Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10
Because our culture still generally celebrates an institution it no longer understands, people are put in a position of wanting something without knowing what it is. The pageantry of a wedding, the emotional reward of exchanging vows, the social approbation of a marriage license, the security of “making it official”: these things still attract people to marriage. Not everyone, of course; increasing numbers of people no longer see the point of marriage, and many couples stoutly profess that a ceremony or a piece of paper can’t give them something they don’t have already (and often enough, in a perverse way, they are right). But enough people feel the pull of elements of the whole marriage thing, or even of the reality of marriage itself, to keep the institution alive, if diminished.
The wish to participate in an institution that is no longer understood naturally leads to redefining the institution, by stages, further and further from its true raison d’etre. The marriage contract must be modified—first passively, by society, with the groundwork of divorce on demand; then actively, by the couple, with divorce-ready prenuptial agreements.
As noted earlier, there are calls to remove fidelity from the equation—to redefine marriage as a pact of love that allows for some outside pursuits—a move that will allegedly strengthen marriage by redefining what used to be called adultery as a non-betrayal. Monogamy is regarded as unnatural, and marriage must be restructured accordingly.
Meanwhile, individuals with same-sex attraction grow up in the same marriage-positive culture as everyone else. They see the same Disney movies and romantic comedies. They watch their peers celebrate weddings and anniversaries. Like cohabitating couples, same-sex couples are uneasily aware of a lingering stigma regarding their socially unsanctioned status.
In the case of same-sex couples, this stigma is compounded by the more entrenched disapproval of homosexuality. It’s true that the concerted efforts of the diversity machine have gone a long way toward stigmatizing disapproval of homosexuality. So successful—and at times obnoxiously ubiquitous—has the effort been to raise the collective consciousness that a recent survey found that most Americans believe that homosexuals comprise 25 percent of the total population, exaggerating the actual figure of 2 to 3 percent by more than an order of magnitude.
Even so, aversion toward homosexuality runs deep. Deeper, in a sense, than religious instruction, and probably deeper than cultural formation, although both religious and cultural formation reinforce it. Unfortunately, the matter is clouded by distorted forms of disapproval—contempt, hatred, even fear—often lumped under the inadequate, overused, but not entirely invalid label of homophobia.
Terms like homophobia and gay-bashing are wrongly overused to stigmatize all disapproval of homosexuality as well as disagreement with or criticism of homosexual activists. As a result, many people who naturally recognize homosexuality as disordered are inhibited from expressing the validity of their moral beliefs. Hostile and punitive acts are increasingly being directed against those who affirm Christian moral teaching or who do not wish to acknowledge same-sex relationships in some way. (For example, photographers, caterers and other professionals who are Christians have been sued or fined for declining to serve same-sex ceremonies. Christian clergy have been harassed and even forbidden to express their views. Others have lost their jobs—and we are still very much in the early stages of all this. For more, cf. Mark Shea.)
We should resist this, but we shouldn’t easily dismiss the element of truth behind the terms homophobia and gay-bashing—especially since these distortions, and the failure of many to treat homosexuals with appropriate dignity, is also part of the context of our current difficulties.
Spontaneous feelings of aversion toward homosexual acts—feelings in themselves natural and in principle even healthy—are wrongly but easily extended to individuals who engage in such acts, or who are prone to them. Since those prone to such acts are few and thus weak, they are easily stigmatized by the majority.
Fear of stigma then causes others to fear to be associated with the stigmatized, either socially or, worse, by identification. Such pressures move many, particularly the vulnerable or insecure, to vigorous expressions and demonstrations of scorn for the ostracized population and their inclinations—bullying and contemptuous acts that reinforce their own identification with the acceptable majority.
Adolescents in the throes of the mysterious process of sexual maturing, intimidated by a world into which they have not yet been initiated and fearing ostracism above all, may be especially frightened of being implicated in, or even of developing, stigmatized inclinations. Parents likewise may fear not only the ostracism and unhappiness of their children, but also perhaps the emotional and social cost to themselves to have a child who may be stigmatized. Adults not paired off with a member of the opposite sex may be uncomfortable with how others could perceive them. And so on.
Any of these concerns and pressures can contribute to unjust hostility toward gays, in the process perpetuating and deepening the cycle of fear and hatred, all the more because of the lamentable human tendency to hate those we have wronged.
Homophobia, hatred and gay-bashing are contrary to human dignity and to the common good. Efforts to combat homophobia and gay-bashing have made real strides, partly through praiseworthy means, but also partly by promoting a false moral equivalence between heterosexual and homosexual indications and acts, by celebrating homosexuality as a positive good, and by stigmatizing not only gay-bashing but also moral disapproval of homosexual acts.
At the same time, individuals with same-sex attraction and in same-sex relationships continue to suffer bullying, hostility and the general stigma against their inclinations and acts. For all the gay-positive messages out there, they are sharply aware of the deep-rooted disapproval of their lifestyles. In some cases the conflict may not be all external: Influenced by mainstream culture, or by the movement of their own consciences, they may struggle with interior discomfort, shame or guilt regarding their own status and actions.
For such individuals, the institution of marriage can present a conundrum. On the one hand, they’ve been shaped by the same marriage-positive culture as everyone else, and many of them have supportive married parents, siblings or other relations and friends. On the other hand, marriage as it has has always been known and is still for the most part celebrated today remains an imposing cultural and institutional symbol of heteronormativity—a cultural, state-sponsored form of social approbation available to heterosexual couples but denied to homosexual couples.
Reductionistically put, marriage can feel to such people like a sort of state-sponsored private club that admits people of one persuasion but not others. The very existence of such a club, with the active recognition and participation of the state no less, both validates and perpetuates the heteronormative moral order, and can be seen as giving tacit support to the mistreatment of gays.
Which, lang syne, brings us to where we are today.
More to come.
Comments
Post a Comment
Um, maybe you should just write a book.
@ Pachyderminator: Amazon has made it so easy to self-publish e-books, maybe when I’m done I will reedit all this and put it between two virtual covers. For now, blogging offers the same advantage over book-writing that movie reviewing does: instant gratification.
I fear that the percentage is so high not due to exaggeration, but to those who are undecided as the “new” reproductive classes has this important aspect about oneself as almost optional…
@ Mrs. O: Certainly the gay lobby does all in its power to inflate its own numbers. I just heard a gay activist explain the Q in LGBTQ, which I had always assumed was for “queer” as a sort of catch-all, is also explained as “questioning.” So even if you’re not L, G, B or T, you might still be Q, as long as you aren’t firmly and clearly H. So, e.g., adolescents “in the throes of the mysterious process of sexual maturing,” if they can be classified as “questioning,” can be lumped under Q, and thus swell the ranks of LGBTetc.
That said, the 25 percent figure of popular perception is ludicrously out of touch with reality, more than doubling even the distorted Kinsey figure of 10 percent and exceeding the actual figure of 2-3 percent by an order of magnitude, as I said.
Bullying of “homosexual children” is a manufactured issue. It’s purpose is to help the lavender cult spread its protective wings over a child who may be confused about his/her sexuality and give them an “in” to guide such a child down the “right” path. It is also a gateway for them to talk to *all* children about their favorite disordered behaviors.
Kids should be trained not to bully anyone. When a group is singled out like this as special victims, it merely confers protected status on them. I’m sure that’s part of the point. But it’s completely phony. Homosexuals are now firmly entrenched in the highest levels of media, academia, and government. If you want to see real bullying in the adult world, try making a statement in a public forum against homosexual pseudo-marriage or about the dangers of homosexual behavior.
It’s long past time for commentators on the Catholic side to stop pussy-footing around with this subject. We don’t do ourselves any favors when we adopt the the terminology and give credence to the false arguments of those who are trying to impose immorality on us and our children. It’s time to address the aggressive and repeated attempts to de-sensitize children to homosexual acts as the utter outrage that it is.
@Florentius: What do you mean by a “manufactured issue”? Do you mean it doesn’t happen? Are you saying that bullies don’t “single out” victims for e.g. perceived effeminacy or gayness? “Don’t bully anyone” is a fine message. But say you’re talking to kids in, say, Mississippi a quarter century ago, and black kids are getting beat up by white kids. Should the subject of racism be off the table? Obviously I’m not saying that sexual preference is equivalent to race, but in both cases distorted social hostility and ostracism is leading to the selection of victims, and that’s something worth talking about.
My post acknowledges the bullying that goes on against individuals who defend marriage. That doesn’t negate the other point I’m making, which precedes the bullying you mention and is, frankly, partially responsible for it.
P.S. If you think I’m pussyfooting around anything, you either haven’t read very closely, don’t know me very well, or both.
@Steve,
Public schools and large corporations are being bombarded with “anti-bullying” and “diversity” classes that focus on the acceptance of homosexual acts, not chaste persons with a homosexual inclination. These classes are being used as a means to indoctrinate the public on the acceptance of homosexual acts, and are -largely manufactured. My daughters seem to more easily affected by this play on ‘sympathy’ than my sons. It’s critical to separate the “person” from the “act”, you could have done a better job on this here.
@ David: I think I said pretty clearly that it’s precisely the failure to separate the person from the act that’s the problem. I don’t deny the exploitation and bombardment you describe. I’m simply saying that there is a reality there to exploit.
@Steve,
There is a deeper reality, in truth there is no such thing as a homosexual person, there is a person with an disordered inclination, part of our shared wounded humanity. I have mine too, but that does not define me as a person.
@ David: I agree. That’s why I preferentially use “individuals with same-sex attraction” or “people in same-sex relationships” over “homosexuals” or “gays” (though as shorthand I occasionally use the single word terms, with at least mental/implicit scare quotes; I agree I could be clearer here, but polysyllabic phrases do get unwieldy).
The interesting thing is that some activists and “queer” theorists agree with this usage and reject the language of “straight,” “gay,” “bisexual,” etc. In that respect, we converge more with some of the more radical theorists than with some of their more “mainstream” representatives.
Steven, I feel like I can’t really respond to much of this installment until after I read the next one - i.e. I need to see where you’re going with all this before I can comment on it. I do have some things to say presently about bullying, however.
Based on what I have witnessed and experienced myself, I suggest that more bullying occurs where same-sex attractions are falsely rather than truly attributed to the victim. While the logic espoused by some suggests that the presence of those with actual or perceived same-sex attractions makes bullies out of people who would otherwise not be, I say rather that those who are bullied are targets of opportunity, and that if a bully finds no one available with one perceived weakness, someone with another perceived weakness will be found. What this means is that anti-bullying initiatives that focus on particular victim attributes are at best wrong-headed, and at worst purely political. I’m not saying that you appear to advocate such initiatives, nor am I saying that unjust hostility toward those with same-sex attractions doesn’t occur (though I would classify much of it as something other than bullying). But there are some who would seize on what you’ve said and use it to condemn those who wouldn’t support anti-bullying campaigns that carry the message that those with same-sex attractions shouldn’t be bullied because such attractions are “normal.”
@Steven: By “manufactured issue” I meant that kids are no more likely to be bullied for perceived “gayness” than for any other kind of perceived deviance. Yet, we don’t see pressure groups for people who wear glasses, have braces, are socially awkward, or physically uncoordinated imposing themselves on schools and insisting that kids go through sensitivity training to understand their particular issue in lavish detail. Only the homosexuals do this. It’s not hard to figure out why—it is a an opportunity to expose other people’s kids to the “gay” lifestyle. Ultimately, it’s a recruitment effort as kids are encouraged to join truly vile groups like GLSEN and PFLAG. This is why it drives me crazy when I hear otherwise well-meaning commentators jumping on the bullying bandwagon. By accepting this premise, you have allowed your opponent to define the terms of the debate.
I also completely reject the comparison of black children being bullied in the Jim Crow South to so-called “gay children” being bullied. That is a debate point I most often hear from “gay”-positive partisans, so I’m a little surprised to hear it adopted here. I have had more than one black person tell me in no uncertain terms that they find such comparisons deeply offensive.
@KevinRahe wrote: “What this means is that anti-bullying initiatives that focus on particular victim attributes are at best wrong-headed, and at worst purely political.”
You are absolutely correct. And worse, you may be sure that in the aftermath of the campaign against “gay bullying”, the victims will be anyone who is brave enough to stand up against the new “gay positive” agenda. And you may be sure that this type of bullying will be tolerated. The truly frightening thing is how such a shift will play out in our newly “gay positive” military.
To say “don’t bully X” does not reinforce, but rather undermines, “don’t bully.”
The 2000 Census data gives the Homosexual population as 1.5%.
YET,
A recent gallup poll shows that 35% of Americans believe the Homosexual Population to be 25%.
Talk about a disconnect.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147824/adults-estimate-americans-gay-lesbian.aspx
Of course, we don’t make moral or legal decisions based on “how many” people want something. I am pointing this out to show that there is some sort of disconnect between reality and perception. We are bombarded with Homosexual scenarios in movies and television that simply don’t reflect reality. I believe this could be a major influence on how people think (which is of course WHY homosexuality is portrayed as more prevalent than it actually is). While we don’t necessarily make laws or judgment calls on things based on “how many”, believing that huge numbers of people believe or act a certain way can affect our attitudes towards said behavior.
IF I think that 25% of a the population is homosexual I am more likely to see certain laws as discriminatory. If I have a more realistic view of the number of people affected by this tendency, then I might have a more realistic view of what should or should not done about it.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. It is easier to justify changing the definition of marriage when I believe that a quarter of the population is being discriminated against than if I believe less than 2% is being the same. Of course, I believe that Truth is objective so even if 98% of the population is gay, same sex marriage cannot “be”. However, many people are moral relativists and numbers count.
@ Kevin Rahe:
Definitely agree (statistically, that would almost have to be the case). Nevertheless, the use of that false charge in bullying contributes to the stigma—and those who actually do have same-sex attraction are well aware of it.
My point is not that individuals with same-sex attraction are uniquely bullied, but that they are acutely aware of being in a culture in which they are widely held in contempt, in which insults and expressions of scorn directed against their inclinations are deeply ingrained in the culture. Part of this is mere human nature, but it’s also distorted by concupiscence and by the cultural dynamics described above.
Perhaps it will help to note that I am not here supporting or advocating any particular initiative approach to combating bullying. I’m describing something that happens. I’m saying that as Christians and human beings we ought to be willing to understand what other people have gone through and go through.
I agree that much anti-bullying advocacy is ideologically driven. It is also the case that part of the effect of anti-bullying advocacy is to contribute to the “defended” population’s sense of grievance with the majority culture, to promote a sense of having been wronged beyond what has actually happened. This happens in other advocacy groups as well, including racial advocacy, but also sometimes Catholic advocacy, where e.g. we speak of “persecution” when in fact people have only been rude to us. That doesn’t negate the fact that real persecution does happen. Nor do the excesses of gay advocacy negate the fact that people really are scarred by the dynamics of the culture in which they have grown up, which is my sole point.
@ Florentius:
Please see above. On the analogy I made to racial bullying, I noted the obvious disanalogy most likely to offend someone (there are other obvious and relevant disanalogies). I don’t think anyone need take offense with the limited analogy I made, which is that where there is bullying based on identification with a minority population, those identified with that population suffer fear and stigma. I have a hard time imagining someone taking exception to this rather obvious point, although stranger things have happened.
“Reductionistically put, marriage can feel to such people like a sort of state-sponsored private club that admits people of one persuasion but not others.” True, and this can happen with anything in similar situations where people believe their not being treated fairly.
@ Larry:
Right. The problem in this case is that, having lost sight of marriage’s true nature, the culture at large also can’t see why it isn’t a state-sponsored private club, and why it isn’t unfair.
@MK—maybe I can tempt you.
Is taking birth control pills or comdom use a sin, is it a mortal sin and does one have to go to confession if they use it for birth control and not just some medical reason. I apologize if someone has already dealt with this.
@Larry,
Contraceptive sex is mutual masturbation, and it is a sin. And serious. The gravity of the sin would depend on that person’s knowledge and will. If he or she doesn’t really know that it’s a sin or if their free will is somehow coerced, the gravity is lessened.
Been there, done that. My wife and I have been using NFP for 16 years now.
@David.—My wife never took the pill either, we used NFP no problem. Does the church teach using contraceptives is mutual masturbation, and a sin? What kind of sin and does one have to go to confession for it? Is The pill a sin? Is using a condom within a marriage a sin? Where can I read the churchs teaching on this where they state what you say?
@Larry,
I would read these two articles, then branch out to the Catechism and Church Encylicals from there.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp
http://www.cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=24
God Bless.
@David,
Forget the question I found the answer. Oral sex can be a mortal sin, the pill and condoms are both mortal sins.
“The basic churchs stand is if a man wants to have an orgasm, it must be in the womans vagina”. The womans orgasm is not mentioned.
No exceptions, it’s the cookie cutter version for everyone for all occasions. I am puzzeled by this, and have never and will never follow this teaching. Interesting. I am married, have kids, but now I have to tell my wife were going to hell because I guarantee you we will not confess this mortal sin as we do not agree it is. LOL
OOPS: To be clear, I am LOL-ing and do not believe that Oral sex is a mortal sin.
@ Larry: FWIW, this is what I was talking about when I wrote all the way back in Part 2:
Coitus is a unique act. It is only possible between a man and a woman, and by it the husband and wife truly give themselves to one another in a unique way that cannot be achieved through non-coital sexual acts.
Only by this act do a husband and wife share with one another the fullness of their reproductive powers at that moment, whatever they may be. Only by this act are man and woman united in a teleological unity. The joining of individual reproductive systems forms a single reproductive super-system, a shared reproductive act in which the individual reproductive functions of each is completed by the other.
This is a radically different act than acts that merely juxtapose the reproductive system with, say, the digestive system (at either end), or which involve mutual, separate stimulation of reproductive organs (e.g., by means of toys). With such an act, the teleological unity of conjugal union is not merely possible but forbidden, it is not possible.
@STG:
From what I read, oral sex is considered foreplay, not unnatural, and is ok as long as it leads to natural sex. That being intercourse. Sex toys are the same and ok as long as it leads to the same. Strangely, it’s ok for married couples to make sex videos as long as only they and only together watch the videos. It’s important and natural for the church to teach about sex. God lays out His blueprint for marriage in the early verses of the book of Genesis. Love and attraction are a prerequisite for a man and woman considering marriage. However, what distinguishes the covenant of marriage from the coupling of lust, are the legal commitments, and the resulting children. It’s very important.
Being open to having children and is more important than this column has space or time on many levels. Calling cookie cutter sex for all couples in all sitituations a mortal sin is I believe is a kind of sin in itself.
Some how I cannot imagine a man having to go to confession, and the woman also, for accidently caused or for the having an orgasm initiated by oral sex, especially since it allowed as foreplay. This brings guilt, sin, and fear into the bedroom.
May I add confusion to the last sentense?
@ Larry: The Church teaches very clearly about sex. You may have heard of the theology of the body of Pope John Paul II.
My comments above are with regard to sex acts, i.e., completed acts, not foreplay. Acts of stimulation, whether with the hands, mouth, etc. leading to coitus don’t violate the teleology of sex. Catholic moral teaching is clear that the moral character of an act is connected with the use of the will, so what happens accidentally is not a sin (though irresponsible behavior leading to an accident can be). I confess with some trepidation that the drift of your cookie cutter metaphor escapes me.
As for bringing guilt, sin and fear into the bedroom: There is only way to be sure of keeping sin out of the bedroom—not going into the bedroom. We are fallen creatures; we bring sin with us wherever we go, including the bedroom, so only an empty bedroom is certainly a sinless bedroom. And if and when there is sin, then fear and guilt are in principle both warranted and salutary.
P.S. “May I add confusion to the last sentense?” Is that a set-up? It’s Not Nice to tempt people like that. :-) Cheers.
@SDG- no set up intended just laziness of pre reading before submitting.
Reading your first paragraph I’m reminded how complicated this becomes. where I read that oral sex is a mortal sin, it decided not to throw in the fact of an accidental orgasm not being a mortal sin. Now there is all this irresponsible behavior leading to an accidental orgasm to contend with. Earlier Kevin R. called it playing with fire. Basically, if we carelessly , could have prevented, got caught up in the moment, had an orgasm during oral sex, off to confession we go, hopefully forgiven so as to not suffer the pains of hell for eternity. I do not say this playfully.
If this has happened more than once it’s looking alot like a pattern so suffer we probably will.
One more thing, wouldn’t not going into the bedroom be an even bigger sin?
@ Larry: I’m not quite sure what you want from me.
A beautiful woman walks by in a flattering sundress and you give her an appreciative look. She passes and your head turns. Unbidden, a thought enters your mind. You turn away and dismiss the thought, though perhaps not as promptly as you might have. Later, you return to the memory and the thought, with varying degrees of resistance and complicity.
In principle, we can define the lines between innocent appreciation, concupiscent attraction, venial sin and mortal sin. In practice, these are difficult shoals to navigate, and there is no channel we may travel in absolute safety.
At best we endeavor to avoid the near occasions of sin. Note that “near” is a relative term. In this world we can never entirely avoid every possible occasion of sin—nor should we try to, since in principle occasions of sin are synonymous with the world.
It is possible to surrender to sin in the bedroom, the beach, the supermarket, the museum, the Sistine Chapel, or the church down the street. Because it is possible does not mean we should avoid these places, or that we should recoil in fear from every imaginable occasion of sin, however remote.
It does mean that we must be prudent. We must work to gain self-control and tame our wayward passions. We must humbly place our weaknesses before Christ and seek to be led by Him, walking in His light and by His grace.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that chastity entails “an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom.” It also adds, “The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy” (CCC 2339).
Apprenticeship means you may be no good at it at first, and not very good at it for a long time. You may slip, and often. Sometimes it will be more your fault, sometimes less. I’m sorry I can’t make the message easier, but it is what it is.
@SDG: I want nothing from you. I truly appreciate all of the work you have done here including your comments. You, cannot make this easy and it should not be this difficult. Our Priest should be able to get in front of their church and teach these things because it so easy. It should not leave a bad taste in your mouth when discussing sex between married couples. Sin cannot be avoided, mortal sin should be. Thats the problem here, not chasity.
No one commits mortal sin by accident. Only where there is sufficient knowledge and full consent as well as grave knowledge is sin mortal. As for discussing sex between married couples, and how it shouldn’t leave a bad taste in your mouth—you said it, friend, I didn’t.
I have no idea what your talking about now.
@Steve, great exchange today.
Are you going to do an essay on how contraception has led to selfishness in the business world:
Millionare CEOs with “the kid” and little empathy for men (and women) with families, CEOs used to have large families.
The “what’s in it for me” crowd - the work place being less of a solidarity, a family.
Instant gratification and the Stock Market.
I think there is alot of material here…..
Larry,
Regarding the “Cookie Cutter” comment…
When the Church makes a statement about “all”, it does so because the act is “intrinsically” evil. This means that there are NO circumstances, ever, where the act can be regarded as “Good”. Homosexual acts, abortion, contraception…all of these are intrinsically evil. So yes, they are evil for everyone, all the time…hence your cookie cutter comment.
Some acts rely on intention or special circumstances to make them evil. They are not intrinsically evil, but rather, evil “When…” or “If….”.
For instance it is not intrinsically evil to miss Mass on Sundays. There are acceptable reasons to do so…illness for example. In these cases it is not the “act” that is evil, but the reason for the act.
Hope that helps.
@MK—
Your correct that male orgasm outside the vagina it is intrinsically evil according to the C.C. 2370 of the church. Truly it can be used this way, no doubt. I do not agree with the church on this. I believe if it is used as contraception, then it could be if you could convince me that it should NEVER be used as contraception. I believe that NFP is the best approach for family planning. We have never used the pill or condoms. In my life, prior to this blog, never, have I ever heard from anyone anytime anywhere that “male orgasm outside the vagina is intrinsicaly evil”. When You called it evil, then and only then have I ever looked it up. I do not personally know of anyone who has taught their children this. I certainly was never taught this. No priest has ever mentioned it, no catechism has ever taught this, never ever, ever. If the church believes this is intrinsically evil they certainely have not gotten the word out.
Some how I just cannot see: If we were in a car accident and killed, we got to the pearly gates and were judged that God would tell my wife, a person who never cusses, I can count the times she has complained to me on one hand, a person of unbelieveable patience, anger is not in her dictionary, she never gossips, she loves god more than me. I just cannot believe God would tell her that because she caused her husband to orgasm outside her vagina now she must suffer in hell fire tormented for eternity. If this is god I would hate to meet satan.
Larry,
You would have to intentionally ejaculate sans vaginal intercourse. As was stated above, accidental is not the same as intentional. I was referring more to contraception anyway. Contraception is intrinsically evil. If ejaculating outside vaginal intercourse would send you automatically to hell, I fear every adolescent boy who has ever had a “wet dream” would be condemned. It’s not the ejaculating per se that is sinful, but the contraceptive intention of said ejaculation.
Committing a mortal sin, (and remember, three things are necessary for a sin to BE considered moral) is not to be viewed as a “Go straight to Hell” decree. Mortal sin is sin that is so grave it breaks, not just harms, but breaks your covenant with God. Since Life is the greatest gift God has given mankind, it only makes sense that offenses against are the gravest of sins. Refusing, through contraception, to be open to this greatest of gifts is so serious, that it actually breaks your relationship with God. YOU are the one who breaks it, not God.
The thing is, it’s not up to you to agree or disagree with Divine Law. You can obey it or not…but your opinion of it doesn’t make any difference. In the Church, unlike society at large, if we run up against a Truth we don’t agree with, we recognize that we must change OURSELVES and not attempt to change the TRUTH. Understand that contraception is connected to the very first sin, which got us thrown out of Paradise…the first time that man voluntarily broke his covenant with God…the sin of pride, of trying to BE God. By attempting to “control” the creation (or in this case preventing creation) of Life, you are trying to play God. Surely you can see how this would be a serious enough offense to be viewed as a desire to live without God…which of course is the very definition of Hell.
MK—From what I read, ejauclation outside the vagina is a form of contraception, yes, I’ll throw in intentionally, is a mortal sin therefore your going straight to hell. You state ” the contraceptive intention of said ejaculation”. This is not what the church teaches from what I read. They say it has to end in vaginal intercourse or it is a mortal sin. Unless I have read something wrong. I believe along the lines as part of NFP it is ok. I will say that I cannot think of any other way to teach the churches view point any other way than they teach it. Yet, in my life I never was.
Larry,
Here is what the CC says…
The key phrase here is “To render procreation impossible”...
In other words, IF one were to ejaculate, on purpose, to avoid conceiving a child, as a method of birth control, THEN they would be committing a mortal sin. It doesn’t even address accidental ejaculation.
Again, you need to understand what a mortal sin is, why the consequence of such a sin is eternity without God (Hell) and CHOOSE to do the act anyway.
You’re wife is not in mortal sin if she is unaware of what her choice means. You of course, NOW know, and any further acts of “withdrawal” would indeed be a mortal sin. You say the Church did not teach this to you, and then you quote the Catechism. You have just proven that the information was readily available to anyone willing to look. That said, I agree that the Church dropped the ball for the last 40 years. There was much confusion regarding contraception in the 60’s/70’s. Wrongly, many priests believed that the ban on contraception would be lifted and in anticipation taught couples as if it had already been done. They were wrong. But you know now what the Church teaches and what it has always taught…contraception is intrinsically evil, a mortal sin, and a deal breaker in your relationship with God. You can obey or disobey. That is your prerogative, given our gift of Free Will. But the Divine Law of Justice will be upheld. If Hell, (and I am not saying it is) is your Just Reward for continuing to use the withdrawal method, then it is due to your own personal obstinacy and choice.
The Withdrawal method is a form of contraception, is NOT part of NFP and never has been. That is what the Catechism has said, and nothing else.
MK:
My wife cannot get pregnant. At our age most of this is a mute point.
I’m talking about young couples alone caught up in the moment or just playfully enjoying each other. These could be people who have even been trying to get pregnant. My cookie cutter comment was about making a rule that fits everyone everytime in every sitituation. It does not work. To say it SHOULD be is different. To say it MUST be or is eternal damnation eliminates natural life sitituations and creates those sitituation with no individuality left at all. My wife an I have naturally been basically practicing Kosher sex without even knowing it. ““The primary purpose of sexual relations is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is intimate long-term companionship (not just bearing children in a family context), and sexual relations play an important role in that. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason”” ““Although some sources take a more narrow view, the general view of “halakhah” is that any sexual conduct that does not “regularly” involve ejaculation outside the vagina is permissible.”” Much simpler and this is how I have lived and will continue to live. It does not make me Jewish.
Larry,
The Cookie Cutter description is still applicable. It is ALWAYS a mortal sin, under ALL circumstances, to use the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. That is what the Catechism says. It is what the Catholic Church has always taught.
The Catechism section that you quoted doesn’t even address accidental ejaculation. How can I make this clearer?
Your statement ““The primary purpose of sexual relations is to reinforce the loving marital bond between husband and wife. The first and foremost purpose of marriage is intimate long-term companionship (not just bearing children in a family context), and sexual relations play an important role in that. Procreation is also a reason for sex, but it is not the only reason” is incorrect.
There is no primary purpose for sexual relations. The purpose is twofold. Unitive AND Procreative. There is no hierarchy. Neither takes precedence. OPENNESS to life is not the same as actually being able to conceive. We are required to be OPEN to the possibility of conception. We leave it in God’s hands. If He gives life, we accept it. If He withholds life, we accept that too. But we DO NOT take matters into our own hands. EVER. (Caps are not yelling…just emphasizing, kay?)
I’m talking about young couples alone caught up in the moment or just playfully enjoying each other.
I’m not sure why you aren’t understanding me…Obviously the above couple would NOT have been using the withdrawal method as a form of contraception. Both Steve and I have already said that accidental ejaculations are not the same as intentional withdrawal…
@larry
The procreative and unitive aspects are inseparable. Did you at least READ Humanae Vitae?
MK-
I’m not simply saying accidently. I said earlier intentionally. A girl just might to watch because she has never seen it before. I’m not trying to be to discriptive here.
Larry,
Then the couple would indeed be committing a mortal sin. This scenario goes to the topic of Lust, and not only contraception…
First,
Second,
Bottom line Larry? Unless it is not in one’s control (premature ejactualtion), it is intrinsically wrong for a man’s sperm to end up anywhere other than inside his spouse.
I Respectually disagree. For all the reasons I have listed. We will stick to the Kosher view. For the young bride, it is not lust it would only be curiosity at best. It is impossible to write a rule like this for all sitituations.
I do not personally know of anyone who has taught their children this.
Lol, then allow me to introduce myself. It is what I was taught, and what I have taught my six children. (Not that they have listened, but I did teach them).
Humana vitae came out in 1968, Theology of the Body has been around for 15 or more years and coitus interruptus is a concept as old as the book of Genesis. It’s not like this is some new or hidden teaching that is just being sprung on you. To be a Catholic is to know what being a Catholic means. The onus does not just fall on the Church. You must take some responsibility for knowing what the Church teaches. In this day and age there is a plethora of information on line. There really is no excuse not to know what She says.
It is impossible to write a rule like this for all sitituations.
Obviously, it is not impossible, as it has been done. You, as I have repeatedly stated, are free to disobey. But the rule stands, and the consequences of ignoring it also remain. Again, this is not a choice on God’s part, but on yours.
As for lust, perhaps you do not have a clear idea of just what lust “is”?
This might help you understand what lust is and why it is wrong.
You really need to read Theology of the Body. You’re never too old to get it right!
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm
MK: Thanks but I have naturally been following the Kosher view of sex most of my life without even knowing it. This is not going to change because the church disagrees. All the churches disagree on many things. I take full responsibility for my choices here. If you want to call it a mortal sin, I respectfully disagree. I know we agree on the other 99%.
Larry,
As you wish…but understand that it is not a matter of what “I call it”. It is a matter of what “it is”. I am not the author of what is and is not a mortal sin. God is. Your disagreement is not with me, but with Him.
The fact that lots of churches have said lots of things that contradict each other proves one thing and one thing only. Some of those churches are wrong. That is why I only trust the Church that God Himself instituted. It’s not right or wrong because the Church says so. The Church says it is right or wrong because it is. She doesn’t create morality. She protects it.
I take full responsibility for my choices here.
Well, then, if nothing else, at least you now know what it means to commit a mortal sin. Full responsibility for your choice and acceptance of it’s consequences. If you ever decide to come back to Him, remember, there is always confession!
MK: Thanks for your concern.
No problem Larry. My concern is genuine. I hope you take this to prayer and perhaps come to a clearer understanding of what the Church teaches and why. Humana Vitae, Theology of the Body and a good, strong Catholic Priest are your friends. Many of us struggle with the Church Teachings all the time. The key is try to change ourselves, not the Church. Truth is Truth, and it’s ours for the asking. God Bless. Give your wife a hug. She sounds wonderful.
You can find this at catholic dot org.. Make sure to put the usual www in front of the link. Amazing statiscs here.
usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/2011/upload/life-matters-contraception.pdf
SDG: Again, and excellent article. Your equation of Q with adolescence (in the above comments) is very perceptive: an adolescent’s reproductive capability is the only thing they have pseudo-control over at that age. The current culture still considers them children and keeps them shut out of the adult world. In times past, a 15-year old young man or a 15 year-old young woman was expected to start providing for elders and children. As we prolong adolescent we prolong juvenile behavior – homoeroticism is just one of those behaviors.
Florentius is right: “Kids should be trained not to bully anyone. When a group is singled out like this as special victims, it merely confers protected status on them.”
My kids have been in public schools and parochial schools. In both, they were trained about different kinds of bullying—moreso in the public schools, but some in the parochial schools. In fifth and sixth grade (public) my daughter was taught not to “sexually harass” people. Children need to be taught not to be cruel to anyone. Period. Giving them categories of people not to harass just teaches them that there are categories of people TO harass! But the administrators I have spoken to don’t see it that way. They are checking things off a list: no racial slurs, check. No anti-gay slurs, check. No slurs against women, check. It’s a bureaucratic mindset and not a real “teach children to have good characters” mindset.
Part 10 is now up.
I am not disordered. The American Psychological Association and the DSMIV which is a diagnostic book that HAS to be used for actual disorders doesn’t classify homosexuality as a disorder.
I appreciate the gesture, and the kind and insightful words used by the author. However I am sure you have heard other gay people tell you from their own experience: this is how we always were. They’re not “inclinations” they are real feelings. To tell an entire community that what we feel and what we experience are not real is presumptuous, dangerous, and frankly illogical.
I just want to marry the person *I* love.
People please open up your hearts and take a class on sexuality because it sounds like a lot of you don’t know squat about the merits of science. Do yourself a favor, heck, do ME and others like me a favor and stop voting on us like we’re a bunch of cattle.
Tara, while the DSMIV no longer lists same-sex attractions as a disorder (and is probably well on its way to doing the same for pedophilic attractions based on their own forays into that territory and recent public efforts to normalize such relations), the language they used at the time they made this change hardly makes it sound as if they consider homosexual relations “normal:”
http://www.psychiatryonline.com/DSMPDF/DSM-II_Homosexuality_Revision.pdf
I don’t think Steven is saying that what you feel isn’t real, just like he wouldn’t say that what pedophiles feel isn’t real.
For a discussion of the merits and problems of the government officially recognizing same-sex unions and treating them as traditional marriage, see the comments on part 10 of this series.
Tara,
We all can have feelings that are not in line with right reason. That doesn’t change what’s right.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.