will try to escape from their responsibility. Escape in selfishness, escape in sexual pleasure, escape in drugs, escape in violence, escape in indifference and cynical attitudes. I propose to you the option of love, which is the opposite of escape.”
—JPII (sex AND drugs in one quote!)

Also see St. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae II-II, which deals with everything from lust to incest, and JP II’s Theology of the Body in general.  And need I be yet another person on here to mention the Song of Songs?

Also, you stated that “Matthew and his crazzie buzzed-up buds maintain it’s appropriate to bait with Sexualizing the discussion and you support them.”  How do you propose de-sexualizing a discussion concerning sex?

I hope I’m not coming off as too snarky, to be quite honest I’m not intending to.  But it’s difficult when I’m beginning to theorize that if, say, the 1flesh slogan “100% Organic Sex” was changed to “100% Organic Intercourse” that you would be more comfortable with it, if you get my drift…

Like I said before, the people that need reaching out to the most with catchy slogans like those made by 1flesh are the type that don’t bat an eye over words like “sex” and “naked,” but who will certainly noticed if they’re used in a new context.

Bradon Vogt another great Catholic blogger has done an interview with Marc Barnes.  At least someone like Joe and others can get a sense of the personality of Marc and hopefully see why it is a great blessing to have someone in the young generation who is intelligent and well versed engage the young and old into the Catholic fold and its truths.

http://brandonvogt.com/2012/02/interview-with-marc-barnes-badcatholic.html

Dear Avilalover,  Someone said, “Anything new is not true; anything true is not new”.  Matthew is following a revolutionary trend.  It’s dangerous.  It causes people to lose their soul.  We are obliged to resist these novel, modernistic ideals.  Because of them it has created a major exodus out of the Catholic Church. There is something quite ridiculous about attracting youth with the very language that has stymied and distorted their natural growth and development.  God will not be mocked.  Christ came so we might have life and to the fullest.  He is merciful; and He is a God of justice.  The Vicars of Christ, Christ’s personal representatives on earth, have never been supernaturally inspired to be directed by the culture.  The Catholic Church does not adapt to anything; the culture and all creatures are to adapt to the Church Christ established.
These are quotes from an articled referenced below.  See how Matthew and his rappin’ buddies have grievously been infected with them:
•  “human” pursuits are more important than spiritual efforts
• The concept of God must be vague, general and impersonal, not entailing any definite obligations, not demanding sacrifices, and, of course, not providing any inspiration to the people.
• we shall not use the name of God except when necessary.
• We shall speak of man, stress his dignity and nobility.
• We must transform the language and thinking pattern of every Catholic.
• This new mystique must finally obfuscate the concept of God of whom we shall speak less and less, except for saying that we are God because God is in everyone of us.
• In order to make them forget God we must get them to worship the human race.
• ………………………
These quotes are in this article:
http://www.trosch.org/bks/commprie.htm
There are many other writings that substantiate why priests formerly took the “Oath Against Modernism”.  The newRite of Ordination does not include the “Oath”. 
Purification will not take place using crooked methods.

Dear Lea,  Do you see a noticeable contrast to the quotes you posted and Matthew and his buds purposely intended flashy words?  The quotes you posted are not intended to be offensive and are purposely not intended to stir up uncontrolled feelings.  Soon into the “Theology of the Body” series by Christopher West which I attended about 8 years ago, some people left.  They had the spiritual good sense they need not waste their time.  I’m sorry to admit I was lagging and all the while anticipating a good result.  It did not and still has not happened.  Statistics show that attendance and donations are continually declining in the Church in spite of the many years it has been around.  So getting more reckless with sexual words is their answer, so it appears.  None of my friends who completed the series is any better for it today.  In fact, we rarely have talked about it.  It was not life changing what so ever.  Matthew and his crazzie buds are striving on their own strength and do not have a supernatural covering for their endeavors.  Popularity for this kind of program does not make it correct.

‘Someone said, “Anything new is not true; anything true is not new”.’
Someone else once said, “There is nothing new under the sun.”  Often a thing we perceive as new is an old beauty newly appreciated.
Joe, while you make some very good points, and I truly think your heart is in the right place, with all due respect, are you really paying attention?  I once again bring up “Faith and Reason”.  These are two things not in conflict, but working in unison to bring all men closer to God and to salvation.  We have Humanae Vitae and Theology of the Body, and all of those things, revealed to us by God through his Church, to satisfy our need for Faith.  What Marc and 1flesh are doing are bringing reason to attention, with scientific studies and the like supporting what the Church teaches (you keep implying that they are teaching contrary to the Church, but nothing could be further from the truth, if you actually looked at the website).  God does nothing arbitrarily, everything He reveals to us He does for a reason.  We do not always know why, for His ways are not our ways, but often we can use our God-given gift of reason (through application of the Scientific Method (invented by medieval Catholics, by the way)) to discover some of the “whys”.
Of course, what you seem to take issue with the most (from what I gather, at least) is not so much the message as the presentation, but to be frank, I do not really understand exactly what you take issue with it.  If that is the case, could you perchance explain exactly what it is about the presentation that you find reprehensible?

Oh, and another thing Joe: you keep bringing up a lack of Church attendance and donations.  Now really, do you seriously think that attitude towards sex is the only (or even primary) factor with that?  Because the way you harp on, it certainly seems that way.

Hi Attention Deficit Catholic -

I think what Joe is trying to say that in this age where The Church (or its members) has or have tried to ‘engage the culture’ and be ‘relevant’ it winds up in the long run looking like Padre Pio with a comb-over.

Two words => Felt. Banners. ;)

At this point I’m kinda feeling burnt-out from all of the sex-talk out there (which I avoid)- and “in here” at home in the Church. My wife and I follow the Church’s teachings on marital relations: it ain’t that complicated….. got it .. good… what else we got to talk about?

I honestly feel shocked into boredom by the whole thing.

Attention Deficit -  We are a stiffed-neck disobedient people or we would not give Matthew and his friends the time of day in their novel tactics.  Christ did not send Matthew and his buddies to preach, teach and convert.  He formed a Holy Priesthood to do so.  Matthew and his friends do not have a sacramental covering to teach in public forums.  If they want to use racy words with their family, that is for them to decide.  There is no place in a public setting that it is acceptable.  It never brings a lasting good result.  Never make a change in spiritual direction based on lay people opinions.  Our Blessed Mother asked us to pray the Rosary each day.  It appears that Matthew and his friends think they know a better way than the Mother of God on how to save souls.  A credible priest always finds the time to counsel.

Attention Deficit - there are many reasons why the Church is in decline since the 1950s.  The many novelties and modernistic practices have offended many and rightfully so.  Did you know the true Church of Christ has been around for over 2000 years?  That might seem like a silly question.  People have turned their backs on Sacred Tradition and the infallible teaching spirit of the Roman Catholic Church.  Truth is the same in all generations.

Actually - maybe the whole Sexy thing needs a time-out.

At some point I ask myself what do we ‘gain’ through this?
Score a few points, have a chuckle or two, share it with our more daring and enlightened ‘churchy’ friends (btw it is clever stuff).

What Would Lot Do? Engage Sodom? Look for relevance in Gomorrah? I dunno I wasn’t there.

Maybe God will have to step in and throw some brimstone-flavored hot-rocks our way again to get us to wake up. I’m feeling like a desperate

Oh Well - Being a Catholic its worthy battle to lose. :)

And Now for something Completely Different!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64AJq9tPCU

So then Joe, are you saying that a lay Catholic is not to evangelize?  Can one not speak on the public forum and still pray the Rosary?  Can a Catholic not teach or speak on anything except matters of faith? (after all, as I was trying to say earlier, 1flesh does not attempt or pretend to speak on spiritual matters, but rather on the physical realities of contraception and birth control)  Indeed, the Catholic Church has been around for millennia.  Did that happen because Catholics decided to stay home and pray, and otherwise say nothing about their faith and discover nothing about the world in which they live?  No, it is not.  To pretend otherwise would be to turn our backs on the martyrs (those who gave witness) who gave their blood for their mother, the Church (“the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church), as well as those Catholics who have used their God-given gifts to learn about God’s Creation.  Yes, we have priests, and they receive special sacramental graces to preach and teach, but in the end, we can all teach and we can all learn.
Furthermore, nowhere is there a call to “change spiritual direction based on lay people’s opinion”.  Again, 1flesh is in no way contradictory to the teachings of the Church, and are meant to give supplement from the perspective of human reason (a gift from God, which we are meant to exercise).  And precisely what “racy words” are you referring to?
Truth is the same in all generations, but I do not see where that statement has bearing on the matter at hand.  Does 1flesh make a claim to a new truth?

Hi Joe,
Thank you for responding to me.  And thank you for siting the website you used and quoted to back your points in the response.  “These quotes are in this article: http://www.trosch.org/bks/commprie.htm”  With a little homework, I find that this website is written and maintained by Fr. David C. Trosch, a priest who has for sometime NOT been in good standing with his Archbishop.  Fr. Trosch then became critical of his (then) Archbishop’s own validity, and has attacked the Vicar of Christ, Blessed John Paul II:  “Pope John Paul II refused to take the Papal Coronation Oath that had been taken by all popes since the 7th Century.Click Here to read the oath that confirms the intended heretical acts of Karol Wojtyla.”

Now I know where you are coming from.  I choose to stand in obedience with the Popes ordained by the Roman Catholic Church.  That includes Blessed JPII, and Pope Benedict XVI. 
I continue to pray for purity in our world. Blessings!

Joe, the 1flesh website doesn’t claim to be a mouthpiece of Holy Mother Church, nor does it profess to save souls, or even try to!  It is simply proposing some practical solutions to contemporary teen/adult problems.  It also does not claim that the writers or creators are saints, but a group of young guys.  I can quote many a young guy who has used provocative language to make a point.  Matthew Warner also does not claim to be a mouthpiece of the Church, and seems to be working out his salvation in fear and trembling (sorry if I presume wrong, Matt ;)). If the word sexy makes you uncomfortable, don’t read it.  The word “moist” makes me uncomfortable, so I tend to avoid it, but it doesn’t make everyone uncomfortable, and many find it to be a useful adjective. The same goes for the word “sexy.” it simply does not do for most youngins what it does for you.  These youngins also probably didn’t have the type of exemplary parenting that it takes to raise a chaste child with a saved eternal soul.  The Lord works in mysterious ways, and all things for Good.

Avilalover, thank you for your beautiful, gentle perspective.

I have a Master’s degree in Women’s and Gender Studies; your approach, your entire movement, has many bad implications and it is not based on good social research.

Nicely said, Katheryn.

Nanette, I have been puzzling but can’t understand what you’re referring to.  Is the “your” directed at 1flesh?  At Matthew Warner? At the NCRegister? At the Catholic Church? At people who believe in reptilians?  Did you mean to post it on a different site and it somehow raced through time and space and stuck here?  I cannot imagine which.

I think it’s great for someone to stand up and challenge pop culture’s opinion that the Church is ‘down on sex’.
Youth seem to have to options presented to them 1. Beautiful, rich Church tradition presented as grey cardboard or 2. bright coloured condoms in sweet, fruity flavours. It’s like the difference between offering a 2 year old Mozart or The Wiggles.
The Church’s teaching on sex, sexuality the dignity of man & woman and how it all ties in with the Eucharist, Trinity and our Salvation is nothing short of MINDBLOWING - but it’s hard to get through for a learned adult let alone someone new to Church teaching who more than likely isn’t receiving the added graces from prayer and the sacraments.
I think we need to challenge the generation who believes that sex and sexuality are ‘for the man & woman to work out between themselves’ because it just isn’t working. They’re falling before they even get to that stage! If we don’t stand up and PROVE that the Church teaches that “spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment” (CCC2362) they’re going to take the counterfeit or fruit-flavoured condoms of pop culture.

Katheryn, you said Matthew points the way to “a group of young guys” -  .
This gets more pitiful all the time.  Matthew is pointing to a flashy hedonistic group outside of the Catholic Church, using the space of a Catholic column.  Who are their masters?  Why does that tickle the fancy of so many?  Words of wisdom:  Fear those who fear gazing upon the Cross of Christ Crucified.

It was asked why I am posting here if I consider Matthew’s techniques destructive (I’m paraphrasing the question).  It is because I fear for my family being contaminated with these kinds of modernistic, novel sexual ideas and practices.  Matthew is clearly uneducated in the principles of the Roman Catholic Church.  The indispensable encyclicals of Casti Connubi and Arcanum speak with clarity on the matters of human sexuality and I could site many more.  I firmly believe that Matthew has blacked them out because he rejects the infallible teachings against contraception and other doctrines not to his personal liking.  Matthew denigrates warnings by Fathers of the Church to avoid sins of impurity which send more souls to Hell than any other.  Being a Catholic is a life of sacrifice.  Sacrificial living is hated; therefore, modernistic subversion of morals – maintaining the Roman Catholic Church got it wrong, or the Catholic Church’s teachings before 1962 (yes,  Christ’s Church has existed much longer than since 1962) is irrelevant,  or God doesn’t really mean ‘thou shalt not’ is Matthew’s message.  Matthew if I was in charge of your space in this site, I would say you must leave - shame on you!  Shame, now that’s a valuable word.  Let’s not avoid using it.

Joe, I am really REALLY starting to think now that you are simply NOT paying attention, and to be honest, it is making it difficult to be polite, but I will do my best and pray for patience as I try to explain this again.
1) “Matthew is pointing to a flashy hedonistic group outside of the Catholic Church, using the space of a Catholic column.”  I have no problem with “flashy,” but where do you get the idea that 1flesh (or those running it) are “hedonistic”?  That seems a rather harsh judgement that must be supported by facts if you wish to make it.  As for them being “outside the Catholic Church”, I’ll go ahead and spill the beans that I in fact know the people who run 1flesh, and know that they are devout Catholics (who fear Christ on the Cross but with the virtuous Fear of the Lord).  If the issue you have is not the fact that they are not Catholic, but that they do not speak directly for the Church, what is the issue if they speak that which is not contradictory to the Truth?  In fact, even if they weren’t Catholic, why would there be an issue if they speak Truth?  Which brings me to my next point:
2)“I firmly believe that Matthew has blacked them out because he rejects the infallible teachings against contraception and other doctrines not to his personal liking.”  Again, you are simply showing that you really have not even attempted to figure out what 1flesh stands for.  THE WHOLE WEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO SHOWING THAT THE USE OF CONDOMS AND CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG!  As I have stated MULTIPLE times in previous comments, 1FLESH IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH (which have remained constant throughout the two millennia of its existence), BUT RATHER SUPPORTS WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES AND HELPS SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE WHY (again, Fides et Ratio).  Have you just been attacking that which you do not know?

Attention Deficit   =    Let Us NOT Eroticize Human Sexuality.  Crazie buddies believe the Roman Catholic Church has been ineffective in the teaching of human sexuality; therefore, they are reformulating the basics taught pre-Vatican II making them adaptable to modern demands.
You say that “1flesh stands for—-THE WHOLE WEBSITE IS DEVOTED TO SHOWING THAT THE USE OF CONDOMS AND CONTRACEPTION IS WRONG!” 
Even atheists know about the cancers connected to the use of birth control pills, the lies of “safe sex”, use a condom,  and cancers connected to abortion and many other psychological impairments and economic instabilities it is creating.  Crazie buddies are using a Catholic platform to launch their endeavors that are anti-Catholic and harmful to the world.

Attention Deficit - Matthew states -  “You might think I’m using the word sex too much. But that’s because maybe it’s not for you. It’s for all of those folks out there who need something new to wack them in the face and get them to start thinking differently about things like contraception, marriage, sex and relationships”.

Jesus Christ showed His amazing love for all creatures by dying a horrific death in reparation for our sins that nailed Him to the Cross, does not “wack” in the face per Matthew and Crazie buddies.  The Humanist Manifesto also said lets unhinge them from Traditional piety, practices, and unscientifically proven concepts about the unseen and hereafter and let them eat cake now.

Again I ask: how are their endeavors anti-Catholic?  Even if that were the case, they are not using a Catholic platform to launch their endeavors, they are not connected with Matthew Warner at all - the latter is merely using his blog to support 1flesh.  Further, while some atheists know about “the cancers connected to the use of birth control pills, the lies of “safe sex”,” et cetera, most are lied to by society at large and thus do not know, and most of the rest pretend that these things do not exist.  Again: what 1flesh is propagating is the Truth, pure and simple, and they are doing so to save the quality and dignity of human life (and saving souls in the process (changing the way people think about sexuality, combating the “pick-up culture”, and therefore and thusly fighting for more purity in the culture at large)).  What exactly is wrong with that?  What harm does that cause?  Furthermore, in what way are we (/am I/is 1flesh) erroticizing human sexuality?

I think Joe should make his own blog, instead of hijack someone else’s.  His agenda is clear, and audience not here, obviously.

Fantastic post! You don’t deserve the flack you’re getting in the combox. In my estimation, those who disagree are too content to live in their Catholic enclaves and are more content to condemn the culture than evangelize it. Evangelizing means that you meet people where they are (not to be confused with encouraging them where they are) and show them something better. I think another thing people fail to recognize about this post is that the images are conversation *starters* and that hopefully the image gives you the opportunity to tell the full story. A photo of the Holy Family might tell the whole story, but if you’re engaging a culture that doesn’t know who they are or why they matter, you’ve done them no good by showing it, but I digress. Keep up the great work! God bless you!

Yes,  a Psalm verse tells us that we are fearfully and wonderfully made by Our Creator.  But the tactics of crazie buddies is the same as a Planned Parenthood speaker assisting a co-ed class of 5th graders to get comfortable naming the intimate parts of the body correctly are the same.  See the “Growing In Love”  curriculum at Motherswatch.net.  It details how youth in the early grades are taught to recite the Intimate Parts of the body before they learn their catechism.  Get them comfortable using sexualized jargon and they will soon get comfortable experimenting with it as a contact sport.  Your arguments and their tortured reasoning to use racy words are to and will remove BLUSH and SHAME.  These are God given natural protections that must never be lost.  Matthew and the crazies are after the ones who still maintain a sense of decency that “Growing In Love” curriculum failed to convict that barbarism is OK.    Crazie buddies need to refer these discussions to a priest or bishop.  If the priest or bishop says he does not have the time than keep searching until one is found?  I know with certainty they exist.

Which is more soothing to the senses and the conscience -  A photo of the Holy Family or Jazzed up sexualized headlines?

Joe, you keep using your misunderstanding of 1flesh.org (which you certainly haven’t taken a look at) to launch into rants.  I’m afraid I don’t understand how you expect the young Catholics of 1flesh to educate people—specifically, non-Catholics that know nothing but secular culture—on the wrongs of contraception if words like “sex” and “naked” are apparently racy sexualized jargon.  Have you ever HEARD racy sexualized jargon?  I have, and it makes you long for the genteel, puratanical qualities of a word like “naked.”

Lea S.—-  Men with sound Catholic reasoning intending to achieve a holy effect will avoid depraved and demoralizing words.  Glorifying words of seduction in public is an anti-Catholic practice which will not achieve a good result.  The moral sense of the user of these methods is deformed.  Especially when it attracts the innocent,  it would be better for ‘them’ if a millstone be hanged about their necks and be drowned in the sea.  They claim that by using crude vulgar language it will attract those steeped in the contraceptive mentality and those violating the 6th and the 9th Commandments.  Once attracted,  what are the words of healing and comfort to cause a conversion to holiness?  Their method is absurd. 
Since the 1950s Catholicism has taken a nose dive because of the natural replacing the supernatural and deifying man instead of God.  That’s what 1flesh is doing and NO, I’ve not been into the site.  It’s based on the study of man’s body and not Our Heavenly Father who in His immense mercy,  gives us purpose and reason to exist and the ability to take our next breath.
Those who use obscenities want and desire that others do the same and those who do not imitate their conduct are regarded as mean or without education.  Consider the way of St. John the Baptist.  He was neither crude nor did he use obscene language to cause many to turn from their sins.  His risked his life for the sake of the Gospel.  We cannot say there is a comparison in the ways of 1flesh.  Quite the contrary.

Joe - It appears this discussion is going nowhere and getting to a point where it’s like beating a dead horse. I think we can agree to disagree yes, without having to attack other people’s moral character. You keep bringing up basically how holy men must use only holy methods to evangelize. What makes 1flesh.org’s aim unholy by the way?  Take for example one of their graphics that says, “sex is better naked.”  Do you know what they mean?  They are saying you don’t need to use condoms when you’re married.  They’re not advocating sex before marriage.  Another one, “100% organic sex.” Again within the context of marriage without the use of contraceptives. So far I think you would agree with them there with those messages yes? You keep saying words like “crude” and “vulgar.”  Are words like “naked” and “sex” vulgar in these contexts?

I do find it bothersome and insulting that you launch attacks at people’s moral character. You’re attacking 1flesh and Matthew Warner and yet you specifically say “and NO, I’ve not been into the site.”  You’re not even taking the time to investigate and do your homework about whom you’re attacking.  You’re just throwing stones after stones and I’m sorry being very very righteous.  That very public prayer for Matthew Warner was all in vain, if at once you continuously launch attacks at his character.  If I had a sincere prayer or message of concern for someone, I would have laid it before the Lord and/or sent a personal message to that person and not made it so very public. Any grievance you have you can find Matthew’s e-mail next to his picture.  It is brothers and sisters who play the “holier than thou” card that turn off so many secular people away from grasping the message of Christ. 

To reiterate what Lea has pointed out “I’m afraid I don’t understand how you expect the young Catholics of 1flesh to educate people—specifically, non-Catholics that know nothing but secular culture—on the wrongs of contraception if words like “sex” and “naked” are apparently racy sexualized jargon.” Joe - Do you have a better idea? You think inviting them to bible study or to pray 2000 Hail Marys will do it? I’m sorry, but the answer is no.  You need to meet these young individuals where they are at and slowly, by the grace and power of the Holy Spirit, lead them into more truths and hopefully God-willing into an acceptance of Christ in their life.  That my friend is not immediate and a slow slow journey for most, if not all.

As someone who has worked with youth and young adults this is something that is one tool (not the only) that can help spread and reinforce the message of chastity, pro life, and discourage the use of contraceptives, etc. We are up against very evil forces constantly tempting and luring the young people into a life of sin.  I think 1flesh.org is part of that new evangelization, that Papa Benedict XVI is talking about.  And get ready Joe, there will be many more like it.

Grace,    I’ve been through the series of Christopher West, “Theology of The Body”.  I do not recommend it.  Theology of the body is a focus upon the gift of person to another(s).  “Self” and the body are to be adored.  Christ Crucified and His amazing love is irrelevant.
Once again, these teachings on matters of human sexuality belong to the clergy.  Never form your conscience on laymen’s talks.  They not only do not have the anointing, they do not have the grace.  Obviously they are not ‘seasoned’ but are on a spiritual high.  I’m acquainted with that exuberance in young men.  They are in for a rude awakening.  How many casualties will they be charged with because they have denigrated the Apostolic Teachings of the Roman Catholic Church?

Wsquared - You are spot on!

Joe, you keep bringing up the Theology of the Body series even when no one else is talking about it.  The Archbishop of Philadelphia and Bishop of Harrisburg apparently had this to say about the series:

“We are convinced that John Paul II’s Theology of the Body is a treasure for the Church, indeed a gift of the Holy Spirit for our time. Yet, its scholarly language needs to be ‘translated’ into more accessible categories if the average person is to benefit from it. To do this is the specific mission of the Theology of the Body Institute, and we believe that Christopher West, the Institute’s popular lecturer and spokesman, has been given a particular charism to carry out this mission. With great skill as a presenter, with keen insight as a thinker, and with profound reverence for the mystery of human sexuality, he has been able to reach thousands in our sexually wounded culture with the Gospel of salvation in Christ.”

The very things you have been speaking against in this combox are the very things that these holy men—holy, consecrated clergy—are recommending.  Take particular notice of the statement: “its scholarly language needs to be ‘translated’ into more accessible categories if the average person is to benefit from it.”

Read that one more time.

a S. —- There is a lot of debate over Christopher West series on Theology of the Body.  Google for information on his crude talk and methods if you are interested.  I’ve taken the series.  Once again I do not recommend it. 
Lea S, am I understanding you correctly?  You want me to find credence in a bishop who sounds like Fr. Richard Sparks?  These two men have turned their backs on the Doctor of Doctors, The Teacher of Teachers, the Roman Pontiffs led by the infallible protection of their office, who have condemned sex education in classrooms as is now taught in parochial schools.  The bishop is one of the group of   churchmen who mandate it?  The priest offends people by his colorful speech in his talks promoting the “Growing In Love” series taught in parochial schools.
http://www.aletheiapress.com/FrSparks.htm
”The Growing In Love series is a constant repetition about the body, oneself, sexual body parts and sexual acts that keeps the subject of sex foremost in the minds of children.” 
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/12/6/ - Part 1
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/15/6/ - Part 2
Theology of the Body is a study of man’s body.  It purports that man has greatness on the level of God.  Do you see the connections?

Katheryn said:

“I think Joe should make his own blog, instead of hijack someone else’s.  His agenda is clear, and audience not here, obviously.”

I can’t agree. This is supposed to be a Catholic website, and I think Joe is entitled to try and correct a Catholic Newspaper from being warped by the secular world. Furthermore he is making a valiant stand with very good points made.

While I can see the temptation of trying to adapt to the worldly, talk the language they understand, like “bring sexy back” (if that phrase makes much sense at all) in an ‘ends justifies the means’ mode, I also completely get Joe’s point, that you have to be careful not to find that in fact your just re-affirming the twisted ways of the secular mindset.

What Joe is saying, I think, is “bring back HOLY” Good on him too.

Joe, you aren’t going to take those two bishops I quoted seriously because you think they sound like a priest you don’t like?

Lea S, you said   “you aren’t going to take those two bishops I quoted seriously because you think they sound like a priest you don’t like?”

Lea S. – Do you endorse the methods of Fr. Sparks?  Do you approve of his choice to insult what is meant to be beautiful in the presence of women and children?  Yet he claims to be a priest!  Furthermore, there are no corrections for his ungentlemanly behavior.  The “Growing In Love” sex education curriculum has an imprimatur which ‘formerly assured’ Catholics of doctrinal soundness to contents.  Now conservative conciliarists over look it; they have accepted that an imprimatur is no longer meant to protect Catholics for sound Catholic principles. 
Lea S. – there is not a diocese in the U S that does not, I repeat, does not impose sexualized catechetics on unsuspecting youth held captive in parochial classrooms.  Youth naturally expect to be protected, but their innocence is stolen.    Don’t take my word for anything.  I’ve given references on the G I L sex ed series in parochial schools and you can‘google’ for information on Christopher West who is using inverted truths to spin a dangerous web to sexualize his audience that never got trapped in the parochial schools of collaborating teachers willing to teach scandalous materials.  You bet they need to be taken to task on their reprehensible teachings!

Burt - thank you.

as a 24-year-old girl living in nyc, pressured everywhere I look to “be a woman” in the modern sense, this article rocks my world… gives me hope for the day I marry and have REAL sex without rubber in between us or crazy chemicals messing with my menstrual cycle :) thanks!!!!!

Who are the ecclesiastical technicians who disturbed the Catholic senses of Alexandra received at Baptism?  (yes, I’m making a broad assumption of her Baptism)  Alexandra is a 24-year old female that does not know that marriage is first for the procreation and the education of children.  If she’s concluded that marriage is for great sex supported by this discussion, Matthew, as a gentleman should apologize.  It’s about her soul, Matthew, and placing obstacles to salvation is a serious matter.  “..acceptable men are tried in the furnace of humiliation”

Joe, you said:
“Let Us NOT Eroticize Human Sexuality.”
Did you really mean to say that?
Because it sounds like you want to take out the “unity” part of sexuality, keeping only the “procreation” part. And that, my friend, is heresy. God invented the orgasm, and intended it as a symbol to teach us of the mystical union of Christ to the Church. The Church has always known this. Check out Bernini’s statue of St. Theresa for a great example.

In any case, it’s apparent to me at least that you are not really listening to the replies to you, and therefore I think people should just ignore your comments from now on unless you show a tiny bit of sense.

John Doman- Please show in Sacred Tradition, in the Teaching Magisterium of the Church where the unity of the spouses is the emphasis in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Connect the dots, John Doman.  I’m not eliminating ‘unity’ for God created a Sacrament for unity of the spouses for the purpose of procreation and education of children FIRST.  Matthew, spins heads in the wrong direction when he portrays sex as the end in all causing a lot of confusion as we saw in Alexandra’s post.  I’m listening to Holy Mother Church and not to the new evangelists who think there is divine oversight and the Church needs correction in teaching the family.  If you really thought I was speaking heretically, you would have proven it.

Interesting that I read this post just after reading Simcha Fisher’s one on how we overuse irony to our detriment.

*laughing* Rich, so am I, but I didn’t make the connection until I saw your comment.

I think a lot of the attacks against addressing questions of sexuality in the public forum just demonstrate how much Puritanism has infected the culture of the Catholic laity in America. Am I tired of the constant and blatant throwing around of “modern” sexuality? Yes, I am. But it also makes me sad that we don’t have more conversations and understandings about the truth of sexuality. And the only way we’re ever going to fix the culture is if we TALK about why the way sex is presented is wrong. I look forward to checking out the 1flesh.org website - I don’t know what my ultimate assessment will be of it, but on the surface it seems like something worth trying.

The only way we are going to fix the culture is to be submissive, to practice humility and to be obedient to all the Magisterial Teachings of Holy Mother the Church.  The Church has spoken clearly on human sexuality and credible bishops and priests are the only other source if you cannot research these precious teachings.  Our Blessed Mother at Fatima has asked us to wear the Brown Scapula, Pray the Rosary daily, amend our lives, offer sacrifices for sins of the world,  and dress modestly   Desiring public discussion is the sign of unbelief.  Real men do not let these kinds of discussions go on in public.

Remember Tobit?  “Lord, I do not take this woman for lust…”  Sexy equals lust.  That’s the problem.  Really wonderful lovemaking is not sex. It is expressing love with the body and practicing discipline because of the love. Love of the partner and love of God. It happens all day long, fully clothed or naked.  People who want sexy back are missing something far greater if they don’t get this. It is a rebellion against discipline and love that is behind wanting “sexy”.  People want to commit unchaste acts because they are aroused not because they love. People fear the vulnerability of real love.  It’s easier to hide behind sex than to grow as a child of God with love.  The website makes people think about contraception and that’s great, but doesn’t seem to have alot of content about what “sexy” is.

Pam, I think I agree with you until you said the website (which one) makes you think about contraception and that is great.  What part of contraception is great, Pam?        Don’t you agree contraception and sexy/lust are what is destroying our families, societies and nation?

Joe, The website brings up all the negatives to artificial birth control so it makes people think.  I’m not saying birth control is great, but that a site that makes people think about all the downsides to it is great.  Most people are never told the whole story.  They only hear one side.
To everyone who thinks we are becoming too puritanical, please read the recent posts to the blog “Why don’t people dress up anymore?”  Someone has posted quotes from the early church fathers about dress. They relate to this alot. It points so clearly to where our emphasis should be in our life in all circumstances - on Christ!  We are pilgrims who have had an encounter with God!  That changes everything.  When we are trying to please Christ, we are not worrying about our sex life we are worrying about our Love life.

Joe, from the catechism of the Catholic church:

 http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm (ccc2331-2336, based on the 6th commandment.)

Notice unity mentioned almost immediately ...“communion”, followed by be fruitful and multiply.

Furthermore, the heresy of Gnosticism promotes that anything to do with the (perfectly good, perfectly created, in the original sense) body is bad and that one should focus only on the spiritual.  It is heresy because it denies the inherent goodness in God’s creation, and that we are created in his likeness. It also denies, in a way, Christ being fully human, and fully divine. Marriage is the closest earthly example of the Trinity, for the great love /unity of the two begets another person ...and no,I’m not saying that part of the Trinity was created. That would be heresy, too.  I’m just saying that it puts us closer to understanding that mystery. To deny that the body is needed for that experience, is a slap in the face to God Himself.

Matt - Thanks for a great post. I have been studying JPII’s Theology of the Body, and this site addresses some of the same themes. Is the site perfect? No. Otherwise, we’d be in heaven. But it is important that we are talking about this issue and meeting the culture at the crossroads. In sympathy with some of the objections posted in the comments, I would agree that the site is a little too flippant, but it calls attention to an ongoing crisis that has intensified with the sexual revolution. Look, it has all of us thinking about these issues! I pray that others will find the site and start thinking too.

I am in no position to make a blanket statement about the state of catechesis in America, but based on my own experience with friends and family members, the Catholic Church - dioceses, parishes, and individuals - could be doing a much better job of teaching about the nature and purpose of marriage and sex, especially in the context of contemporary issues such as artificial contraception.

If you want to learn more, please find some good commentary on JPII’s Theology of the Body. Christ called us to share the good news, but we can’t do that until we first educate ourselves. If you think that sexual love is too delicate for the Church to discuss in public, read the Song of Songs. Marital relationships here on earth are meant to reflect and foreshadow the mariage of Christ and His bride, the Church, at the end of time, but Scripture also provides us with a beautiful description of how sexual love can lead married couples to greater holiness before the final coming.

Pam,    Atheists, Jews, or Muslims would not disagree that Birth Control artificial OR othersise is a destructive forth.  Do you know what the Catholic Church teaches?  To have any sense of credibility, you need to site what the Fathers of the Church have spoken and renounce these humanistic reasonings.  No one should take correction or direction from laity.    Matthew could direct his readers to what Holy Mother the Church teachers, such as the encyclical on “MARRIAGE” by Pope Pius XI.  It is a mortal sin for married couples to practice birth prevention or the use of contraceptives measures to prevent births.  If God punished Onan, what must He think of Catholics who are doing all they can to give credence to birth prevention and still be silly with attitudes of bringing back sexy.  The sin of Onan was to deliberately frustrate the conception of a child—-  Genesis 38:10.  Do you believe God has changed His mind and silly folks can fool around with a new conception of sex creating a disturbance to the moral order of control?  Once again, these are very private matters.  Sex is for the married couples ONLY! Even within marriage there are restraints to protect the dignity of the wife. The intimacies of marriage are not a topic for public discussion which can cause others to sin.  Yes, these kinds of discussions enlarge boundary lines, removes blush and shame and should never be in a Catholic newspaper unless it is introduced with the sacred writings of the Catholic Church and stays within suitable guidelines led by a qualified bishop or priest.  Matthew makes no attempt to educate on the teachings of the Catholic Church.  Futhermore, he made no attempt to set proper guide lines.  May God be merciful with Matthew.  I perceive he is resistant to correction.  Or is Matthew trying to break the Sacred Laws?  Move over Margaret Sanger.

Chrissy K,  Married spouses are made holy by their obedience to the Commandments of God in regards to the intimacies of marriage.  Your human reasoning is subordinated to sensuality,———-  leads to birth prevention and no control.  Pleasure attached to the indulgence of sex by the married spouses is secondary.  It is ordained to the results intended by God which is firstly regeneration.  You’re truly topsy turvy and leading people astray on this in a major way.  Slow down!!  No pages are pulled out of the Bible by the Catholic Church.  Holy Mother the Church safeguards all the Sacred writings and interprets them according to the mind of God.  This issue cannot be discussed without knowledge of these Sacred Writings.  “The sensual man does not perceive the things which are of the spirit of God”  1 Cor. 2:14.  It is only by going back and reading what has been handed on by the Catholic Church that man will find his true dignity.  There are more lovable qualities in parents of large families than those who deny souls to exist.  These characteristics glorify God and edify society.  Make no mistake it is a life of sacrifice.  A major attempt of Matthew and his ‘loose title’ is how to avoid sacrificial living.  He’s obviously steered you wrong along with many who have posted in this column.

Joe,  The site does not encourage birth control. I’m not sure what you think I am saying.  It seems Matthew is pointing to a blog that would lead “anyone” closer to understanding Catholic teaching on birth control.  That is always a good because it is leading souls closer to the truth. Matthew is using a Catholic newspaper so it’s off-putting to think he is suggesting some sort of distortion of Church teaching with the “sexy” part and it really isn’t holy to sensationalize titles to get readers, but I think he is saying there are sites that are seeking to lead people to living an integrated life and this site he mentions doesn’t pretend to be Catholic. God works in strange ways and the site might be a stepping stone toward a closer relationship to God for someone trying to understand us and our faith who happens upon this blog. The title of this article Matthew is using to do it does not proclaim Catholic teaching and may confuse, upset or mislead devout Catholics, I agree. It confuses and upsets and misleads because we know the Church teaching. So this post really isn’t meant for us.  Perhaps what’s really at issue for you is that people are in different places spiritually and you and I probably agree that Jesus didn’t preach in half measures.  He stated the truth, sometimes in parables, but always the truth.  And sexy is not part of the truth.

Are you saying, Pam, that a Catholic Newspaper cannot assist souls to turn away from their sins and towards a good Final End?  I’m trying to grasp that Matthew knows a better way than the Apostolic Church.  Forgive me of my unbelief.  Your reasoning lines up with the instructions given to the married couple who want an annulment to first get a civil divorce.  Pam, why are you covering for Matthew?  It’s time he admits he is not a Catholic and knows negative zero about the principles and doctrines of Holy Mother the Church.

My reasoning is nothing like that. You don’t seem to care about the truth making a careless statement like that.  When I started reading these blogs one of the first things I noticed was that they aren’t very concerned with holiness but more with appealing to modern man. One of the reasons I comment is to state Christ’s Truth when I see comments that are just wrong.  Titles, comments etc. are sensationalized, harsh or misleading, working an agenda.  The bloggers are for the most part converts and not cradle Catholics.  That raises questions with me. Is there no one steeped in the faith who can write a great blog for the NC Register?  None of Matthew’s columns have had a particularly “holy” tone. I do not know his faith background and am not here to judge him.  God will do that.  The Register still employs all these people and they are face of Catholicism for alot of people. Often they write uplifting things.  If something is off the mark, I just comment, correcting each other as Jesus asked us to do.

Pam you said, “None of Matthew’s columns have had a particularly “holy” tone.”  I TOTALLY AGREE THAT MATTHEW SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BOOT!!

So why is he taking up valuable space while people are leading lives that condemn them and puts all society at risk?  Why doesn’t this paper expect their writers to admonish with words of hope of redemption and freedom from being slaves to physical preoccupations?  It’s shocking that Matthew is allowed to use this space to lead the readers to a “better” blog place.

If memory serves me right, Joe is not a Catholic, but is a member of the SSPX, a schismatic society which left the Catholic Church, much as the Eastern Orthodox churches did (as well as Martin Luther and John Calvin)  He has certainly earlier on this post quoted a dissident priest who says that Pope John Paul II was not really a pope and has questioned whether priests ordained since the 70’s are actually priests. 

Here is Avilalover’s quote on this subject, which can be found earlier in the comments section:

And thank you for siting the website you used and quoted to back your points in the response.  “These quotes are in this article: http://www.trosch.org/bks/commprie.htm”  With a little homework, I find that this website is written and maintained by Fr. David C. Trosch, a priest who has for sometime NOT been in good standing with his Archbishop.  Fr. Trosch then became critical of his (then) Archbishop’s own validity, and has attacked the Vicar of Christ, Blessed John Paul II:  “Pope John Paul II refused to take the Papal Coronation Oath that had been taken by all popes since the 7th Century.Click Here to read the oath that confirms the intended heretical acts of Karol Wojtyla.”

Caveat Lector

Rebecca,  Memory, I fear, has failed you.  I am not a ‘recognize and resist’ member.  Do you know of a Catholic theological dogmas or doctrines that the SSPX denies?  Their “recognize the pope, but don’t follow him in his errors” is a very strange position that cannot be justified; however, they are legitimate Catholics, Rebecca, none can deny.

wrong.

This is positively adolescent. What some call “engaging the culture” I consider being corrupted by it.

What these guys apparently miss is by focusing on sex to begin with they’ve already lost.

And Rebecca, you’re spreading lies and calumny about the SSPX.  What does that make you?

Joe (and anyone acting like Joe) - First, you’ve made this one of the most uncharitable and un-catholic comment threads I’ve seen on a blog post (and I’ve seen a lot). That needs to be said.

Second, the great irony of your comments is that if the average person reads what I wrote (and then spends some time on 1flesh.org as a result) they will find themselves far more open to the teachings of the Catholic Church and her beautiful, universal, life-changing truths (...the goal of my post, however unholy and devilish you’ve judged it to be).

On the other hand, if they read your comments here, they will find themselves thinking far more negatively of the Church and the people who call themselves Catholic. And they are less likely to ever really be open to hearing Church teaching in a positive light. Additionally, when fellow Catholics read your comments here, they wince and then are reminded of the humility that comes with being in a Church filled with imperfect sinners.

There are plenty of legitimate discussions to be had on how (and how not) to evangelize and share our faith with a culture that is often so far from the ideals of the Church, but I can assure you that you are not doing so productively.

Mr Warner:

Please grow up…and start acting like a Catholic.  And start treating so sacred a topic as this with the prudence (and the class) that it deserves.

This is what John Paul II’s idiotic “theology” of the body has brought us to, a “theology” that will one day be condemned by the Church when the Church recovers her balance again.

I am not a prude. I am happily married with 3 small children (so far). I recommend that the author of this article (and those who think this campaign is “awesome” and just what we need)read chapter XXXIX in St. Francis De Sales “Introduction to the Devout Life.” It’s 4 pages long and very simple to understand. Fairly certain he would condemn this campaign with strong words, even in our modern society. You could add St. Don Bosco and St. John Vianney and… well, pretty much all of the big saints (and small ones too).  Of course, I assume you would say they are not relevant to our times. Personally, I think truth is truth and morality is morality across the times and does not change with the times.  The Church has always valued tradition and history. I think now more than ever we need to stick to that and stop trying to invent new ways to reach the people. Live by example. Stop trying to fight a great evil with watered down crap and lesser evils.

I’m sorry. This just disgusts me.

God bless.

I am not sure if the author of this silly idea is a punk or a forever-a-kid type of ignorant Catholic. I think this person needs some proper tutoring in Catholic basic spirituality. Grow up , man!

Joe-
  St. Thomas Aquinas very clearly states that God made man to seek and want pleasure.  And if he does not get pleasure from eternal things (or doesn’t even know of such pleasures) he will seek them in short term ephemeral and destructive worldly pleasures.  God made marriage a sacrament in which the pleasures of the flesh are united in the spiritual communion of two souls and the generation of new life.  Many believe that ‘Traditional Catholics are Killjoys who want to Deny Us Pleasure’ i.e. ‘Binding with Briars our Joys and Desires’ as Blake put it in the Garden of Love.

Matthew, I agree that for someone who has no clue about the down side of birth control, reading the article and going to the 1flesh site might lead them to abstain from birth control and embrace relations without birth control.  And I agree that’s a start but that alone hasn’t got much to do with Catholic teaching.  No good Catholic can really promote “sexy” with a straight face.  Even the “Song of Solomon” as one person cited, has a chasteness to it. The argument that “The other side is winning so we should use their tactics” is a lie.  We don’t ever convert another human being.  God does.  He has said His Word will change souls who hear it.  When you write an article like this you are saying you don’t believe Him or you don’t like His results aren’t you? And if the thread is negative you need to take some blame. The copies of the posters, the inflammatory headline, do you think Jesus is pleased with them? If we have the faith of a mustard seed.

Hedonists would not be faulted for embracing a gospel of sex.  After all, if you are a pleasure seeker you ought to become a sex-expert.  Jesus Christ on the other hand practiced and exhorted His disciples to embrace the gospel of self-denial.  He did not preach a gospel of pleasure-seeking.  Yet, there are Catholics who are peddling sex.  Why?  And, will this lifestyle of sexual pleasure-seeking - all the while feverishly trying not to go too far with a host of various prohibitions - appeal to hedonists?  Or, will they recognize the incompatibility of claiming to be a Christian, while at the same time adopting a hedonistic mentality?  And, are Catholics who follow these sex gurus at risk of becoming de facto hedonists?

Posted by poetcomic1 on Friday, Jul 20, 2012 6:54 PM (EST):

Joe-
  St. Thomas Aquinas very clearly states that God made man to seek and want pleasure.  And if he does not get pleasure from eternal things (or doesn’t even know of such pleasures) he will seek them in short term ephemeral and destructive worldly pleasures.  God made marriage a sacrament in which the pleasures of the flesh are united in the spiritual communion of two souls and the generation of new life.  Many believe that ‘Traditional Catholics are Killjoys who want to Deny Us Pleasure’ i.e. ‘Binding with Briars our Joys and Desires’ as Blake put it in the Garden of Love.

poetcomic1,

Below is an excerpt from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas:

http://www.pathsoflove.com/aquinas/perfection-of-the-spiritual-life.html?vm=r&s=1

St. Thomas Aquinas on the Perfection of the Spiritual Life

“Now amongst all relationships, conjugal affection engrosses men’s hearts more than any other,...But continence has the further benefit of giving a particular facility for acquiring perfection. For the soul is hindered from free devotion to God, not only by the love of exterior things, but much more by the impulse of interior passions. And among these passions, the lust of the flesh especially absorbs the reason.”

No, I cannot see anything going wrong with this idea. Nor can I see anything patronising about this comment: “it does so on terms and using language that your average secular seeker will relate to” Yeah, baby. Groovy. What is a “secular seeker”, anyway? To be fair, I think I know where you are coming from, but the project is doomed. Just teach the doctrine, including the condemnation of pornography, and keep private matters where they belong.

The primary purpose of marriage is that children be brought into the world and properly taught to obtain happiness in this life and in the next.  The sexual union is secondary. Chris West and his followers are deceivers of Catholic doctrine.  Vatican II ravished the Sacrament of Matrimony and changed it as for the purpose stated by poetcomic1’s.  Now we can understand why annulments are made easier and faster.  97% of married couples who apply for an annulment get it.  The new church and it’s arrangements for marriages obviously do not know how to properly prepare couples for marriage.  No longer is indissolubility connected with this Sacrament to give grace (as intended for all the Sacraments -  All have been changed, BTW).  The Alan Guttmacher Institute states that ‘catholics’ are more likely to have an abortion than Protestants. (see Tumultuous Times by Fathers Radecki, page 454).  Because married couples are not properly prepared and focus more upon sexual gratification, they are very likely to frustrate the conception of children and fall into grave sin.

Amen Cathy!

Cathy-
  Speaking of St. Thomas and the ‘lust of the flesh’.  Old Thomas himself when visiting monasteries etc. always asked if they had fresh eels - he had a passion for them.  I suppose you would not have approved.  He also had a great sense of humor.  He was late for Vespers and was hurrying chubbily along the corridors to the chapel when he passed a statue of the Blessed Virgin.  The statue’s lips moved and distinctly admonished him “You are late, Thomas!”.  He answered, “My Lady! It is the hour of silence!” and St. Thomas says that Our lady laughed.

This is not surprising as certain “TOB” persons(correctly called the catecheses on human love) have gone way off track. C. West is at the head of them and this seems to be a regurgitation of his ideas.  This is also to say that what they claim to be advocated by JPII is often not.  JPII certainly did not advocate such an approach or method or content, but even wrote against it.  The secretary of the pontifical council for the family, among many others, has also spoken against such ideas and approaches. 

The notion that you have to use the concepts and methods of the culture to reach people is simply not true; and people don’t realize it ends up giving credence to those ideas/terms and thereby perpetuates them.  Rather, people should give a clear alternative in the terms they use, the way they speak about it, etc.   

JPII spoke of proper modesty and proper shame in speaking of such matters.  Such appoaches also forget our concupiscence and traditions supported by the entire history of the Church such as custody of the eyes.  Warner betrays part of the problem when he speaks of people only recently resurrecting ideas- this notes a break with the past and how only now are there supposedly people who “get it” and can address the problem.  No offense to Warner and Barnes for that matter, but he seems to have no training in theology, which is perhaps part of the difficulty- many such persons are often not steeped in the teaching and tradition of the Church, but they do things like attend a “TOB” workshop-  which in itself may not accurately present matters- and then they think they have an accurate picture.

Such approaches don’t seem to realize they end up in the same place as the popular culture- an overemphasis on sexual matters, on the pleasurable aspect of it, increasing tendency to downplay children.  It is no accident you have people like West and his followers now saying that pornography is not all bad, advocating public nudity, claiming that you should reach a stage of “mature purity” at which you could deliberately look at women and their bodies.

David, Christopher West, Jason Everett and Matthew & others have been useful.  As men, I pray they come to their senses and repent.  Divorce and marriage are political tools that can destroy a nation.  The Sacrament of Matrimony has been turned on its head. 
The gift and unity of the spouses in the Sacrament of Matrimony is first and approved by John Paul II; secondly for regeneration.  The compromises of that Sacrament needed to give graces to the spouses for the procreating and education of children is disastrous.  Parents have been duped into allowing outside forces to educate their children on very personal matters and that stems from pontifical council for the family, yet you say they have spoken against the new definition of the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Please defend that.  I’m most interested.  While you are searching, please read the 1995 document from THE PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY   “THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY”
Guidelines for Education within the Family.  This document opposes what you have posted.
Concupiscence, original sin and traditions are among the hated terms of the revised directives to the family.

Cathy-
  Speaking of St. Thomas and the ‘lust of the flesh’.  Old Thomas himself when visiting monasteries etc. always asked if they had fresh eels - he had a passion for them.  I suppose you would not have approved.  He also had a great sense of humor.

poetcomic1,

You do realize the comment you reference above is indicative of St. Thomas Aquinas’ sense of humor and is a figure of speech!  You surely don’t believe he was either endorsing or guilty of disordered behavior!?!  Why wouldn’t a saint have a sense of humor???  St. Teresa of Avila herself declared that a sad saint is a sorry saint!!!  In today’s culture, happiness is usually synonymous with indulgence in sensual pleasures.  This is a fallacy which the saints roundly denounce and clearly prove, not only in their writings, but by most of all by the witness of their JOY-FILLED lives of self-denial.   

Joe,

I’m not sure if there are two Joe’s or one pretending to be the other, as the different comments by “Joe” have said quite opposing things.  But the the last Joe reflects precisely the errors advocated by some, although that post in itself is also contradictory.  There was no “new” definition of marriage by JPII and to claim that he somehow changed the definition is very troubling.  Furthermore there is no hierarchy about the purposes of marriage and you will find no such definition by JPII.  If you have one, please cite the exact and primary source, not what C. West or someone else claims JPII said.  That is precisely an idea that has led the culture, including many Catholics, to where we are currtenly at- that procreation is now supposedly relegated to a secondary status in marriage.  You also have to go back to other sources- i.e. what VII document described marriage and what does it say?  (Hint:GS 48-52).  You will find JPII made no “changes.”

The only listing of a hierarchy of ends of marriage was actually that explicitly listing procreation first, the good of the spouses second.  This hierachy was actually never abolished and the current definition of marriage lists both ends together with no hierachical listing one way or the other. 

The document on the truth and meaning of human sexuality clearly indicates parents are to be educators, and the outside persons that can unduly usurp them can include West and his ilk, so that refutes your own point???  The guidlines also say we are to avoid settings/presentations/forms of communication in which large groups of people, of various ages, both sexes, levels of development and maturity are all addressed together.(#65-76) This could include blogs, web-sites,and even “TOB” presentations, etc.  The guidlines also speak of modesty, decency, and privacy in presenting such information.(#55-57)  I see no references whatsoever to sin, concupiscense, and tradition being “hated” terms not to be used.  Please provide specific references to this alleged content.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jul 21, 2012 11:38 AM (EST):

Amen Cathy!

Pam, isn’t the sex-mania promoted by the wildly popular Catholic sexologists, nothing less than the Catholic version of phallic-worship practiced by pagan fertility cults?  After all, don’t pagan fertility cults exalt sex as a major part of their cultic beliefs?  And, are the Catholic sexologists unwittingly paganizing Catholicism with their sexy literature, thereby turning the Church into a sex-cult?

David, have you read THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY
Guidelines for Education within the Family 1995 document based on the eclipse of man?

  Too. Much. Sex.  Titillation or Puritanism.  Same difference.

Posted by poetcomic1 on Saturday, Jul 21, 2012 2:34 PM (EST):

  Too. Much. Sex.  Titillation or Puritanism.  Same difference.

poetcomic1,

LUST = TOO MUCH SEX = ADDICTION = IS NOT FREEDOM. 

Overindulgence in sensual pleasures LEADS TO SLAVERY.  Freedom or Slavery, it’s your choice.

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/torches.html

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/kinseys-secret-the-phony-science-of-the-sexual-revolution

Here we have yet more proof that the “Theology of the Body” is about the sexualizing of Christianity, not the Christianizing of sex.

What a deeply embarrassing article. The title of The Remnant’s link to it is perfect:

“When Will These Perpetually Adolescent Neo-Catholics Grow Up?”

When, Matthew? When?

I hope Matthew W. is paying attention to Cathy’s post.  See what happens with no guidelines, no suitable retraints and no prudence.  Prudence is one of the four cardinal virtues forgotten in the whole scheme of T O B.

Alphonsus Jr., Theology of the Body is not a Catholic pursuit.  Think how far removed it is to study the ‘body’ and not the supernatural loving aspects of Our Saviour and Redeemer, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity for instance.  Does Matthew and his buddies know the theological virtues, the cardinal virtues, the heavenly virtues?  Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, not to be worshiped but in and through them to give God all the glory by performing our daily duties according to God’s will and design for us.  This horrific horizontal focus of T O B is a destraction from forming a Catholic sense and conscience. Futhermore, where is Our Blessed Mother in T O B?  She’s no where to be found yet She asked us to pray the Rosary daily, offer sacrifices for the sins of the world, wear a Brown Scapula and pray for conversions.  She the Mother of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Spouse of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of God is not recognized.  Our Virgin Queen and Mother is the dispenser of all graces, and the perfect reflection of Her Son who followed Him all the way to the Cross.  She desires to lead us to Him during this life and into the next.

“100% natural sex” might make a good joke for a Catholic husband to tell his wife before bedding her, but as a public campaign just makes Catholicism look like a joke.

Cathy, My perception of it is more like a world view that is being promoted by a think tank or group whose goal is to peacefully coexist with materialism(economic well-being) and sin(necessary in some eyes for economic well-being) in a nation once under God and to prepare Catholics for the Church to loose the sins of divorce and homosexuality and who knows what else.  I propose at least three groups are connected and sadly many under the guise of Christianity:  Men who believe all women are second to them or would love it if that came to be- often good men too, who have been hurt by feminist extremists. It’s an abberation of right authority and true Christian love.(despite Christ saying “No more male or female; slave or free); Women who want other women handcuffed because they have husbands who cheat or are very attractive or powerful or rich and they can’t control them so they want society to keep women in line and they are consumed with fear and envy and doubt which the men use to their own advantage and women use against each other (but no priest I know is telling them that the cheater or the fear and envy and doubt is the enemy, not the other woman); and homosexuals some of whom are priests or pastors, who want the world to look at homosexual sex as normal and perfectly acceptable because the “Spirit” is leading them to this conclusion,(Even though Peter and Paul and other writers of the Epistles CLEARLY state when a man lies with a man as he would with a woman he has been handed over to the flesh and no sodomite will enter the gates of heaven (ditto for women) and even though we know the damage to children and society).  If sex is absolutely controlling, then men can’t be blamed for acting on their desires and their desires need to be met and women must submit and men are the macho heads of everything and women are the handmaids and women need to practice alot of forgiveness.  And any problems are really the woman’s fault.  Women therefore are given one of two options - gifts even: first is they need to be either shrouded from head to toe or separated from men or told holiness is submissiveness regardless of the act they are asked to perform or the holiness of the man or second they need to groom, dress and act in a sexually appealing manner to keep their man happy and work on their skills manipulating men with looks and sexiness and their skills in bed. If they meet the criteria they receive security and material happiness and are considered a “good wife” and they have a network keeping an eye on their man.  With heterosexuals so active and vested in the sexual it should follow that there is more understanding that homosexual acts arise because, hey, sex is SO central to all that matters.  So better someone loves sex with someone of the same sex than they have to deal with all that “what is real love stuff” or with limits placed on it by our societal well-being, our consciences and our God. So this leads to “Catholic” teaching that “sexy” is good because this secular train is being pushed through by the Obama administration (and some Republicans too) and we better get on board if we want anyone to prefer Christ to all those goodies because we should know if He can’t let us have both we will choose the goodies. (His incredible love, peace and grace, His conversions of sinners, His parade of witnesses have no chance against the flesh. Now I could be all wrong about this because I am me, but as Peter said to the leaders of the temple, “I will let you judge which is right, to obey God or man?”

Ah yes, that’s just what we need: more modernisist nonsense from that “great theologian” of Vatican II, JP II, and his syncophants who want us to “think differently {i.e., heretically}about contraception, marriage, and sex” . Please. The day can not come soon enough when we will be rid of these concilar whiners.

My dear Pam,  you could have summed up your post with one word, “Modernism”.  Modernism is the heresy of all heresies.  Why are the encyclicals hidden warning of its destruction?  Matthew, you’ve got the mike and the audience.  Go for it!!!

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jul 21, 2012 5:06 PM (EST):

Cathy, My perception of it is more like a world view that is being promoted by a think tank or group whose goal is to peacefully coexist with materialism(economic well-being) and sin(necessary in some eyes for economic well-being) in a nation once under God and to prepare Catholics for the Church to loose the sins of divorce and homosexuality and who knows what else.

Pam, the article linked below posits that sexual liberation is a tool of political control.

http://www.staugustine.net/our-books/books/libido-dominandi/

1. PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10pasce.htmCached - Similar
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS X, SEPTEMBER 8, 1907 ... It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists
1. THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10moath.htmCached - Similar
Was to be sworn by all clergy, preachers, religious superiors, and seminary professors. Issued 1 September, 1910.
1. LAMENTABILI SANE
www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius10/p10lamen.htmCached - Similar
SYLLABUS CONDEMNING THE ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS. LAMENTABILI SANE. Pius X July 3, 1907

Joe and Cathy, Thank you for hearing me and understanding.  It is late and I will have to check out the links you gave tomorrow, but I will check them out. Thank you again.

Let me tell you all the problem with almost every one of these comments and why most of their points moot:

This post was not meant for most of you commenting here. Almost every one of these comments shows a complete and total misunderstanding of what was said in this post. You’ve misunderstood language and then soundly defeated straw men of your own making while insulting the people with which you have clearly misunderstood.

In the post I CLEARLY say (in preparation for just such misunderstandings) that if you believe I’m saying sex too much or this post is too sexed up - this isn’t for you. You will not interpret it correctly because you don’t understand the language. Then after I insist that the post is not for you, you turn around and insist that it is for you. Even sillier is that (while not even understanding the language before you) you insist the language must be consistent with those who spoke entirely different languages centuries ago. And in the midst of demonstrating a total misunderstanding of (and inability to understand) some language, you make charges about the language others are using. It would be quite comical if your charges weren’t so serious.

Pam - The word “sexy” is not a bad word. The definition of SEXY is whatever is sexually attractive. It’s actually quite a clinical and physiological word. But it depends entirely upon how we view sex…and what is attractive about it….

WHICH IS A KEY POINT OF THE POST. How the world views sex (and therefore what they call “sexy”) is disordered…hence, the desire to “bring sexy back” (which is also an ironic pop-culture reference for those who didn’t get that…fyi - if you didn’t get that, this post -again- was probably not for you).

Bringing “sexy” back is about a restoration of the place of sex. It’s even funnier that Joe and others have regarded this post as some kind of emphasis on the pleasure of sex over its purpose (procreation and unity). The entire 1flesh.org site is combating contraceptive sex. And the core doctrine of contraceptive sex is that we should abuse the purpose of sex for our own pleasure. It’s shocking how far this conversation has come…but not surprising when clearly those reading the post heard what they chose to hear, not what the author (me) was actually saying.

Pam - you said “The argument that ‘The other side is winning so we should use their tactics’ is a lie.”

WHO, pray tell, is making this argument? Certainly not me. And WHAT exactly are the “tactics” you are referring to? Are you referring to the tactics of communicating in a language that the receiver of the message will understand?  Because this tactic is EXACTLY what the Church has always done. And is the only “tactic” I’m advocating for here.

Here’s another point so many people here seem to be missing. Effective communication ALWAYS considers how the receiver of the message will interpret the message. Otherwise you have what is called a MIS-communication. If you insist on using language of a 13th century saint while speaking to a 21st century sinner, it shows that you have more of a concern for your self or something else than you do for the other person. It reveals that your goal is not the communication of an important idea, but the superiority of the language with which you insist on communicating it. It’s selfish. And it’s not effective at communicating the message (which is the goal, right?)

You’ll notice that not once have I advocated for or perpetuated anything contrary to the Church or to holiness. I’ve been accused only in generalities and in the language I’ve used (which the accuser clearly didn’t understand). Name one thing I’ve said in the post that contradicts Church teaching? Nobody has done so. If I did, I certainly did not mean to and will correct it ASAP.

And David - I never once proposed a “new” definition of marriage or sex. Nor did I imply one in the post. Again, there is a lack of communication here because you are hearing what you want, not what I said. Basic language here folks. “Relearning” and “Resurrecting” were the words I use…which necessarily imply connection and continuity with something already learned or already existing in the past.

And as for the charge of the reason you don’t hear the pope/encyclicals/etc. speak in this kind of language…it’s because either they were speaking a different language all together or because they are speaking to a universal audience (and still they are misunderstood anyway). It has always been the job of the members of the body of Christ to translate the universal message of the Church and make it personally relevant (just as Jesus did). We don’t change its meaning. And I’ve advocated for no such change of meaning here. But we do make it personal because we have a personal audience. We speak (to the best of our ability) the truth, but in a language that the receiver of the message understands it in. It’s not a new concept - and it certainly is no new tactic. The Church has been doing this since the beginning - both in different languages, but even within different understandings of the same language. And this is where so many of you are going so wrong. You are concerned with language when you should be concerned with its meaning (and what it means to the person you are trying to communicate with). If you are not concerned with what it means TO THE RECEIVER, then you are a terrible communicator. So many of you want to read Thomas Aquinas to a 3 yr old and then when they don’t understand it you blame the holy spirit instead of your own arrogance or failing.

Speaking of Thomas Aquinas - somebody else quoted him speaking against Lust and implied that this post somehow supports lust. Show me one place I’ve advocated for lust? Lust - by it’s definition is disordered and an abuse of sex. Therefore it is not sexy (in truth). Nowhere do I advocate for it, nor does 1flesh.org. It’s a bit funny being called theologically uneducated by people who seem to have trouble even reading the post in the first place.

Again, I think this all comes back to people not understanding what the word “sexy” is and falsely believing that being “sexy” is somehow inherently sinful. The sin is not in being sexy, but in the abuse of it. Just like sex is not inherently sinful, but the abuse of it is sinful.

Modesty is sexy. Believing that sex should be total and pure is sexy. Believing it should be open to life is sexy. Saving it for marriage is sexy. Self-respect is sexy. Faithfulness is sexy. Believing it should be freely given is sexy. Allowing room for the holy spirit is sexy. And on and on. This is the reclaiming of sexy, and ultimately of the purpose of sex, that we are working toward.

Is there anything there that is contradictory to Church teaching? Is there anything there that is not completely in support of Church teaching and in line with what scripture and the saints have taught about sex? (and please, JPII haters…you’re wasting your time here.)

Modesty is sexy. Believing that sex should be total and pure is sexy. Believing it should be open to life is sexy. Saving it for marriage is sexy. Self-respect is sexy. Faithfulness is sexy. Believing it should be freely given is sexy. Allowing room for the holy spirit is sexy.

Matthew, you are inventing a new definition of the word sexy.  I’ve checked several dictionary definitions of sexy and found no mention of either modesty, chastity, purity or the Holy Spirit.  Sexy is a catch word implying one is sexually attractive to others by wearing provocative clothing, and/or using provocative speech or mannerisms.  And, NOWHERE in John Paul II’s writings has he ever used the word SEXY. 

Matthew you asked us to “Name one thing I’ve said in the post that contradicts Church teaching?”  You failed to name your position on any Catholic Church teachings.  You’re out on a limb, Matthew, of convoluted concilarism.  Holy Mother the Church is ALWAYS clear when she speaks and Her writings always relate to Traditional sources. She never claims a New Truth.

You set no guidelines because you have no guidelines with what you are doing.  The hand of the finger you point has 4 fingers pointing back at you.  Matters relating to the married couple is NOT a topic for public discussion and most of all not a topic for a non-clergy to discuss publicly.  Haven’t you seen it by the results?  Stop being so defensive and now it’s time for you to go to a credible priest or bishop for guidance, Matthew.  Do it at least for your family and stop this conniving of novelties.  Furthermore, those of us who have read and followed T O B see its error of pointing to the deification of man and away from God.

Matt, I will try to answer your points and questions in the order they appear.  First, You warned that the post might not be for us.  Even if it is not for us, it should not offend us.  Now I’m not talking political correctness here because that is not Christianity to me.  I’m talking as readers who love Jesus and know His teaching and want others to come to know Him the method should not be so unlike Him as to be offensive.  Jesus ate and walked with sinners happily, but He always brought them to His level and never went down to theirs.  With the prodigal son for instance, the story calls the life of the prodigal wasteful and dissipation. But it tells of a Father who looks on the horizon every day for a return.  It doesn’t try to justify or diminish the offense.  It reassures that any offense repented of is forgivable and the Father will lavish His gifts on the repentant!  What this site does is try to tie in to a flesh-focused mindset as ok and redefine this word which conjures so many images that are less than holy.  Second, “Sexy” has a connotation in our culture.  That’s why this group chooses the word, don’t you think?  It is not defined anywhere I know by the terms you want to attribute to it, but is meant to bring the mind to being physically pleasing in a sexual manner to the opposite sex, as opposed to drawing love to or from another by ones INNER beauty. Have you ever known people who thought someone rather plain was really pretty?  Something in that person brings out goodness and joy in them and it makes the whole person seem more attractive.  That is the Christ in the one, drawing the other.  And it needn’t be sexual.  Third, the tactic is using the goth girl and Barney Stimpson and the world’s view of relationships.  Posters about reduced sex drive and organic sex are playing to the world’s view of good and bad.  Fourth, considering how the receiver of the message will receive the message.  Again, Jesus preached to thousands and always kept to the high road.  Saying traditional teaching or lives of the saints is thirteenth century is weak.  In our own times two great saints come to mind: Padre Pio, deceased in late sixties and Mother Teresa. Both these saints showed how it is done.  They both lived the Word, loved the Word, spoke the Word. They integrated the living with the speaking.  They didn’t act charitably and talk trash.  They spoke in as holy a manner as they lived.  And people “got” it.  They saw something, (Someone), in them that was beautiful and they wanted to emulate.  No one heard them speak and said, “Oh, that’s so pie in the sky or too much for us or beyond our understanding because we are totally not like that!”  They saw with Mother Teresa for example that she started “one by one by one.”  And that she did “little things with great love.”  And that she stood up to politicians and admonished them to choose life.  Padre Pio demanded such holiness in the confessional.  He exuded holiness at Mass.  These are the treasures of your Church.  These are the examples Christ has given to us.
When I see these posters I see a cop out, a fear of failure and a lack of the holiness that REALLY shows souls the Father and Son and Spirit who love them. The Word of God is EFFECTIVE.  It touches hearts even when we don’t realize it. Fifth, Because of the reason in number four you do harm holiness although not intentionally. Sixth, you do change the meaning when you say that what is on this site and these posters meets any saintly standard of holiness.  There is nothing particularly holy there.

Sorry to use this word but here goes….shameful.  And absolutely unbelievable to see all the “Catholics” here just lovin this stuff.  How utterly sad and depressing.  Looks to me like LOTS OF PEOPLE here have overdosed on Christopher West, Fr. Loya, Theology-of-the-Body-garbage-masquerading-as-Catholic koolaid.  Wow.

Bringing romance back is a good thing.  Romance seems to be a thing of the past.  But bringing ‘sexy’ back?  This article is silly, juvenile, and simply ridiculous.  Very suprised that EWTN would allow this kind of crap in their publication.  Imagine this - “Bringing Sexy Back”, by Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.  Doesn’t quite sound right does it.  Of course not!  It’s silly.  I just ordered the National Catholic Register online and recieved the invoice the other day in the mail.  Now I’m debating whether or not I’m going to send the check.  I think maybe not.

“When Will These Perpetually Adolescent Neo-Catholics Grow Up?”  [The headline that brought me to this site.]  America has less freedom of speech today than ever in its history Those who dare speak out for truth are often attacked and maligned,but: insert the word SEX and you have everyone’s attention.

The pushers of the “theology of the body” - along with every other species of modernism - have a very low opinion of their audience. This must be understood once and for all, as it’s fundamental to their enterprise. This low opinion is cloaked, of course.

As for this Matthew Warner, if he’s fortunate he’ll one day look back on this article with a feeling of deep embarrassment. This will be fortunate because it’ll be a major sign that, at last, he’s left adolescence.

Rather than getting all excited about 1flesh.org Catholics should heed the words of St. Paul in the letter of Romans: “Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh. For if you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live. (Rom:12-13)

There are already reported cases of what Catholics are doing in the name of Theology of the Body. Case 1: The parents started reporting back to their children at the breakfast table what their sex had been like the night before. Case 2: The members of one family took to walking around the house naked.

Is this Catholic best practice? Hardly.

The wildly enthusiastic proponents of TOB should ponder the fact that satanic rituals start with the divesting of clothing from one’s body.

Tough to imagine the Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, the Apostles, or any of the Church Fathers bringing back “sexy.” What a truly naive approach. Painful and embarrassing to watch.

Yes John, this article really is painful and embarrassing. On the bright side, it’s as if the NCReg decided to provide a model of NeoCath idiocy for future reference. Years from now, one might say “Would you like to see a model of NeoCath puerility? Then take a look at this article in the NCReg by Matthew Warner….”

Of course, conformed to this shameless age as they are, neither the NCReg nor Warner are in any way ashamed of this idiocy.

Age, thou art shamed.*

O shame, where is thy blush?**

-Shakespeare, Julius Caesar,* Hamlet**

Is the Theology of the Body as presented by various Catholic authors a veiled form of paganism?  Is there such a thing as a Catholic-pagan? (see excerpt from link below)—-

“On the positive side, the late-Pope John Paul II’s theology of the body offers a bold new understanding of human sexuality that would startle pagans, especially in its popular exposition by Christopher West.”

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/the-witches-next-door

Pam - you said “Even if it is not for us, it should not offend us.”  Well, your comment WAS for me, and it does offend me. So what do you say to that? Are you embarrassed and ashamed of your offensive comment?

Second, you say “‘Sexy’ has a connotation in our culture.”

THAT’S THE POINT. Again, it’s like you’re not reading what I said. If you want to communicate something you use terms that mean something to the people you are trying to communicate with. The great effectiveness of the 1flesh.org site is that it’s intriguing and when you get there find that it flips on its head what most people think of as sexy. Just as sex in its proper place is about much more than the physical experience, so is sexy. Not sure why you find it novel that people find “inner beauty” and non-physical traits and the way people act as “sexy.” It’s always been that way. Reducing what is “sexy” to only physical appearance is a complete misunderstanding of the term and a very, very shallow definition of it. Bringing it back is simply an attempt (as we should always be trying to do) to justly order what those other things are. Those saints/people you mention were extremely provocative in their language. The fact that I can’t produce evidence here that they ever explicitly said the word “sexy” means absolutely nothing. Shall we hunt for other words that they never said and strike those from our language, too? It’s silly. You just have a hang up on the word sexy. It means something to YOU. But you for some reason are not willing to admit that it means something different to other people. And that it is NOT offensive at all to other people (because it means something different to them). Not sure why it’s so hard to look through the language (which we all use a little differently) and focus on the “meaning” the person is trying to convey. (While also being humble enough to admit that while you may not think it effective for you, that it may be effective for others).

Joe - if you don’t believe we should discuss these things in public, why are you discussing them here? Please just set the example for us and stop.

Everyone else - I love you, too.

Wow.  I am really shocked.  Our Most Blessed Mother and her Divine Spouse would most assuredly not “like on facebook!”  How rude and banal.  In fact, Our Most Blessed Mother told the children of Fatima, “More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason.”  Some of those avatars above are absolutely vulgar and do not in any way promote a Catholic understanding of the marital embrace.  Period.  “Sex is better naked.”  Are you kidding me?  May Our Lord have mercy on us!  Whatever happened to Catholic fathers sitting down in private with their sons to talk to them about sexual desires, sexual sins, and marriage?  Whatever happened to mothers doing the same with their daughters?  Is this what the Catholic Church has been reduced to?  Because our society is saturated with sex, we think we must respond in kind to reach Catholics?  Are you serious???  Perhaps a better way to reach our young people is to encourage them to get married younger.  No, instead we want to reach them on the animalistic level, the idea that we are “sexual creatures” and this is how we express ourselves.  Very unholy, in my opinion.  Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Indeed, I do not see how it helps our sex-saturated culture to saturate it with more sex. Why don’t we talk about marriage and leave the explicit sex talk to the bedroom (and, if absolutely necessary, the confessional). The notion that this kind of explicit discussion is fit for mixed company, and that Pope John Paul II would have approved of it, is ludicrous.

Matthew you posted:  “Joe - if you don’t believe we should discuss these things in public, why are you discussing them here? Please just set the example for us and stop.

I’ve tried to reason with you Matthew, that real men do not exploit the topic of sex in public.  Real men know that blush and shame are natural protections that must not be violated.  You keep insisting on defending hedonism and barbarism as do the USCCB who mandate sexualized catechetics in parochial classrooms.  Did you get your lead from them?  All that links to T O B has no boundaries.  Have you read Randy Engel’s analysis on T O B?  She wrote the book, “Sex Education, The Final Plague”. I could give you others who have written of these indecencies.  I hammer at you Matthew, because I don’t want your ilk anywhere near my family.  I’ve witnessed the spoils of it and it’s not a pretty picture.  I am grateful I’m not alone in pleading with you to come to your senses man!!!

Matthew,  First, just in case you put me in that category, I do not hate you or “love” you in the negative way you imply. If I have any feelings it’s toward the integrity or lack of integrity to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the faith as it has been handed down.  How do I feel that you are offended?  I will know better when you tell me exactly which comment(s) you found offensive.  There is never any need to feel embarrased or ashamed to offend someone if, as I have tried to do, one is making a sincere fraternal correction in love. My offense was at the infidelity I see to Christ’s teaching on dying to the flesh; on overcoming the flesh and focusing on the Spirit; on what true love is; on holiness.  It’s almost like you didn’t read my post(she said back to him).  The ends don’t justify the means in Christian living.  Intriguing but misguided or dishonest or unfaithful to Christ’s teaching is no good (and it is those adjectives because of the sexy message and the posters and the lack of any mention of Jesus and His teaching).  I understand that people will look at it and some may understand the negatives to birth control but many will be drawn to sin because at the least it is very unchaste. As to you trying to justify the use of “sexy” and say its only my interpretation, the answer is the same as above.  Because the word is used in our media and society to mean something more akin to sensuous, it is inappropriate.  And saying words like sexy, have a million definitions is rather troll-like especially when you then state you are trying to reclaim or redefine what the word means. I have no hang up other than realizing that holy people don’t look at each other as “sexy”. It doesn’t matter what “sexy” may mean to a particular individual, it’s accepted social connotation can’t be ignored.  As to Mother Teresa and Padre Pio, they did not stoop to this level. Ever.
Thinking about this today, some things occurred to me.  I believe you are married, correct? So remember Christ’s Words to Peter that to even look at another with desire was adultery?  And that divorce is not God’s plan for man?  Now let’s take a look back at Adam and Eve.  They walked WITH GOD! Can you imagine?  Then Eve was tempted and took the apple and gave it to Adam and they realized they were naked and were ashamed.  In their sinful state they lost their innocence.  Then God asked why they disobeyed and each blamed someone else and they were banished from the Garden and God’s presence.  Can you imagine what a blunder like that would do to a marriage in todays world?  Hatred, animosity, divorce. But they knew God and knew His ways were right.  Do you think, as a married man who has probably had a fight or two with his wife, they were hung up at this point on romance? Or sex? They lost heaven!!! At least for a very long time!! And as if this wasn’t enough, one son killed another.  Would today’s marriages withstand this second devastating blow?  This is one loser union we’d say.  Get these people apart!  But they knew God and they conceived a new son.  I guess my point is God’s ways are so far above our ways and our first human parents knew it and submitted to it.  They lost their heaven and still chose God. Their son killed His brother and still obeyed His God.  We need to help people be holy.  They’re happiness in marriage should not rest in their sex life.  It should rest in their ability to trust that God is in every moment and in His ability to give them the grace to love, to persevere, to die to self.  Peace of Christ, little brother.

I’d just like to add to my previous comment that I’m SO comforted to see many others who are appalled by this rot, leading souls astray instead of teaching the beautiful truths of our Holy Mother Church.  So-called appealing to “where people are” doesn’t work ~ it just further dumbs down the Faith and leads to Hell.  I know of what I speak; been there, done that.

I’m not a subscriber to NCR nor do I watch EWTN, but I’m planning to write the network and NCR to express my dismay.  I thought this was the one neo-catholic newspaper that was at least slightly more conservative than the other National Catholic….  EWTN had pretty much lost their way awhile ago, I fear. 

Looks like the radtrads went on a little field trip.

Elizabeth, Christoper A Ferrara wrote the book, “EWTN A Network Gone Wrong”.  It’s mind boggling.  Millions of new church members watch EWTN and are formed by its rot.  Protestants who converted to the new religion are now given prime spots on the network to teach those “d M”  Catholics how to destroy their souls.

The title of this blog is a line found in a smutty song, the lyrics of which can be found on the internet.  If a boat has a hole and is filling up with water, you help the sailor by throwing him a lifejacket so he can escape the leaky boat. Jumping in the sinking boat with him in order to help him, will cause you both to sink to the bottom. You don’t rescue others by descending down to their level as the Catholic Church has always clearly taught one should avoid the occasion of sin.

Thank you, Cathy.

Pam - can you name one thing I’ve said here that is or is in support of anything “unchaste”?

And one place where I’ve said that happiness in a marriage should “rest in their sex life”?

And if you want to know what offends me, it’s that. Making false accusations that are completely unfounded and insulting. But more my point was that your implication that a post “shouldn’t” offend people is a nonsense rule. Jesus’ teaching offended lots of people. The saints offended lots of people. The truth offends a lot of people. And quite clearly there are many people here who are offended by the truth of their sexuality and who are scared to embrace the nuance of our faith: that we can both recognize the goodness in how God made us and the goodness in the pleasures of this life while also recognizing that those same pleasures are not what is most important. That there are things infinitely more important and that the taming (and even forgoing) of such pleasures can be more spiritually profitable. Don’t be scared people. We can acknowledge the truth of both.

There is also a rampant fear among the critics here of a word called sexy. It’s a word folks, used to communicate something much more profound and important. And it is not a “stooping to their level.” It’s a word. A tool. It is not inherently good or bad. It is as good as it is useful…which depends entirely on how the receiver perceives it and understands it. Maybe in your generation it meant something bad. In the present day, it is not necessarily bad. Get over it. The sexy I am talking about here is the same one I identified in the first paragraph:  “The kind of sexy that isn’t all about sex, but about the expression of something much more profound, beautiful, fulfilling and dignifying to the human person.”

Are you truly upset about somebody talking about something profoundly beautiful and dignifying to the human person? Because that’s exactly what I’m talking about here.

There is no need to be scared of the truth here folks. Have a little faith. God’s truth is stronger than a word or your misunderstanding of it. The fact that you think kids and people are scandalized by somebody like me and articles like this is EXACTLY the problem. I may not know much, but trust me - you don’t get it. That you can look at all of the negative influences out there and the way marriage is being deformed, sex is being abused and promoted in unhealthy ways and then point to me - somebody clearly saying that one should look to what the Church teaches about sex and marriage if you want to live a joyful, peaceful life - and say that I’m the problem (as if you can’t distinguish between the two) is simply astonishing. And a group like 1flesh.org who is educating people on the dangers, risks and unhealthiness of a contraceptive mindset and you call them the enemy? A group that is pointing to God’s natural law as a recipe for the fulfillment people are mistakenly looking for in a contraceptive culture…they are the enemy? We’re on different planets.

Is your only real objection that I used the word “sexy”? I’ve yet to find one critic here give one good example of anything I’ve said that is not in accordance with Church teaching?

Pam - Now you are talking about adultery and divorce with the implication that I’ve somehow supported them? When in fact this entire article is in support of a cause that puts sex in its right place in an effort to stop adultery and divorce.

Brian - you are certainly right. Somewhere on a radtrad forum out there somebody managed to send a few (scared-out-of-their-wits) troops this way to demonstrate their “shock” at somebody using the word sexy. These folks don’t even know why they are offended.

Matthew,

1)  Everything you have said in your article is unchaste and violates the virtue of purity.  The website you are extolling is by its nature unchaste.  Public mention of the marriage bed, especially for mixed company, is profane. 

2)  You are completely confused if you believe that people here are “offended by the truth of their sexuality.”  I should say it is quite the opposite.  People here understand completely that their sexual desires have led them to sin in the past and can easily lead them to sin now.  Perhaps it is you who is offended by the truth of sexuality. Numerous saints and popes have written on this topic for centuries.  I do suggest you read something about it that was written before Vatican II and the Popes there-after.

3)  My 5 year old can answer this question.  Why did God make you?  He will say, as will my other young children, that God made me to show his goodness and to be happy with Him in Heaven.  And when I ask further what must we do to be happy with God in Heaven, they will tell me we must know Him, love Him, and serve Him in this world.  At know time will they mention God making us to experience “the goodness of life.”  Again, many saints have written regarding this error.  In fact, St. Paul warns in the Scripture, no less, that we must constantly be on guard about living in this world.

4)  There is absolutely nothing more important than our souls attaining Heaven.  Nothing.  Many men and women are easily tempted in regards to sins of the flesh.  It would be much better for them never to marry than spend eternity in Hell.

5)Words have definitions that are objective.  Just because someone thinks a pea is a bean, does not make it so, even if they use the word in their own context.  This is called relativism and it has absolutely no place in Catholicism.  Sexy, by definition, means “arousing or tending to arouse sexual desire or interest.”  It is a horrible word and it means only one thing and that is lustful desires.  The word itself is entirely inappropriate and an offense against the virtue of chastity/purity.  No good Catholic should use this word in modern language.  Our sinful society has taken this word and attempted to use it for a good.  It is not.  To suggest that words or ideas “change” from generation to generation is precisely how the devil is able to work his diabolical ploys.  No matter what generation the word “sexy” still means the same thing.  Modern people see otherwise because they have been educated and indoctrinated into relativism.  Scandalize, by definition, means to offend the moral sensibilities of someone.  You are doing precisely that only you don’t thing so because your own moral sensibilities are weakened.  Modern people have very few moral sensibilities today because they have been so scandalized in the past.

6) Perhaps you should check into what the Church has always taught about chastity and marriage.  Hint: It is completely opposite to what will be read in the pages of a Christopher West book or the TOB.

7)Just because a group or organizations has some good idea or a positive goal does not mean they are your friend.  We cannot say that since this website or group is attempting to expose contraception for it’s evil, then therefore will can or should support them or not criticize them.  This is a very common logical fallacy:  If A = B, and B = C, then A = C.  In your argument 1flesh.org is exposing the dangers of contraception.  Exposing the dangers of contraception is good.  1flesh.org is good.  However, 1flesh.org is morally reprehensible in its consideration that sexuality is a good because it is pleasurable for married couples.  This to is a logical fallacy.  Therefore the assumption that this group is good is faulty logic.  Yes, we are on different planets.  On my planet we don’t use faulty logic to draw conclusions.  On your’s, you do.

8)  Immediately following this long post, I will give you another on Church teaching prior to Vatican II and Pope JPII Theology of the Body.  Please stay tuned.

9)  Us “radtrads” as you so offensively like to call us, know precisely why we are offended.  We know precisely what the Church teaches, and has always taught on this subject.  We are offended because this discussion, this idea that sex is so good and great, this idea that the human body is somehow more important than the soul, this idea that our personal pleasure is equal to the pleasure we will receive in Heaven is completely and horrible offensive to Our Most Blessed Mother, the Most Chaste Spouse of the Holy Ghost, who was the model of purity and chastity.  We are offended because this whole idea is offensive to Our Lord.

10)  We are also offended because the Church of Our Lord is being reduced to a rumble and is being led down the path to perdition by our clergy.  Our Lady of Akita warned us so.  Perhaps you should read about her.

Shocked,

1) You just publicly mentioned the marriage bed. So are you being profane? Since you are big on definitions of words, you should look up the definition of unchaste. You are clearly misusing it here. There is nothing illicit or extramarital or impure about sex in its proper place (which is the only thing I’ve promoted here).

3) It’s hard to have a logical conversation if you insist on claiming I said things I didn’t say. First, experiencing the “goodness of life” is not at all contradictory with the purpose God made us or with the Christian life. Second, I never said or implied that the reason God made us was to experience the “goodness of life.” So this point doesn’t make any sense.

4) I never said there was anything more important than souls attaining heaven. So again, this point makes no sense. And actually, the entire purpose of this post (and 1flesh.org) is to lead people away from sins (like the abuse of sex) that will keep them from heaven. So, again, your point makes no sense.

5) This is the most nonsense of all the points you made. There is a difference between “moral relativism” and “relativism”. My goodness! Yes, there is no place for MORAL relativism in the Church. But relativism, on the other hand, is a general term that applies just fine to many things. This just shows a lack of understanding of what relativism really is. And OF COURSE language has changed over time. I could list endless numbers of words (just in the english language alone) that are used differently now than in the past. This is just a nonsense point.

Also - you should look up the definition of lustful while you are looking up all these new words. You just equated “sexual desires” with “lust”. That’s like equating hunger with gluttony. It’s absurd and reveals why there is such a misunderstanding here.

7) In your attempt to expose my “faulty” logic, you’ve only revealed your own. You just said that “1flesh.org is morally reprehensible in its consideration that sexuality is a good because it is pleasurable for married couples.” Where does it do that? I’ve never seen anyone here nor there say that sexuality is good because it is pleasurable.

9) Seriously? More of the same nonsense. You referred to “this idea that the human body is somehow more important than the soul, this idea that our personal pleasure is equal to the pleasure we will receive in Heaven” .  And when did anyone here present such an idea? This is just getting comical. I thought when all of you got sent over here from your forum to bash Christopher West (somebody I never mention or refer to once but who apparently you are obsessed with) that you would at least make some sense. But you are just carrying on conversations that have nothing to do with this post. You are arguing with straw men that you’ve seen somewhere else. You are making accusations and implications about things that I’ve had nothing to do with here or even mentioned. You’ve assumed a whole lot about me and 1flesh simply because you misinterpreted the word sexy and then attributed all kinds of nonsense to us that is simply not supported in any kind of evidence. It’s embarrassing. Again, I’m not above criticism and I’m certainly not perfect. And I’ll admit that there is room for disagreement about some aspects of the subject of the post. But it’s not fruitful (and it IS offensive and sinful) to accuse people of serious things without any evidence and to imply falsehoods that libel their character. And it’s just annoying when you don’t take the time to make sure your comments make any sense and are appropriate to the topic of this post.

The teaching of the Catholic Church, the Church Our Lord founded.

1)  Q.What is the 6th Commandment of God?  A. The 6th Commandment of God is:  Thou shalt not commit adultery.

2)  Q. What are we commanded by the 6th Commandment?  A. By the 6th Commandment we are commanded to be pure and modest in our behavior. 

3) “I exhort you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God.”  Romans 12:1

4)  Q. What does the 6th commandment forbid?  A.  The 6th Commandment forbids all impurity and immodesty in words, looks, and actions, whether alone or with others. 

5)  “But immorality and every uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as become saints.”  Ephesians 5:3

7)  Q.  What are the chief dangers to the virtue of chastity?  A.  The chief dangers to the virtue of chastity are: idleness, sinful curiosity, bad companions, drinking, immodest dress, and indecent books, plays, and motion pictures.  (Add to this websites.)

8)  Q.  What are the chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity?  A.  The chief means of preserving the virtue of chastity are to avoid carefully all unnecessary dangers, to seek God’s help through prayer, frequent confession, Holy Communion, and assistance at Holy Mass, and to have a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin. 

9)  “Be sober, be watchful!  Your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, goes about seeking someone to devour.”  1 Peter 5:8

10)  Q.  What is the 9th Commandment of God?  A.  The 9th Commandment of God is:  Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife.

11)  Q.  What are we commanded by the 9th Commandment?  A.  By the 9th commandment we are commanded to be pure in thought and desire. 

12)  “Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.”  Matthew 5:8

13)  Q.  Are mere thoughts about impure things always sinful in themselves.  A.  Mere thoughts and impure things are not always sinful in themselves, but such thoughts are dangerous.

14)  Q.  When do thoughts about impure things become sinful?  A.  Thoughts about impure things become sinful when a person thinks of an unchaste act and deliberately takes pleasure in so thinking, or when unchaste desire or passion is aroused and consent is given to it. 

14)  Q.  What is forbidden by the 9th Commandment?  A.  The 9th Commandment forbids all thoughts and desires contrary to chastity.

15)  “When the ancient Greeks and Romans wanted to indicate things concerning chastity, they made use of the particular term ‘aidoia’ or ‘verenda’, that is modesty, thus signifying that such things must be treated in a respectful manner.  Modesty, however, must not be intended as maintaining and absolute silence on this subject so that no mention of it be made in the moral education of the young, not even with sobriety and precaution.”  Pope Pius XII 1951

16)  “The first place is to be given to the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion of the youth of both sexes.  Extreme desire and love of the angelic virtue must be instilled into their minds and hearts.  They must be made fully alive to the necessity of constant prayer and assiduous frequenting of the Sacrament of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; they must be directed to foster a filial devotion to the Blessed Mother as Mother of Holy Purity, to whose protection they must entirely commit themselves.  Precautions must be taken to see that they avoid dangerous reading, indecent shows, conversations of the wicked, and all other occasions of sin.”  Decree of the Holy Office 1931

17)  “Flight and alert vigilance, by which we carefully avoid the occasions of sin, have always been considered by holy men and women as the most effective means of combat in this matter; today, however, it does not seem that everybody holds the same opinion.  Some indeed claim that all Christians, and the clergy in particular, should not be “segregated from the world” as in the past, but should be “close to the world”; therefore they should “take the risk” and put their chastity to the test in order to show whether or not they have the strength to resist.”  Pope Pius XII Sacra Virginatus 1954

18)  “With the discretion of a mother and a teacher, and thanks to the open-hearted confidence with which you have been able to inspire your children, you will not fail to watch for and to discern the moment in which unspoken questions have occurred to their minds and are troubling their senses.  It then will be your duty to your daughters, and fathers’ duty to your sons, carefully and delicately to unveil the truth (on the mysteries of procreation) as far as it appears necessary, to give prudent,  true and Christian answers to those questions and set their minds at rest.  If imparted by the lips of Christian parents, at the proper time, in the proper measure, and with the proper precautions, the revelation of the mysterious and marvelous laws of life will be received by them with reverence and gratitude and will enlighten their minds with far less danger than if they learned them haphazardly, by some unpleasant shock, by secret conversations, through information received from over-sophisticated companions, or from clandestine reading.  Your words, if they are wise and discreet, will prove a safeguard and a warning in the midst of the temptations and the corruption which surround them ‘because foreseen, an arrow comes more slowly.”  Pope Pius XII 1941

19)  “Every method of education founded, wholly or in part, on the denial or forgetfulness of original sin and of grace, and which relies on the sole powers of human nature, is unsound.”  Pope Pius XI Divini Magistri 1929

20)  “Such persons grievously err in refusing to recognise the inborn weakness of human nature, and the law of which the Apostle speaks, warning against the law of the mind (Romans 7:23) and also in ignoring what is taught by facts, from which it is clear that, particularly in young people, evil practices are the effect not so much of ignorance of intellect as of weakness of a will exposed to dangerous occasions, and deprived from the means of grace.”  1929.

21)  “Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducement to sin itself.”  1929

22)  “Such propaganda also threatens Catholic people with a double punishment, not to use a stronger expression.  First of all, it greatly exaggerates the importance and range of the sexual element of life. Let us even admit that these authors, under the purely theoretical aspect, keep themselves within the limits of Catholic morality; this does not however do away with the fact that their way of explaining sexual life is such as to attribute to it, in the mind and practical judgment of the average reader, the sense and value of an end in itself.  It makes the real and primordial aim of marriage to be lost sight of, that is, the procreation and education of children and the serious duty of the married couples with regard to this end, which the writings in question leave obscure.  Secondly, the literature, if such it could be called does not seem in any way to take into account, based as it is on nature, the general experience of all times, whether it be that of today or yesterday, which attests that neither initiation nor instruction in moral education offers any advantage of itself.  Rather it becomes seriously unwholesome and prejudicial when not closely allied with constant discipline, with vigorous self-control, and above all with the use of the supernatural force of prayer and the sacraments.”  Pope Pius XII 1951

23)  “The Holy See published certain rules in this connection shortly after the Encyclical of Pius XI on Christian Marriage.  These rules have not been rescinded, either expressly or via facti.”  Pope Pius XII 1953

Stay tuned for the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI….

Shocked, please stop. You are just regurgitating teaching that has nothing to do with anything posted here. It’s inappropriate. Please read my previous comment and if you ever do think of anything (and can sensibly show) that I’ve said here that is against Church teaching, please do comment back. Until then, it’s rude (and sinful if you’re doing it intentionally) to post things that are irrelevant to the post - especially when your comments can lead people astray by implying the post -or 1flesh.org- is claiming or saying something that it doesn’t say.

Matthew,
I will quote your words.  “There are many people here who are offended by the truth of their sexuality and who are scared to embrace the nuance of our faith: that we can both recognize the goodness in how God made us and the goodness in the pleasure of this life.” 

These are your words.  I responded that this is an error.  God did not make us to find pleasure in this life.  In fact, it is only through our suffering that we can get to heaven.  Many times Our Lord reminded us that the pleasures of this world will lead us to Hell.  This is not my idea, by the teaching of the Church and faith you profess.

My points make perfect sense.  You are attempting to discredit well-meaning and concerned Catholics who have come here, for whatever reason, by calling us names.  Your only defense, really, is that we are nonsensical and comical; that we misunderstand your words.

Your article is suggesting something that is highly offense to Our Lord and Our Blessed Mother.  It violates all forms of chastity and purity.

No.  My mentioning the marriage bed is actually a rather modest term.  It is not explicit nor banal.  It connotes exactly what it is, and something that only married people will really understand.  That is what modest speech is.

Whenever anyone discusses the “pleasures” of such activity, they are by nature elevating the marital embrace in regards to pleasure over the true ends of marriage—the procreation and education of children.

That is what this article is about.  That is what the website is about.

That website is profane.  I have been there.  The images of some of the people themselves are questionable.  “Ana” is posing in a very provocative way. 

The website also promotes a form of NFP, in such a way that Catholics might consider that NFP is a moral good.  NFP is not.  It is morally neutral.  However, most people use it to prevent pregnancy.  This, morally can be problematic. 

Also the graphics are explicit.  The slogans are explicit. These things are an offense to all models of modesty.  Period.

Have Catholics had issue in the past with sweeping these discussions under the rug or making young people feel that the marital embrace is a matter of duty rather than gratifying.  Yes.

But, Matthew, it is a very slippery slope, here.  We must, as Catholics, maintain certain levels of dignity and modesty.  We must.  Our Lord demands it.  Our Blessed Mother expects it. 

To embrace this culture by becoming a part of it is very, very dangerous to souls.

Our Catholic Church is infiltrated with modernism and modernist ideas and philosophy.  The idea that we should celebrate our bodies or be proud of our bodies and our human condition is one of those ideas.  Popes tried really hard to protect the faithful from such dangerous ideas.  They are harmful to souls.  They are really.  According to several priests I know, sexual sins make up 90% of confessions! 

I don’t have a beef with you, Matthew.  By your own words, you are obviously indoctrinated into modern ways of thinking and believing. 

As for logical fallacies, the biggest one here is your use of ad hominem.  People are coming here trying to reason with you and, instead of addressing their points, or attempting to dispute them with facts, you resort to name calling.  Us “radtrads” don’t have an argument because everything we say is irrelevant.  In technical terms, it’s called poisoning the well.  We have some undesirable traits, according to you, so therefore we shouldn’t be taken seriously. 

As for my straw man arguments, I don’t have any.  I refuted your statements, point for point which is why I numbered them.  It helps keep down confusion that way.  I was careful to read your comments carefully and respond to specific items that are indeed illogical or in error.  Sorry, but I am not the straw man here.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

How is anything I have said inappropriate?  This entire article is extolling a website 1flesh.org and how “brilliant” it is for talking about “great sex” and being “sexy.”  Is that not what your article is about?  Did I read it wrong?  My original comment was simple one that this article and that website are morally offensive and profane.  You attempted, through these comments, to tell offended Catholics that they were stupid for being offended and to defend yourself. It was you who declared that it took modern times and Pope John Paul II through his Theology of the Body to “resurrect” what being “sexy” is all about.  It was you who actually asked for some teaching on this matter.  I merely set out to argue clearly that your statements are indeed in error.  In such effort, I posted the allocutions and encyclicals of two previous Popes on this matter which are in DIRECT opposition to Pope John Paul II.  I gave you clear teaching on this matter, and you tell me I am “regurgitating teaching that has nothing to do with your post?”  Do you not see what is wrong with that?  Can you not even give it a read and acknowledge what these Popes actually said?  Or does only what Pope John Paul II said on the issue matter?  People mention Chris West because it was he who promulgated these horrific ideas.  Otherwise Pope John Paul II’s Wednesday addresses to obscure audiences in the 80s would have simply found there way to the Vatican archives.  Us “tradcaths” aren’t unreasonable, Matthew.  Don’t treat us like idiots are interlopers because we question the obvious inconsistencies between the Church Our Lord founded and the Church that is visible today.

Shocked - I need only go as far as your very first paragraph to try (one last time) to illustrate the illogic of your arguments and the frustration of any kind of fruitful conversation.

You say…
——
‘I will quote your words.  “There are many people here who are offended by the truth of their sexuality and who are scared to embrace the nuance of our faith: that we can both recognize the goodness in how God made us and the goodness in the pleasure of this life.”
These are your words.  I responded that this is an error.  God did not make us to find pleasure in this life.’
——

But you actually misquoted me by not finishing my sentence. What I actually said was…
——
‘...that we can both recognize the goodness in how God made us and the goodness in the pleasures of this life WHILE ALSO recognizing that those same pleasures are not what is most important.’
——

Even still, you go on to say “God did not make us to find pleasure in this life” as if that is what the previous quote was saying at all. It isn’t. Basic semantics would reveal that I simply said we can recognize the goodness in the pleasures of life. And clearly I am not talking about all pleasure here, just some and only within the context of things that are infinitely more important than such pleasures. I’m not sure how much more clearly I can explain it. Yet you continue to imply with your response that I am claiming anything to do with “why God did or did not make us.” It’s tiring and futile.

And again, you have yet to provide any evidence of how anything I’ve said violates chastity or purity. I’ve suggested nothing of the sort. I read all of the quotes you provided. My point is that none of them contradict anything I’ve said here. You are quoting things on adultery, etc. as if I’ve supported or encouraged adultery or unchastity or impurity, etc. I’ve done nothing of the sort and you have yet to provide any evidence other than that I used the word sexy (which is none of those things either).

God bless you.

Matthew, you state that: “There is also a rampant fear among the critics here of a word called sexy. It’s a word folks, used to communicate something much more profound and important. And it is not a “stooping to their level.” It’s a word. A tool. It is not inherently good or bad.”

Matthew, the reason for the negative feedback, is due to the methods employed on this blog.  Words have meanings and the word sexy is used to emphasize a specific type of attraction in today’s culture – centered on sex.  TOB presenters give the impression they are trying to compete with the hedonistic culture’s selling of sex.  If one is presenting the Catholic Church’s consistently simple treatment of human sexuality one cannot be sexy.  So, it’s no surprise that certain TOB gurus have been accused of distorting the Church’s teaching and in some instances making outrageous pronouncements.  This is what happens when you try to be sexy - you have to push the envelope and in some cases end up going over the edge.  The Magisterium has never utilized sexy slogans to make Catholic doctrine more appealing to the masses.  For example, the Church simply states that contraception is wrong and doesn’t use language such as “condoms ruin sex” or “sex is better naked”.  Nor would the Church ever refer to the marital act in this way - “do it naked baby”.  Using marital act or conjugal act instead of sex or copulation is another example.  Why does the Church use careful language?  Because the Catholic Church respects the dignity of the human person, and uses language that preserves that dignity.  Catholic teaching on human sexuality cannot compete with a do what you will view of human sexuality.  Looking for and then using the lowest common denominator is not how you elevate hearts and minds.  And, if this approach was an effective means of converting hearts, why HASN’T the Magisterium of the Church EVER employed this revolutionary method in its teaching on human sexuality?  Is it because the Church Fathers, Doctors and Saints are too dumb or perhaps are afraid of sex or uncomfortable with sex?  This is a silly conspiracy theory which only gullible people will swallow.  The Catholic Church models its approach to human dignity on the person of Jesus Christ.  The more Christ-like one becomes, the more human that person is.  Therefore, those trying to engage the culture should use decorum in their outreach to the masses.  Why is this so difficult to understand?

Cathy - that is the most thoughtful dissenting comment on this blog yet and completely appropriate. So I thank you for that.

And I do understand all of that. That part is not difficult at all.

The key parts where we differ is that #1) I do think human sexuality can be sexy. In fact, I think by the very breakdown of the semantics and etymology it is so. I do understand that some people view sexy as a distorted or impure aspect of sexuality. But I believe that when the word is properly understood there is no problem here.

#2) I don’t think you “have to push the envelope” when you try to be sexy (in the proper sense). Not at all.

#3) It has nothing to do with the Magisterium or Church fathers being “too dumb.” And I would never say that, nor do I think that about them. AT ALL! (quite the opposite in fact). But I do think there is a big difference between how the Church addresses the world and a universal audience and how individuals address particular groups where you know a lot more about how language will be interpreted and what can lead them specifically to a better place.  And in fact, I know many people where things like 1flesh.org have led them out of darkness and to a holy life close to Jesus.

Matthew wrote: “But I do think there is a big difference between how the Church addresses the world and a universal audience and how individuals address particular groups where you know a lot more about how language will be interpreted and what can lead them specifically to a better place.”

Matthew, are you familiar with the following guidelines regarding instruction on human sexuality issued by the Vatican in 1995? In what way do you feel your unique approach meets these guidelines? See excerpts below—-

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html

“This new context is made worse by what we observe: an eclipse of the truth about man which, among other things, exerts pressure to reduce sex to something commonplace…Decency and Modesty…The practice of decency and modesty in speech, action and dress is very important for creating an atmosphere suitable to the growth of chastity, but this must be well motivated by respect for one’s own body and the dignity of others.”

Can I name one thing you’ve said that’s is or is in support of unchaste? Yes: “We want sexy back.”  “Great Sex”, “provocative edgy graphics”.  And the graphics you actually post with the article, particulary, “The pill lowers your sex drive”, Barney Stimpson the out of control flesh hound holding his glass and a poster that reads,“The pill does not reduce unplanned pregnancies and sex is better naked.” The title of the Article, “Bringing Sexy back”.  These Matthew are unchaste ways for a Catholic to communicate their faith.  As to the happiness being in the sex it is implied in everything that is written in your article (did you say sex too much?) And it is not a Catholic approach to great marriages to make it about the sex or contraception.  And if you read my post you would see that I said first that there is nothing wrong with offending if the offense is caused by fraternal correction, but this offense is at infidelity to the faith and it is no nonsense rule.  I am a very warm person and know what love in a marital bed can be like and have no fear of warmth and love, but I am older than you Matthew and have learned the chasm of difference between sex and love.  MJ said in defining terms that “sex” is the marital act.  Not when Christ is in the bed with you.  Love is the marital act. Sex is what pagans do. And it does not build up as love-making does.  The two need to be clearly delineated because one leads to the flesh and one leads to Christ.  So you are muddying the waters trying to make the love shared by spouses with and through Christ into sex.  It has nothing to do with fear of the body or intimacy or anything else.  And you misunderstand why I brought up the story of Adam and Eve and Peter and Christ.  I bring it up because what Jesus Christ and God have in mind for us is so high above “sex is better naked”.  It’s embarrassing to bring it to that level.

The above post is by Pam to Matt.  Not by Matt. Not sure how that happened since my name is already in the name box on my computer.  Sorry for the confusion.

I am just wondering what a lot of people in the combox think of the following Bible verse:

“How beautiful are thy breasts, my sister, my spouse! Thy breasts are more beautiful than wine and the sweet smell of thy ointments above all aromatical spices.”—Canticle of Canticles, 3:10, Douay-Rheims translation.  God is never mentioned or talked about in this book of the Bible.  Just physical “love”. When this book of the Bible was first written, there was no Tradition or Church hierarchy.  If we were Jews living at the time of Solomon, how would we have known that this wasn’t smut?  It glorifies the human body and sexual desire, and there is nothing in the text that indicates that it is allegorical or symbolic.  Would you let your children read about some guy desiring kisses from a girl because her breasts are sweeter than wine? (See the very first verse of the book.)  It’s not at all clear that they are even married!  Would Mary be comfortable knowing that the verse we use to describe her (“Tota pulchra es, Maria, et macula orignalis non est in te”) is a verse from this litany of the beauties of the flesh, with her name inserted in?

Further, this book of the Bible is traditionally ascribed to Solomon, who fell away from orthodoxy because of his many wives.  Obviously he was a slave to the desires of the flesh, and a public sinner, and his writing is in the BIBLE to guide us along the path to Heaven!

I know that the Duoay-Rheims translation uses the word “charity” a couple of times, but the Latin is “caritas”, which when St. Jerome was writing could been both love and lust.  St. Augustine (who wrote in Latin) also spends a really long time in “The City of God” trying to distinguish between the two.  Since God is not mentioned in the Canticle of Canticles, I fear that “caritas” has to mean sexual desire without God in the picture.

This shocks me, and as a young woman attempting to live a chaste Catholic life, how am I supposed to use this book of the Bible to grow in virtue?

Matt, you are doing good work.  These radical traditionalists are causing deep harm in marriages.  “Joe” has revealed his hatred of John Paul the GREAT, elsewhere.  He also seems to be obsessed with discussing his unhealthy and warped view of sex.  Pornography warps sex too.  These two extremes seem to be holding hands in the dark.  Funny how I missed reading about this when the whole battle over the word “sexy” was playing out in Simcha Fisher’s com box too.  Matt, your gut instinct on this is right!  Healthy marriages need to have healthy ideas that sex is not only “permissible” in marriage, but a glorious reward for those in sacramental marriages.

Anna lisa, the name-calling, labelling doesn’t help your cause or make you seem like any kind of Catholic at all.  The issue isn’t whether or not the couple should enjoy the marital relationship.  The issue is that Christians don’t have “sex” and aren’t “sexy”.  They are in bed with Christ and they make love. Being chaste until marriage and then letting yourself do whatever to get aroused once you are married is not ok.  Once it deterioates to self-gratification, love is missing.
Confused,  In my Douay-Rheims the Canticle is of a bride to a bridegroom and vice versa.  It is clearly spousal. But to get to the crux of your question, would it be correct to rephrase it, “Am I not chaste when I see the physical beauty of my spouse and desire to lay with him/her?”  And the answer is no. When we see beauty and praise it, Who are we really praising?  The Creator of that beauty.  Some people try to make you feel guilty for seeing someone and commenting on their attractiveness.  That is nothing to feel guilty for.  That person didn’t make their own attractiveness. It is a gift (or a curse!). To be blind to that is to be blind to the Creator or to other beauties all around us.  Now to lust for someone just because of their looks would be a sin, but my generation grew up with friends, aunts and uncles, grandparents, classmates etc. acknowledging to someone, “You look beautiful!” Or “You are such a handsome young man!”  Not because they lusted for them but because it was true and they wanted the person to have confidence and know they were loveable or had a gift. Everytime they said that they were actually praising God and they knew that too! And the handsome or beautiful person had plenty of reminders that this gift was nothing they did or that they weren’t perfect because they had plenty of other areas where they were not so gifted. To recognize the beauty of your spouse and be thankful for it and desire to be one with them is part of God’s plan of procreation. But if you notice the text, the desire is very, how can I say it?,healthy, normal?  It’s a pure coming together of two bodies. That is the chaste part.

Pam, do you not find it ironic that you called me a “name caller” and then pronounced that I’m not any kind of Catholic at all?  I wasn’t aware I was calling names.  BTW, My favorite part of the day—truly the heart of my every day, is adoring God at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with my husband.  Why are you so sure that I have difficulty with chastity?

Pam - If a Christian is “making love” they are having sex. Sexual intercourse must (not counting in vitro) occur for procreation here. It’s a biological fact. And anything making the sex attractive is essentially sexy. This is just what the words mean. Just because you are Christian doesn’t magically make the sex go away. Sex is inherently good. And it is markedly anti-Christian to make claims that Christians “don’t have sex” and aren’t “sexy.” And it just makes no sense.

ana lisa, The name-calling was “radical traditionalist” - an inflammatory categorization, especially since it is directed at a group that is really just trying to be faithful Catholics.  And no I don’t find it ironic because pointing out that name-calling is incompatible with your faith is not name-calling.  The other comments were a general statement not meant to be taken personally.  Sorry if you took them personally.
Matthew, The medical community may label marital relations “sexual intercourse” but they are “the world.”  Somehow based on the Canticle of canticles, I think Jesus would find a more poetic way to say it.  You are trying to bend definitions for shock value or “coolness” factor, or whatever but your words are headed toward lust whether or not you intend it.  Yes the relationship is hopefully very enjoyable. But there is nothing anti-Christian (that is laughable) about saying we don’t have sex or don’t strive to be sexy. As baptised Catholics, we are pilgrims on a journey to God.  We are called to holy innocence because we are in that bed with the Lord.  We might do well to meditate in fascination,awe,wonder,even frustration, confusion how God lets us perceive the physical and/or spiritual beauty of our spouse and participate with Him in creation or how this act when joined with Him and reserved to spouses and blessed by God draws the spouses closer to each other and to God. Everything He has given us He gives us to draw us closer to Him. Do you understand?

Pam:  Beautifully stated.

@Pam, as my dear father would say: “You are preaching to the choir”.  Why would you think that any of us here who are unafraid to say “sexual intercourse” don’t approach relations with our spouse as a prayer?  I think you need to come to terms with the fact that sex is a word without evil connotations.  Did the miserable devil invent sex?  No.  God did.  That is why I refuse to be offended by the word. Period.  You are allowing the world to commandeer your understanding of what was originally pristine, and should continue to be beautiful and pure within sacramental marriage.
.
As for the world “radical traditionalist”, Joe has made numerous comments about Blessed John Paul the GREAT that are egregious.  He doesn’t believe B16 is a successor of Peter.  How sad.  Need I say more?  These radical “traditionalists” are sorely misled.

Anna Lisa:  Your previous comment ended with this paragragh:  “As for the world “radical traditionalist”, Joe has made numerous comments about Blessed John Paul the GREAT that are egregious.  He doesn’t believe B16 is a successor of Peter.  How sad.  Need I say more?  These radical “traditionalists” are sorely misled.”

I’ve been following this thread of comments to Matthew’s article and I can’t remember anyone saying they didn’t believe our Holy Father to not be the successor of Peter.  Or egregious comments about John Paul II. 

I’m not being argumentative; I truly don’t remember reading anything like that.  Could you show us where Joe said these thing?  I guess I should just take the time to search through all the comments to find what your’re referencing, but maybe you have them at hand?

Elizabeth, it was on another thread, Simcha Fisher’s blog, beginning of summer.  I’ll try to find it for you—now I’m off to the zoo now for a kid party…

Matthew, my prayer for you is that you seek out a legitimate Catholic priest or bishop for the sake of your soul, for the sake of your families’ souls and all you come in contact with.  May you be protected with a submissive and humble spirit daring to be a servant of Almighty God.  Wear a brown scapular and pray the Rosary with your family daily.  Trust that Our Blessed Mother will lead you to a place of safety.  If you don’t have a copy, I strongly suggest for your spiritual guidance to get the book, “True Devotion to Mary” by St. Louis De Montfort.  Fast, pray and be a man of discipline.

anna lisa,  The choir has some younger members and some older more experienced members.  God created the perfect partner for Adam when He created Eve, woman from Adams side.  When people are united in that relationship that includes God, I distinguish that from what people who are recreating with their bodies, possibly at the expense of their souls.  They are having, as I once did myself, “sex”.  They are NOT making love. You need to know and include God to make love.  They are two very different forms of interacting.  If you have sex how do you distinguish it with your children or others from what I call sex?  As to “radical traditionalists”, some of them know things you are not aware of.  Are you aware of the vision of Pope Leo XIII or Fatima and the apparitions there?  How the Blessed Mother said that if people didn’t repent there would be another World War and nations would be lost and Communism would spread its errors throughout the world?  Well that has happened.  And one of the plans of the Communist Party was to attack the Church through the priesthood.  And that has happened.  And one of the messages involved great suffering for the faithful laity, priests and Pope.  And that has and is happening.  So when Joe points to breaches in fidelity he is saying, “Beware, you must repent as the Blessed Mother asked and be faithful to Christ above all else.”  Joe has mentioned long-standing encyclicals that contradict new teaching.  So take it all to prayer and be more charitable.  He may be the one that’s right, although I loved John Paul II, not because anyone is evil but because we’ve all been unfaithful.

@Pam, why are you so tied up with the semantics of biological realities and spiritual ones? I am very aware of everything you mentioned above.  Why do you assume that I do not revere the apparitions of our Lady? Why do you assume I don’t instruct my children on *true love* and the responsibilities that naturally and mystically flow forth from it? I wear a scapular and pray the rosary most every day.  I see the warfare upon our holy church.  Do you know what hurts the most?  The schismatics from within, that betray and rip the body of Christ.  The ones who make burdens greater than God himself—the ones who rapaciously use false piety to rip others from the body in the name of God and Our lady.  They are truly dupes of the evil one.  In short, they are my separated brethren, Protestants, but misguided brothers, none-the-less.  God Bless you, I truly wish you well.

The VATICAN COUNCIL II was called by John XXIII for the purpose of “updating” the Church.  The council (held from 1962-65) decreed and implemented teachings which had been previously condemned by the Infallible Teaching Magisterium of the Church. The Second Vatican Council’s drops of poison are primarily in the areas of religious liberty and false ecumenism. These were previously condemned by:
Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832)
Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura and Syllabus of Errors (1864)
Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1865) and Libertas Humana (1888)
Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) and Mortalium Animos (1928)
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis (1943)
THEREFORE, the Second Vatican Council is to be rejected as a false council because it has erred in its teachings on faith and morals. Since John XXIII,  the one sitting in the Chair of Peter has not renounced the errors of this council but has continued with more changes opposed to the Church Christ established.

With all due respect, I don’t think “Christian kitsch” and riding the coattails of “here today, gone tomorrow” secular trends is going to bring any youth to the Faith. It just makes the Faith look like something else to be sold and marketed (“Rapture Ready!: Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture”, by Daniel Radosh addresses this in depth regarding Evangelical culture”). It is true that youth culture is oversexed and overly-dependent on sounds, flashes, images and loud slogans, so given that, I fail to see how indulging that tendency will be a helping aid to virtue.

Anna lisa, Rather than directly answer my question you ask others. Seems like avoidance.  To answer your question, it is not just semantics.  The enemy loves confusion and playing with words and messing with heads and that is what this entails.  When have you heard sexy and holy side by side?  Two opposite concepts. I can’t think of one saint, from Mother Teresa back to Saints Peter and Paul who aren’t very careful to be faithful in that respect.  Glad you love the Lord and are faithful and prayerful.  I’m not making this about you. It’s not how any of us should talk about marital relations publicly.

Pam - the language you use and the way you use it have sowed more confusion in this conversation than anything. You are right, the enemy loves confusion. And you can say the medical community and their crazy biological and scientific definitions of “sex” are “the world” but it is our job to communicate with “the world.” You seem to be intent on using very confusing language to talk to “the world”.  Jesus certainly made his points very clear in the stories he told by using language that would be understood by “the world.” Insisting on using your own personal definition of the word “sex” - one that not even the Church uses, is not helping anyone. It confuses people. It’s fine to make a distinction between how the world abuses sex and what God intended for sex. But it is confusing and absurd to insist that Christians don’t have sex.

And Joe - thank you for your prayers. I’ve been hesitant to make this about me at all, although you continue to make personal judgments about me (even though you don’t know me). But I want you to know for the sake of your worrying that I have actually done (and do) all of those things and am consecrated to Jesus through Mary, etc. So if you think of anything else that might save my desperate soul, please send them my way! I’m sure I can use all the help I can get!

Matt, We disagree.  It is YOUR language that is sowing the confusion.  I just went back and reread the Theology of the Body.  Where the Pope quotes how man “cleaves”, “becomes one flesh”, “communion of persons”, “conjugal act”, “reliving the virginal value”. He speaks of Adam and Eves conduct before and after the fall and how with grace we seek to return to our original innocence.  When he uses the word sex he actually clarifies it saying, “Theology of sex or RATHER masculinity and femininity.”  What I have written is very easy to understand.  It is in words that are very clear.  It is not an act of lust, it is an act of love and acts of love are best expressed without recourse to phrases like “bringing sexy back”.  You are the one confusing things by using crass language for something holy and leaving many people here wondering if anything goes in your mind after you have the ring.  When Jesus preached to the world He brought them to higher ground.  He used careful language, like saying the prodigal son “he squandered his fortune in loose living.”  He didn’t say he had sex with prostitutes and went out drinking every night.  But people understood.  He didn’t need to say more.  I too have taken the DeMontfort Consecration and each year we renew it we work to overcome the spirit of the world for the first week, reflecting on Jesus’ teaching.  Do you do that?  It is condescending to the world to think they can not understand speaking in holy terms and it is unworthy of Jesus to do less.  TJTM

Matthew, you are not grasping the urgency of the matter.  For the sake of your soul and the sake of the souls who have entered into this discussion, make a sincere apology.  It is imperative that you firmly renounce all attachments to the new age and liberated theology concepts and practices that have dazzled you.  This column is a result of it.  Also, Matthew, make a firm resolution to avoid friends that have encouraged these entanglements.  A man who has a devotion to our Blessed Mother, who is the perfection of purity,  can not become fascinated and enslaved with discussions of the lower passions in a public setting.  Matthew, you have a shackle hanging around your neck and it’s met for harm.  Until you can get the assistance of a ”Legitimately Ordained”  priest or bishop, hang on to your Rosary and wear a brown scapular.  Do not take this advice lightly.  Do not delay.  You are engaged in a major battle for your soul.  A presbyter cannot assist you.  His ordination did not anoint him with the ability to release you from these attachments.

Joe,
I think you’ve made it clear that your main problem is not in fact with the content of this article but rather your dissidence from the Church in Rome. Please understand that the message Matthew and 1flesh are promoting has a specific audience: it is not intended for everyone. Their focus is on those who do not know that contraceptive use is wrong (and despite the all the evidence against contraception, there are many who do not know it). Though the language used may seem scandalous, it is quite chaste compared to what the target audience is normally exposed to. Since, as you rightly point out, salvation can only be found through the One True Church, it makes sense to make an active effort to draw others into the fullness of Her Truth (and it would be gravely sinful to not do this). The Church’s teaching on contraception is a major reason that many fall away from the Church or oppose Her, because of this teaching’s OPPOSITION (!) to the many modernist heresies that did in fact spread after the Second Vatican Council, many of which advocated contraceptive use. Please keep in mind, though, that the fact that many Vatican II documents were twisted to modernist purposes does not invalidate them. The Holy Bible has been twisted to support countless heresies throughout history. By rejecting the Second Vatican Council and the validity of the Church’s Sacraments you are cutting yourself off from the Tradition that you seek to defend.

Also, if the pleasures of the body are inherently sinful, why is it that we profess that our bodies will (hopefully) be resurrected and reunited with our souls?

I can’t believe this thread was hijacked for 6 weeks by a self-righteous troll, who, in the end, turns out to not even be Catholic. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Kevin,  Vatican II wants all peoples everywhere to feel welcomed in her churches without conversion, but Our Blessed Mother had been an embarrassment to protestants, and ilk.  Therefore, Vatican II sent Her packing, and violations against the 6th and the 9th Commandment rose up tremendously amongst Catholics.  You cannot tell a Catholic from a non-Catholic because they divorce, cohabitate, remarry, abort as often or not more than peers. 

Sin according to the documents of Vatican II Council does NOT exist.  I think Hell has frozen over.  So what’s wrong with contraception?  It’s responsible parenting, after all and it’s just an excuse for Matthew to find a public place to talk dirty talk.

Why doesn’t Matthew tackle the pornographic materials put before the eyes of unsuspecting youth in parochial schools if he really cares to combat these evils?  Youth are taught according to Motherswatch.net - see parts one and two—- that youth have A RIGHT to choose their own sexual gratification.  The “Growing In Love” curriculum that begins in the kindergarten IS APPROVED by the U S Bishops.  Blush and shame’s natural protections are removed and I think Matthew and his friends are a result of this corrupted education. They put ALL society at risk talkin’ in just a manner claiming some good will result.  This is not manly!  Matthew’s approach is from a lower nature that controls and is seeking to whom it can devour.

No one said pleasures of the body are sinful, but the body can be used for sinful things.  The marital act is not sinful. Some things that could be done may be though.  The spirit of the gift is not piggish.  It is self-giving so when you think about that you should be able to figure out what is ok and what isn’t.  At Fatima the Blessed Mother warned about offensive dress and said that most souls go to Hell for “sins of the flesh”.  That could be fornication, adultery, materialism, lust (even in marriage)...alot of things so that too you should pray about and seek guidance.

There was an earlier article on this site called the death of pretty.http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/the-death-of-pretty I believe this would be a better approach to restoring proper dignity to sex. Yes sex is good when in the proper context. Between a married man and woman who are totally open to children. Sex is sacred and holy for reasons I can’t go into here because it took John Paul over 133 Wednesday audiences. This argument seems to be the same or similar as Alice Von Hildebrand and Christopher West. Sex needs to be veiled it is sacred it is holy. If you define sex properly holy sacred and sexy is only and adjective to describe proper sex than your definition of sexy being modest etc is correct. I agree with you. However just as sex is sacred so is sexy. Just as sex belongs between a married man and woman open to children in privacy than so does the adjective of sex, “sexy”. If our culture defines sex in an holy manner than sexy follows in pursuit. Even if you define sexy as the adjective to the good and holy sex it needs to be spoken of with reverence just as the act of sex should be. When speaking of sex it should be spoken of only with the intention of educating about the sacred. The consecration of the Body of Christ used to be whispered. Why because it is the nuptial act between The bride and the bridegroom. Perhaps they had it correct.  When using the term sexy it should only be used as well to define the Holy and sacredness of sex.  I think the site would be better named bringing back pretty or even better bringing back beautiful. Sex is beautiful is a better adjective because it speaks of the whole thing. Sexy seems to seclude and isolate the act from the rest of its sacredness.    One point however. I am not sure that defining sexy as the adjective to good and holy sex is correct. I feel it could be a derogatory word. Just as the “f” word is. someone could say if you think of the f word as bla bla bla than it is unholy. But if you define the"f” word as holy sex than it is OK to use the “F” word. The argument is absurd.  What we need to do is find out where the word sexy originated from. Has it been twisted like the word “gay” or is it a word like the “f” word demeaning. My gut tells me it is the latter but would be over joyed if someone proved me wrong.

To answer my question. where does sexy come from. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=sexy&searchmode=noneI think it has nothing to do with or derives from nothing good holy or sacred. sexy (adj.) Look up sexy at Dictionary.com 1905, from sex + -y (2). Originally “engrossed in sex;” sense of “sexually attractive” is 1923, first in reference to Valentino. An earlier word in this sense was sexful (1898). Related: Sexier; sexiest.sexiness (n.)Look up sexiness at Dictionary.com 1922, from sexy + -ness. steamy (adj.)Look up steamy at Dictionary.com 1640s, from steam + -y (2); in the sense of “erotic, sexy,” it is first recorded 1952. Related: Steamily; steaminess. Valentino was disgusting I’m sorry but I think the word is no good.

Dave Hahn – I’ve been through the Christopher West series:  “Theology of the Body” and its primary focus upon the dignity of the body and man and not Jesus Christ.  Check these out:

http://www.newengelpublishing.com/products/Theology-of-the-Body.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/f024ht_Hildebrand_Engel.htm

Randy Engel has done a spectacular work on exposing the priests who implemented sexualized catechetics in all bishops’ schools.

http://pdfbase.us/2013/01/17/and-the-origins-of-sex-education-in-catholic-schools-4/

See Motherswatch.org on the series of “Growing IN Love”.  Be prepared to be highly revoked.

@Joe Not sure what your point is.  I wouldn’t say that Christopher West’s series primary focus is upon the dignity of the body and man and not Jesus Christ. I would say that his series focuses on how the Body is a sign of Jesus Christ or is a sign of the Trinity in the union of man and woman open to procreation in the conjugal act. That man and woman were made in the image and likeness of God and that is what gives them their dignity. I don’t quite understand the point to the articles you posted. MAybe just not smart enough to understand them so if you would please summarize what is being said and why than I might be able to read it in that light and understand.

Dave Hahn,  You’ve asked a loaded and fair question.  Have you been through the series?  Well regardless, read the following from someone who understands that our likeness to God is not in the body but it in the soul:
“……Theology of the Body is anthropocentric, that is, man-centered, and personalist in keeping with the central theme of the Second Vatican Council, and the phenomenological and personalist philosophy of Wojtyla.
From a Catholic perspective, the very term “theology of the body” is problematic.
  Theology [Greek from theós, meaning God and logos meaning discourse], in all its form, centers upon God, on God’s attributes, on things divine, revealed truths and matters of faith, and not man, per se.
Regarding the human body, man is one. He is composed of both a rationale, spiritual soul and a material body, which gives man his personal corporeal identity. The immortal intellectual soul, infused into the body at the moment of conception, is the first informing and substantial principle which makes the body alive. The body without a soul is inert, a corpse.
How then can there be such a thing as a “Theology of the Body”?
  A difficult question, but only one of many such questions that the author (Wojtyla) and his supporters have endeavored to answer in defense of the “new” and “revolutionary” “development” in Catholic sexual catechetics called the “Theology of the Body.”
  That the Theology of the Body makes for difficult reading and even more difficult understanding is readily admitted by both proponents and opponents……”
http://www.newengelpublishing.com/products/Theology-of-the-Body.html
  I have more information if you are interested.
    My Point, however, is that man thinks too highly of himself.  God said without Him we can do NOTHING!  But don’t tell that to the West crowd.  You see, they want to establish their own morality which by the way will always harm another.  In following God’s Commandments, there are no casualties. 

Dave Hahn,  I’ve tried to respond but moderator has blocked me.

“In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked, lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men… All the strength of Satan’s reign is due to the easy-going weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: What are those wounds in the midst of Thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: With these was I wounded in the house of them that loved Me. I was wounded by My friends, who did nothing to defend Me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of My adversaries. And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries.”
—Pope St. Pius X, Discourse at the Beatification of St. Joan of Arc, Dec. 13, 1908