An Abusive Morality

[Glaurung]

Sex! Yes, we're going there.

Having put religion on a bit of a back burner, I have started to reflect on my religious upbringing. Looking back, I’ve come to realize that a great deal of the psychological and spiritual awfulness I’ve endured since adolescence is a direct consequence of Catholic sexual teaching.

You see, in Catholic teaching sex has one legitimate use. Procreation within marriage. Any sexual act not open to the potential of procreation violates natural law and thus carries the guilt of mortal sin. The Church teaches that those who die in unconfessed mortal sin will be damned to suffer the eternal fire in Hell.

Now, imagine a young man who has just hit puberty. He puts the teachings on sex and mortal sin together and comes to two beliefs:

1. It is a mortal sin to act upon one’s sexual desires (even by thought alone) outside of marriage. Even in marriage, one may perform only those acts open to the potential of procreation.
2. Mortal sin condemns one to Hell.

If you so much as entertain an impure thought for a second too long you commit a mortal sin. Goodness forbid if you ever touch yourself. Again that's a mortal sin and you’re going to Hell unless you go to confession and beg a priest for forgiveness.

From my teenage years on I’ve had little hope for salvation. I have been wrecked with guilt for most of my life because in Catholicism salvation hinges upon a quasi-monastic ethic of perfect sexual abstinence (called continence) that few actually live up to. (If you're single). Although to be fair, the married don’t have it that much better either. If you’re married but you’re not open to the conception of a child each and every time you have sex then you’re committing a mortal sin as well.

But the real outrage has been the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Had my parents ever caught me touching myself as a teen I would have gotten a pearl clutching lecture on mortal sin. Yet, how many Catholic couples (including my own parents) have after decades of marriage suspiciously produced only one or two children? Even as a teen the hypocrisy of my own parents and extended family here did not escape my notice. The whole system produces hypocrites because its demands are impossible. Although admittedly, that may be the whole point. According to Catholic teaching a salutary life is only truly possible to those whom God predestines. So unless you are so predestined it is impossible to please God well enough for salvation.

 

[Kenny]

Sex! Yes, we're going there.

Having put religion on a bit of a back burner, I have started to reflect on my religious upbringing. Looking back, I’ve come to realize that a great deal of the psychological and spiritual awfulness I’ve endured since adolescence is a direct consequence of Catholic sexual teaching.

You see, in Catholic teaching sex has one legitimate use. Procreation within marriage. Any sexual act not open to the potential of procreation violates natural law and thus carries the guilt of mortal sin. The Church teaches that those who die in unconfessed mortal sin will be damned to suffer the eternal fire in Hell.

Now, imagine a young man who has just hit puberty. He puts the teachings on sex and mortal sin together and comes to two beliefs:

1. It is a mortal sin to act upon one’s sexual desires (even by thought alone) outside of marriage. Even in marriage, one may perform only those acts open to the potential of procreation.
2. Mortal sin condemns one to Hell.

If you much as entertain an impure thought for a second too long you commit a mortal sin. Goodness forbid if you ever touch yourself. Again that's a mortal sin and you’re going to Hell unless you go to confession and beg a priest for forgiveness.

From my teenage years on I’ve had little hope for salvation. I have been wrecked with guilt for most of my life because in Catholicism salvation hinges upon a quasi-monastic ethic of perfect sexual abstinence (called continence) that few actually live up to. (If you're single). Although to be fair, the married don’t have it that much better either. If you’re married but you’re not open to the conception of a child each and every time you have sex then you’re committing a mortal sin as well.

But the real outrage has been the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Had my parents ever caught me touching myself as a teen I would have gotten a pearl clutching lecture on mortal sin. Yet, how many Catholic couples (including my own parents) have after decades of marriage suspiciously produced only one or two children? Even as a teen the hypocrisy of my own parents and extended family here did not escape my notice. The whole system produces hypocrites because its demands are impossible. Although admittedly, that may be the whole point. According to Catholic teaching a salutary life is only truly possible to those whom God predestines. So unless you are so predestined it is impossible to please God well enough for salvation.

Thank you for your transparency.

Having been exposed to Catholicism for 7 years, I can understand why your would have been under the thought of no hope for salvation.

That is mainly because in this area the Catholic Church deviated from the teaching of Jesus. They usually concentrate on how imperfect you are instead of how perfect God has made you through Jesus Christ.

Touching oneself is NOT a "mortal sin". As you so well stated, they are asking for the impossible. King David committed adultery and murder and yet was saved and was called "God's friend".

There is not such thing as one person is "predestined" and another is not. It is a violation of what is written. You can only come to that conclusion by cherry picking scriptures along with twisting them.

Salvation, very simply, is a gift and it is not of works or your perfectness. You simply receive it in your heart and by your words.

As far as "sex", it is a covenant act and a spiritual act. Abstinence is NOT a requirement of God. It is a man made requirement (Peter was married) and that is why the Catholic Church has so many problems. They made a man-made requirement that is impossible to fulfill by most people.

So, where would you like to go from here? You covered so many topics and each one can be extensive IMO

 

[Brian2]

Sex! Yes, we're going there.

Having put religion on a bit of a back burner, I have started to reflect on my religious upbringing. Looking back, I’ve come to realize that a great deal of the psychological and spiritual awfulness I’ve endured since adolescence is a direct consequence of Catholic sexual teaching.

You see, in Catholic teaching sex has one legitimate use. Procreation within marriage. Any sexual act not open to the potential of procreation violates natural law and thus carries the guilt of mortal sin. The Church teaches that those who die in unconfessed mortal sin will be damned to suffer the eternal fire in Hell.

Now, imagine a young man who has just hit puberty. He puts the teachings on sex and mortal sin together and comes to two beliefs:

1. It is a mortal sin to act upon one’s sexual desires (even by thought alone) outside of marriage. Even in marriage, one may perform only those acts open to the potential of procreation.
2. Mortal sin condemns one to Hell.

If you so much as entertain an impure thought for a second too long you commit a mortal sin. Goodness forbid if you ever touch yourself. Again that's a mortal sin and you’re going to Hell unless you go to confession and beg a priest for forgiveness.

From my teenage years on I’ve had little hope for salvation. I have been wrecked with guilt for most of my life because in Catholicism salvation hinges upon a quasi-monastic ethic of perfect sexual abstinence (called continence) that few actually live up to. (If you're single). Although to be fair, the married don’t have it that much better either. If you’re married but you’re not open to the conception of a child each and every time you have sex then you’re committing a mortal sin as well.

But the real outrage has been the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Had my parents ever caught me touching myself as a teen I would have gotten a pearl clutching lecture on mortal sin. Yet, how many Catholic couples (including my own parents) have after decades of marriage suspiciously produced only one or two children? Even as a teen the hypocrisy of my own parents and extended family here did not escape my notice. The whole system produces hypocrites because its demands are impossible. Although admittedly, that may be the whole point. According to Catholic teaching a salutary life is only truly possible to those whom God predestines. So unless you are so predestined it is impossible to please God well enough for salvation.

I was brought up as a Catholic. What you describe echoes some things in my past but yours sounds like a very strict version of what I experienced.
I have heard an old Catholic friend of mine who ended up becoming really staunch in his Catholicism (Latin Mass and all) and he sounded a bit like that in regards sex and my father used to call masturbation "self abuse". But sin was something that was accepted and having sex without conception was fine.
The priest are so used to people's confessions and sins that they know what goes on and no doubt are guilty of the same things.
As I say, yours must have been an extra strict upbringing and mixed with some teaching that was off the Catholic mark imo.
I have never heard of a predestination message in Catholicism. Maybe you misunderstood and what was meant was chosen to be a saint, like the people that are canonised in the RC Church.
I'm certainly not saying that I have nothing against the teachings of the RC Church however.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I can't comment as to sexuality and its expression apart from it being rather natural in my view (and have always seen it as such), and given that I probably found out as to the pleasures one often gets from sexual stimulation from about age ten, and even before emissions became an issue, I doubt such a natural occurrence should be condemned. Not that my parents ever talked about such vile things as sex of course - not done then I think.

But my first full sexual experience was with a rather nice 19-year-old Irish girl, and no doubt Catholic since she was raised in a convent. As we initiated our enjoyment I seem to recall some words as to whether this was wrong or not (possibly me doing so and it being my first time which I withheld from her). My reassuring her that I did not think so perhaps meant more to her than to me. Given that by then I had no religious beliefs at all and whatever we did was merely down to our morals and how such affected others. So I don't know as to how her education had affected her (especially as towards religion) but she sure was rather keen on having sex.

Such a naughty but nice sinner.

 

[Bathos Logos]

The whole system produces hypocrites because its demands are impossible. Although admittedly, that may be the whole point.

This is how much authority/rule-making works these days. Make the rules extremely heavy and difficult to live up to and hope for at least 25% adherence. Make them too lax and that 25% adherence you can expect is almost nothing. So they go overboard and hope that it gets rid of at least the worst "offenders".

And the Catholics chose a very difficult hill to climb here. Literally trying to control a person's bodily autonomy with these rules, when a person's body is intrinsically their own from day one. It's my penis... I'll do what I please with it on my own time, and let anyone else do as they please with it (all within the bounds of consent and reason, obviously) when sharing time. Who is there that should be able to argue with this? In reality there is no one that can do so rationally. They can only point to esoteric texts and threaten with unseen punishments that happen in an unknowable part of the future, and happen to an unknowable part of your "self" that they can only insist is there in the first place... and again point back to the same sorts of texts for justification. It's a racket.

 

[Glaurung]

I was brought up as a Catholic. What you describe echoes some things in my past but yours sounds like a very strict version of what I experienced.

My upbringing was strict by modern secular standards, but it wasn't exceptionally puritanical either. The difference between me and other most other Catholic kids was that I was introspective enough to actually look at Catholic teaching and realize its implications. That anything less than perfect chastity is a mortal sin. That if Catholicism is true then most people are going to Hell. Post Vatican II Catholics avoid this conclusion but you really accept what the Church teaches in regards to sin then it's a good bet that most are not going to make it to Heaven.

I intend to reply to others, but it's now very late for me so I see where this thread goes and add more thoughts as I feel necessary at some future point.

 

[Brian2]

My upbringing was strict by modern secular standards, but it wasn't exceptionally puritanical either. The difference between me and other most other Catholic kids was that I was introspective enough to actually look at Catholic teaching and realize its implications. That anything less than perfect chastity is a mortal sin. That if Catholicism is true then most people are going to Hell. Post Vatican II Catholics avoid this conclusion but you really accept what the Church teaches in regards to sin then it's a good bet that most are not going to make it to Heaven.

I intend to reply to others, but it's now very late for me so I see where this thread goes and add more thoughts as I feel necessary at some future point.

All Christians sin and is their faith is sincere in their actions as well as their thoughts and feelings, they are forgiven for those sins.
The need for confession to a Catholic priest is not part of the gospel and sins added by the Church (not going to Mass on certain days etc) are man made rules.
I guess I am out of the umbrella of the Catholic Church long enough to not be worried about all the things that it has said.
Some in the Catholic Church get pretty obsessed with purity and go to extremes to try to produce that in themselves. I think some of those things only hurt their flesh and do not produce the purity they are seeking.

 

[Glaurung]

Thinking about the issues of sexual morality I think I have come to something of a dialectical synthesis. That is that I think Christianity is largely correct to restrict the sexual act to marriage. A stable civilization begins with stable families and it is clear to me that severing the sexual act from the obligations of marriage has caused instability to the family unit which manifests as social disfunction in the society as a whole. I see the rise in illegitimacy as emblematic of this growing civilizational social disfunction that is only going to get worse.

It is not that 'sexual sin' is anything new in the human experience. But western civilization has chipped away piece by piece at its sense of sin for a libertinism that since the 1970s has resulted in tens of millions of lives being snuffed out in the womb. That allows for the most obscene pornography to be never more than a few keystrokes away which I have no doubt is warping people's ideas of what sex should be like in a way that is quite negative. I genuinely think that the decline in Christianity has made many in the culture morally reckless if not insane.

On the other hand, Catholic teaching in treating sexuality with a monastic absoluteness results in an often abusive inner world for those who take it seriously. How can one truly love God when one is taught that a sexual thought alone is enough to be eternally damned by God? To believe that masturbation or any use of contraception whatsoever is such a crime against nature that anyone who resorts to either will at death be hurled headlong into adamantine chains and penal fire?

The modern world is right to question if this highly reductive teleology is a rational basis for moral reasoning. That reductively classifying acts as either ordered and disordered is not an adequate way of viewing the complexities of human sexual behavior. Because it is not true that sexuality is nothing more than a reproductive function. The complexes of a celibate clerical class have perhaps created a view of sexuality that is as warped as the modern libertinism it decries. A mental tyranny where one is only a single act way from being damned forever. Is that really the good news of the Gospel?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Thinking about the issues of sexual morality I think I have come to something of a dialectical synthesis. That is that I think Christianity is largely correct to restrict the sexual act to marriage. A stable civilization begins with stable families and it is clear to me that severing the sexual act from the obligations of marriage has caused instability to the family unit which manifests as social disfunction in the society as a whole. I see the rise in illegitimacy as emblematic of this growing civilizational social disfunction that is only going to get worse.

Marriage perhaps is one form of stability in societies but this doesn't necessarily preclude there being other forms too - and equally viable - such as communal ownership of all sorts of things and marriage not necessarily being the sole form of child-rearing.

It is not that 'sexual sin' is anything new in the human experience. But western civilization has chipped away piece by piece at its sense of sin for a libertinism that since the 1970s has resulted in tens of millions of lives being snuffed out in the womb. That allows for the most obscene pornography to be never more than a few keystrokes away which I have no doubt is warping people's ideas of what sex should be like in a way that is quite negative. I genuinely think that the decline in Christianity has made many in the culture morally reckless if not insane.

I can't say I am enamoured with pornography, and I do agree as to its negative effects, but I suspect it is more about the technology available to any society as to what appears, and perhaps exists, and more down to other things, like commercialisation and politics than any basic changes occurring.

 

[Brian2]

Thinking about the issues of sexual morality I think I have come to something of a dialectical synthesis. That is that I think Christianity is largely correct to restrict the sexual act to marriage. A stable civilization begins with stable families and it is clear to me that severing the sexual act from the obligations of marriage has caused instability to the family unit which manifests as social disfunction in the society as a whole. I see the rise in illegitimacy as emblematic of this growing civilizational social disfunction that is only going to get worse.

It is not that 'sexual sin' is anything new in the human experience. But western civilization has chipped away piece by piece at its sense of sin for a libertinism that since the 1970s has resulted in tens of millions of lives being snuffed out in the womb. That allows for the most obscene pornography to be never more than a few keystrokes away which I have no doubt is warping people's ideas of what sex should be like in a way that is quite negative. I genuinely think that the decline in Christianity has made many in the culture morally reckless if not insane.

On the other hand, Catholic teaching in treating sexuality with a monastic absoluteness results in an often abusive inner world for those who take it seriously. How can one truly love God when one is taught that a sexual thought alone is enough to be eternally damned by God? To believe that masturbation or any use of contraception whatsoever is such a crime against nature that anyone who resorts to either will at death be hurled headlong into adamantine chains and penal fire?

The modern world is right to question if this highly reductive teleology is a rational basis for moral reasoning. That reductively classifying acts as either ordered and disordered is not an adequate way of viewing the complexities of human sexual behavior. Because it is not true that sexuality is nothing more than a reproductive function. The complexes of a celibate clerical class have perhaps created a view of sexuality that is as warped as the modern libertinism it decries. A mental tyranny where one is only a single act way from being damned forever. Is that really the good news of the Gospel?

That sounds right to me and I don't see the good news of the Gospel as something that says we are only a single act away from being damned or that we will need absolution from a priest to be forgiven.