My Current Thinking on the Church, Religion and Sexual Morality

[Saint Frankenstein]

I've spent most of my time here as a defender of the Catholic faith. Nonetheless my commitment to said faith has varied in intensity throughout the years. From periods of commitment to periods of indifference. And while a back and forth between commitment and indifference is no doubt normal for every believer the overall trend for me these past couple of years has been one of growing disillusionment with religion all together.

Part of it has been my frustration with the Catholic Church as an institution. Liberal dissent is to be expected in the current cultural climate. But it undermines the credibility of the Catholic religion when the Church itself coddles that dissent. That coddling combined with the spiteful suppression of traditional worship is a clear indication of where the regime in Rome really stands in my opinion.

Another part of it has been my growing skepticism towards sectarian claims. My belief in the existence of a higher power as well as the continued existence of the soul after death hasn't waned, but the notion that this higher power has revealed a religion and has staked our happiness in the next life on the acceptance of that religion (which may or may not require divine predestination) is something I find increasingly hard to accept.

The irony is that as my commitment to religion wanes the more sympathetic I become to the liberal dissent I mentioned above. At least on issues of sex and sexuality. Which let's be honest is what the current fighting in the Church is ultimately about. The insistance on an ascetic ideal of complete abstinence makes sense for monastics, but it's downright cruel to require it from all who are unmarried on pain of eternal damnation. To teach a teenager that they will burn in Hell for eternity if they masturbate or even consent to a sexual thought is frankly deranged. It has probably screwed me up more than even I realize. And to teach a married couple that they must be open to the possibility of procreation with each and every intimate act on pain of mortal sin is also extravagant. There's a reason that teaching has been so ignored in practice even by the Church.

At the end of the day, a medieval teleology that reduces human sexuality to procreation is far too reductive. It probably does harm people. And yet I stand by my position I made clear in another thread that the Catholic Church can't part with it without undermining its claims to divine moral authority. It's as if the Church is buckling under the weight of its own claims.

If nothing else it will be interesting to see how things play out in the Catholic world going forward. If Pope Francis or his successor further entrenches a liberal drift within Catholic teaching and practice he will further undermine the notion of Catholicism as truth. If a conservative successor swings things back towards orthodoxy he will further commit the Church to an increasingly unpopular message in the world. Which admittedly does not matter if it's actually true.

Catholicism's sexual teachings are very unworkable and even cruel. It can and does cause psychological problems. But the Catholic Church doesn't really have any moral authority at this point. They've also changed doctrine before, like the 180 they did on "outside the Church, there is no salvation" in Vatican II, throwing out centuries of dogma on the matter. They also exclude Jews from being proselytized, violating Jesus' call to "make disciples of all nations". Then Francis changed the Catechism to make capital punishment totally impermissible, when that was never the teaching beforehand. So I guess it comes down to what your personal limits are. My limits with that Church are far since transgressed.

 

[Truthseeker]

So what happened? Imo, Christians should be adhering to what is in the Bible, not to what church leaders teach, which they can change according to the direction the wind blows. The Bible says that fornication, having sex out of wedlock, is a sin, and that applies tp Protestants as well as Catholics.

In a list of horrendous sins in Romans 1:29, the apostle Paul includes fornication, referring to all kinds of sexual immorality. Jesus mentions fornication in a list of corrupting sins that come from within a person’s heart: “For from the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, all sexual immorality [fornication], theft, lying, and slander” (Matthew 15:19, NLT; see also Mark 7:21).The sin of fornication violates the seventh commandment (Exodus 20:14), which was intended to safeguard the integrity of the family and the marriage union. God designed sex for marriage, and marriage to be a holy, prized, and honored institution. The Bible calls husbands and wives to keep themselves exclusively for one another or face God’s judgment:Read more: What does the Bible say about fornication? | GotQuestions.org

Besides al that I find this explanation interesting:

According to Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:18, sexual sin is unique in that it is a sin against one’s own body. This idea is linked to the teaching established in the previous verses—that believers are members of the body of Christ (verses 12–17). An immoral sexual union violates the believer’s mystical “one flesh” union with Jesus Christ (verse 15). We don’t have the right to use our bodies any way we wish because we belong to the Lord. Fornication runs contrary to our new nature and identity as members of Jesus Christ’s body. Paul goes on to explain that a Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, a holy place that belongs to Jesus Christ (verse 19). We have been redeemed by God for good and righteous works and not for sin (Ephesians 2:10).

I believe there is some truth to that. Aren't we members of Baha'u'llah body in a mystical way? Sometimes Paul makes some sense.

 

[metis]

Church teachings need to be understood, but the final decision as to what we are to believe and act is ours according to the "Catechism".

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe there is some truth to that. Aren't we members of Baha'u'llah body in a mystical way? Sometimes Paul makes some sense.

"This idea is linked to the teaching established in the previous verses—that believers are members of the body of Christ (verses 12–17). An immoral sexual union violates the believer’s mystical “one flesh” union with Jesus Christ (verse 15). "

No, I don't think “one flesh” union with Jesus Christ or with Baha'u'llah makes sense.

 

[Unfettered]

I've spent most of my time here as a defender of the Catholic faith. Nonetheless my commitment to said faith has varied in intensity throughout the years. From periods of commitment to periods of indifference. And while a back and forth between commitment and indifference is no doubt normal for every believer the overall trend for me these past couple of years has been one of growing disillusionment with religion all together.

Part of it has been my frustration with the Catholic Church as an institution. Liberal dissent is to be expected in the current cultural climate. But it undermines the credibility of the Catholic religion when the Church itself coddles that dissent. That coddling combined with the spiteful suppression of traditional worship is a clear indication of where the regime in Rome really stands in my opinion.

Another part of it has been my growing skepticism towards sectarian claims. My belief in the existence of a higher power as well as the continued existence of the soul after death hasn't waned, but the notion that this higher power has revealed a religion and has staked our happiness in the next life on the acceptance of that religion (which may or may not require divine predestination) is something I find increasingly hard to accept.

The irony is that as my commitment to religion wanes the more sympathetic I become to the liberal dissent I mentioned above. At least on issues of sex and sexuality. Which let's be honest is what the current fighting in the Church is ultimately about. The insistance on an ascetic ideal of complete abstinence makes sense for monastics, but it's downright cruel to require it from all who are unmarried on pain of eternal damnation. To teach a teenager that they will burn in Hell for eternity if they masturbate or even consent to a sexual thought is frankly deranged. It has probably screwed me up more than even I realize. And to teach a married couple that they must be open to the possibility of procreation with each and every intimate act on pain of mortal sin is also extravagant. There's a reason that teaching has been so ignored in practice even by the Church.

At the end of the day, a medieval teleology that reduces human sexuality to procreation is far too reductive. It probably does harm people. And yet I stand by my position I made clear in another thread that the Catholic Church can't part with it without undermining its claims to divine moral authority. It's as if the Church is buckling under the weight of its own claims.

If nothing else it will be interesting to see how things play out in the Catholic world going forward. If Pope Francis or his successor further entrenches a liberal drift within Catholic teaching and practice he will further undermine the notion of Catholicism as truth. If a conservative successor swings things back towards orthodoxy he will further commit the Church to an increasingly unpopular message in the world. Which admittedly does not matter if it's actually true.

Not sure what you're after with this thread, but I'd offer that the perplexity you're experiencing is understandable and common. There are answers and there is truth, but I cannot vouch that they're all found in Catholicism. If I knew that, I'd be Catholic. Nor do I understand that religion is the end-all, though I do espouse a religion. Nor do I understand that any religion is "the truth," though I do understand that the religion I embrace is true, within the context of "connected to the divine source of truth." I certainly don't understand that sexuality's only purpose is procreation, nor do I understand that much that is taught about sexuality and punishment and such in the various religions and sects is true, or helpful.

Anyway, I pray you find the answers your seeking, assuming you're seeking answers. Invite me to a thread if you think I might have something to offer on your journey. I'd be happy to post more here, but I'm not sure what this thread is asking.

 

[Truthseeker]

"This idea is linked to the teaching established in the previous verses—that believers are members of the body of Christ (verses 12–17). An immoral sexual union violates the believer’s mystical “one flesh” union with Jesus Christ (verse 15). "

No, I don't think “one flesh” union with Jesus Christ or with Baha'u'llah makes sense.

I was thinking in a mystical way, but on second thought it might make us equal to Baha'u'llah if we were mystically of one flesh. He is so much greater than us.

 

[Trailblazer]

I was thinking in a mystical way, but on second thought it might make us equal to Baha'u'llah if we were mystically of one flesh. He is so much greater than us.

Good point! And the same applies to Jesus.

 

[Truthseeker]

Good point! And the same applies to Jesus.

This being of one mystical flesh seems odd. I thought Paul considered Jesus to be much greater than the Christians, too. He is hard to follow in his writings, and at times appears to be inconsistent with himself.

 

[Glaurung]

Catholicism's sexual teachings are very unworkable and even cruel. It can and does cause psychological problems. But the Catholic Church doesn't really have any moral authority at this point. They've also changed doctrine before, like the 180 they did on "outside the Church, there is no salvation" in Vatican II, throwing out centuries of dogma on the matter. They also exclude Jews from being proselytized, violating Jesus' call to "make disciples of all nations". Then Francis changed the Catechism to make capital punishment totally impermissible, when that was never the teaching beforehand. So I guess it comes down to what your personal limits are. My limits with that Church are far since transgressed.

I remember listening to an online trad sermon which talked about how in traditional society boys were expected to be ready for the responsibilities of marriage by eighteen. (Sixteen for girls). Christianity's demand for abstinence before marriage would not have been that much of an imposition for most people in a world where most people only had to wait until their mid to late teens before being given a sexual partner. This is especially true if the onset of puberty was slightly later than it is today due to poorer nutrition. The wait between gaining sexual awareness and marriage would not have been not all that long. Heck the medieval rule (for minimum age) was sixteen for boys and fourteen for girls but the Church bumped it up at some point to eighteen and sixteen respectively.

But on to your wider point, I agree. While the flip-flopping on doctrine did not begin with Francis it has become rather pronounced under him. As I said in a couple of my posts in this thread, the Church under Francis is approaching the limit of what I can accept from a teaching authority that claims indefectibility. You can't ask me to accept that the Holy Spirit guides Francis while he reverses and contradicts his equally guided predecessors. He stacks the deck with liberals and disempowers conservatives and I'm meant to pretend there's no agenda.

You can't have it both ways. Either the Church's teachings are perennial and divinely guided or they're the mere changeable opinions of a man-made sect. If the latter than to heck with it all.

 

[soulsurvivor]

If nothing else it will be interesting to see how things play out in the Catholic world going forward. If Pope Francis or his successor further entrenches a liberal drift within Catholic teaching and practice he will further undermine the notion of Catholicism as truth. If a conservative successor swings things back towards orthodoxy he will further commit the Church to an increasingly unpopular message in the world. Which admittedly does not matter if it's actually true.

Yes, it will be interesting, but it won't be very pleasant. Soon, the conflict will be so intense that there will be a schism led by the conservatives who are convinced they are right. This division will be resolved only when the Christ Returns - then it will really get interesting!

 

[Left Coast]

Church teachings need to be understood, but the final decision as to what we are to believe and act is ours according to the "Catechism".

The Catechism does not permit Catholics to knowingly contradict the teachings of the Church. It explicitly says that judgments of conscience can be wrong and that conscience is not "autonomous" in rendering moral judgements.

That said, some of what it does say makes the subject confusing and many liberal Catholics have taken advantage of that to openly contradict the Church on matters of faith and morals.

 

[Glaurung]

Yes, it will be interesting, but it won't be very pleasant. Soon, the conflict will be so intense that there will be a schism led by the conservatives who are convinced they are right. This division will be resolved only when the Christ Returns - then it will really get interesting!

The conservatives are right. Liberal Catholics are heretics.

It would be catastrophic for the Church if Francis signs off on women's ordination and or a reformulation of the Church's teaching on sexual morality along liberal lines. If Francis thinks the Africans yet alone the trads and conservatives worldwide are going to countenance a Chruch that formally allows for the blessing of same-sex relationships (for instance) then he's delusional. I half suspect even Francis realizes that he has put his foot in it by calling this idiotic synod. He has implicitly promised significant change but should he deliver what his support base wants he risks a cataclysmic schism.

I'm not unsympathetic to the liberal cause when it comes to sexual morality. The Church's current teachings are hard to accept yet alone defend. But an 'indefectible' Magisterium suddenly reversing on a major point of faith and morals would be intolerable. No one would buy it. No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity could sincerely accept that the Holy Spirit has suddenly inspired the pope and the bishops to 180 on long established Christian teaching. On even biblical teaching.

 

[Trailblazer]

This division will be resolved only when the Christ Returns - then it will really get interesting!

If you are waiting for the same man Jesus to return to earth you will be waiting forever, since Jesus never planned to return to earth.
Rather, Jesus said that His work was 'finished' in this world and He would be 'no more' in this world.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.​

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.​

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.​

Jesus said that He had to go away to the Father so He could send the Comforter, and we would see Jesus no more.

John 16:9 I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.​

8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:​

9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;​

10 Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more.​

 

[Glaurung]

It will be catastrophic for the Church if Francis signs off on women's ordination and or a reformulation of the Church's teaching on sexual morality along liberal lines.

That said, I think women's ordination is exceedingly unlikely even under Francis. I think it's far more likely they will seek to open the priesthood to married men at least in certain parts of the world. Allowing for married priests would not only bring the Latin Church more in line with the eastern rites but the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox as well. Ending mandatory celibacy for priests is one of the few areas where I think liberal Catholics have a genuine case for change.

 

[soulsurvivor]

But an 'indefectible' Magisterium suddenly reversing on a major point of faith and morals would be intolerable. No one would buy it. No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity could sincerely accept that the Holy Spirit has suddenly inspired the pope and the bishops to 180 on long established Christian teaching. On even biblical teaching.

I don't understand how people can still believe that something that humans have created can be 'indefectible' or infallible. They must be aware of all the scandals that Popes and Cardinals have been involved in over the centuries. One Pope was even accused of incest. Do people think such leaders can be 'infallible' and be inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce an inerrant Magisterium?

The real test will come when the Christ Returns and corrects some of these teachings. I think many conservatives may even denounce the Christ.

 

[soulsurvivor]

If you are waiting for the same man Jesus to return to earth you will be waiting forever, since Jesus never planned to return to earth.
Rather, Jesus said that His work was 'finished' in this world and He would be 'no more' in this world.

Thanks for the information!

 

[metis]

The Catechism does not permit Catholics to knowingly contradict the teachings of the Church. It explicitly says that judgments of conscience can be wrong and that conscience is not "autonomous" in rendering moral judgements.

That said, some of what it does say makes the subject confusing and many liberal Catholics have taken advantage of that to openly contradict the Church on matters of faith and morals.

Maybe read the Catechism's statement on personal discernment as it's not that difficult to look up.

An excellent book on this is "Let Your (Informed) Conscience Be Your Guide", which is a Catholic source, as this was the gist of what the Catechism states on this. The book covers what's in the Catechism and how it fits into basic Catholic theology, and it covers what steps are necessary in questioning certain principles.

The bottom line is that the Church cannot make decisions for us as we are responsible for that. In the end, we'll be judged but not by the Church.

 

[Left Coast]

Maybe read the Catechism's statement on personal discernment as it's not that difficult to look up.

I've read the Catechism. What I said about it is accurate.

The bottom line is that the Church cannot make decisions for us as we are responsible for that. In the end, we'll be judged but not by the Church.

I didn't say anything about the Church "making decisions for us." What I said is that Catholics are not permitted to knowingly contradict the teachings of the Church. And that "conscience" in the Catechism is not a trump card in that regard.

 

[anna.]

The conservatives are right. Liberal Catholics are heretics.

It would be catastrophic for the Church if Francis signs off on women's ordination and or a reformulation of the Church's teaching on sexual morality along liberal lines. If Francis thinks the Africans yet alone the trads and conservatives worldwide are going to countenance a Chruch that formally allows for the blessing of same-sex relationships (for instance) then he's delusional. I half suspect even Francis realizes that he has put his foot in it by calling this idiotic synod. He has implicitly promised significant change but should he deliver what his support base wants he risks a cataclysmic schism.

I'm not unsympathetic to the liberal cause when it comes to sexual morality. The Church's current teachings are hard to accept yet alone defend. But an 'indefectible' Magisterium suddenly reversing on a major point of faith and morals would be intolerable. No one would buy it. No one with an ounce of intellectual integrity could sincerely accept that the Holy Spirit has suddenly inspired the pope and the bishops to 180 on long established Christian teaching. On even biblical teaching.

You must've found The Remnant.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Very few Catholics, in Europe anyway, slavishly follow the dogma of the Church, particularly on matters pertaining to sexual conduct. If they did, the birth rate in countries like Italy, France and Ireland would far higher than it is now.