My Current Thinking on the Church, Religion and Sexual Morality

[Glaurung]

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.

 

[Glaurung]

In retrospect, I should've put this in religious debates.

 

[JustGeorge]

Do you want it moved?

 

[Glaurung]

Do you want it moved?

Yeah. The post ended up more debate-y than I had initially intended. So I'm happy for it to be moved.

 

[JustGeorge]

**Moved to Religious Debates**​

 

[Link]

Too fast JustGeorge.

 

[anna.]

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.

Synods & Sophistry: Some Thoughts

It's more on how do we deal with people who may violate various teachings or even commit horrendous crimes? Sure, I know many Catholics who put this spin on it and I understand your position. But quite honestly, this DOES seem to me to be a case where the pope is wanting to change the moral...

www.religiousforums.com

You didn’t reply to my post to you in the other thread, which was pretty similar to this one. I too am a Catholic with many doubts that I haven’t worked through, so I’d be interested in your reply. If it’s not something you want to hash over with another Catholic perhaps this is more that you‘re ready to leave Catholicism and aren’t interested in a reason to stay. If so, I’d be interested to hear about that.

 

[JustGeorge]

Too fast JustGeorge.

I deleted mine.

 

[Link]

I deleted mine.

Nice, thanks!

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Thanks for being so transparent about your internal struggle with these issues. I sympathize with not being able to reconcile the Church's sexual ethics with other elements that I appreciate.

 

[Glaurung]

You didn’t reply to my post to you in the other thread, which was pretty similar to this one. I too am a Catholic with many doubts that I haven’t worked through, so I’d be interested in your reply. If it’s not something you want to hash over with another Catholic perhaps this is more that you‘re ready to leave Catholicism and aren’t interested in a reason to stay. If so, I’d be interested to hear about that.

---

I don't know how long you've been a Catholic, whether you're a convert, or remember VII, or know the histories of the bad popes, so I'm lacking your context when you say (in effect) that Pope Francis is the catalyst or the maybe the final straw on your faith's back. If you'd like to provide context that would be helpful, but if not I still think the following will help, and maybe knowing that you aren't the only one who struggles, you're a member of a very large crowd.

Fundamentally, I cannot accept a Church that despises her own past. I don't want a Christianity liable to 'updates'. Heretofore the Catholic Church has not yet sold out to secular modernity but under Francis my confidence that she will hold the line has been deeply shaken. It is bad enough that the Church bowdlerized her ancient liturgy (I will always remember Benedict XVI with deep affection) but for the Church to suddenly claim that what she has always taught before is no longer suitable for our times is beyond what I will be willing to accept.

Francis hasn't yet crossed that line. But he has empowered those who do wish to cross it. I haven't left Catholicism because I still have hope that the Holy Spirit will prevent Francis and the liberal prelates from crossing the line into outright heresy. (As the German Church already has). But if they do use the synod as a pretext to cross it then I don't see how the claims of the Catholic faith could be salvaged. A Church that one-eighties on women's ordination and sexual ethics cannot credibly claim an indefectible divine authority.

A saintly, orthodox successor to Francis will do much to restore my confidence in the Catholic religion. Let's pray that happens.

 

[anna.]

---

Fundamentally, I cannot accept a Church that despises her own past. I don't want a Christianity liable to 'updates'. Heretofore the Catholic Church has not yet sold out to secular modernity but under Francis my confidence that she will hold the line has been deeply shaken. It is bad enough that the Church bowdlerized her ancient liturgy (I will always remember Benedict XVI with deep affection) but for the Church to suddenly claim that what she has always taught before is no longer suitable for our times is beyond what I will be willing to accept.

Francis hasn't yet crossed that line. But he has empowered those who do wish to cross it. I haven't left Catholicism because I still have hope that the Holy Spirit will prevent Francis and the liberal prelates from crossing the line into outright heresy. (As the German Church already has). But if they do use the synod as a pretext to cross it then I don't see how the claims of the Catholic faith could be salvaged. A Church that 180's on women's ordination and sexual ethics cannot credibly claim indefectible divine authority.

A saintly, orthodox successor to Francis will do much to restore my confidence in the Catholic religion. Let's pray that happens.

You're better off not being Catholic, then, because you've placed your faith on the ability of one man who isn't Christ but was chosen and is guided by the Holy Spirit (remember, you're Catholic). If you didn't think the Church "bowdlerized her ancient liturgy" via Vatican II then I don't know what your definition of bowdlerized can possibly be. If you aren't shaken by the priest sex crime scandals - if that wasn't an impediment to your faith, but Francis allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion is - then again, perhaps your faith has been misplaced all along. If you haven't left Catholicism in spite of the "liberal prelates" (never mind the historically corrupt ones, right?), you could always join the sedevacantists and declare that all the popes who don't pass muster are invalid, and the True Church™ is where you sit, not where the pope sits.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..................................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.

I saw on Story TV an account about the Pope in 1968 referring to a letter from 1917 that mentioned what looked like the end of the popes.
To me the scene was something like the coming Great Tribulation found at Revelation 7:14.
I say this because the time is coming when the powers in charge will be saying, " Peace and Security...." (1st Thess. 5:2-3) but that Rosy saying will prove to be the precursor to the coming Great Tribulation because the political will surprisingly turn on the religious world starting with those who profess to follow Jesus.

 

[mangalavara]

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.

If Catholicism is your spiritual home (is it?) yet you find it hard to accept a sectarian type of religion or institution, perhaps Folk Catholicism might be worth looking into? Just a thought…

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.

This is one reason that I am not a member of the Catholic Church. As you said, they reduce human sexuality to procreation, which is too reductive and simplistic.

 

[Glaurung]

You're better off not being Catholic, then, because you've placed your faith on the ability of one man who isn't Christ but was chosen and is guided by the Holy Spirit (remember, you're Catholic).

I have little faith in Francis. It is clear that he wishes to cement a liberal drift in Catholic practice. It is also clear that he harbors deep animosity towards those attached to traditional forms of worship.

If you didn't think the Church "bowdlerized her ancient liturgy" via Vatican II then I don't know what your definition of bowdlerized can possibly be.

I do think the Mass of Paul VI is aesthetically inferior to the Tridentine Mass. I do accept that the actual practice of the old liturgy did need reform.
Nonetheless the cultivated sprit of intentional aesthetic mediocrity that dominated my experience of Catholic worship growing up in the 90's and 00's was and is a travesty. I deeply resent the philistinism that banished Latin, smashed the high altars, removed the communion rails, tossed away the organ for the guitar and replaced chant with 1970's pabulum.

If you aren't shaken by the priest sex crime scandals - if that wasn't an impediment to your faith, but Francis allowing divorced and remarried Catholics to receive Communion is - then again, perhaps your faith has been misplaced all along.

I'm sure you know Our Lord is quoted in Scripture teaching that remarriage after a divorce constitutes adultery. The Church has always taught that presenting yourself for communion while conscious of mortal sin is a sacrilege. Scripture itself teaches this clearly. 1 Corinthians 11:27

To be fair though, how many go to confession before presenting themselves to communion? How many Catholics are even aware of the existence of mortal sin?

the True Church™ is where you sit, not where the pope sits.

If Francis were to open the doors for the ordination of women into Holy Orders, would you accept that a valid development? Or would you call a spade a spade and accept that he's contradicting even his immediate predecessors. The pope's authority cannot be so unlimited that Catholicism becomes little more than a doctrine of papal voluntarism. The truth being whatever any given pope decrees at any given moment. There must come a point where reason protests.

 

[anna.]

I have little faith in Francis. It is clear that he wishes to cement a liberal drift in Catholic practice. It is also clear that he harbors deep animosity towards those attached to traditional forms of worship.

I do think the Mass of Paul VI is aesthetically inferior to the Tridentine Mass. I do accept that the actual practice of the old liturgy did need reform.
Nonetheless the cultivated sprit of intentional aesthetic mediocrity that dominated my experience of Catholic worship growing up in the 90's and 00's was and is a travesty. I deeply resent the philistinism that banished Latin, smashed the high altars, removed the communion rails, tossed away the organ for the guitar and replaced chant with 1970's pabulum.

Okay, it's clear then, that you didn't live through Vatican II. I did, although I was very young. While I understand what you're saying (I went through my own trad-leaning years in my 40s), we could go off into a whole tangent about liturgical issues and I want to keep this simple, at least for now. The Church is the Church is the Church and if it's a valid Mass, then the sacraments are what you go for. If you lose sight of that, you've lost everything. If you listen to the whisper in your ear that says, for example, that the Novus Ordo isn't a valid Mass, you've lost the Catholic plot and thrown in with the sedevacantists who will always be outside the door where they choose to be. There are good Masses to be found. You can do what I did and drive a half hour or hour to get to a good one. You can complain all the way, but you'll be at a church that suits you. Find a diocesan Tridentine, or a shrine or abbey with a more aesthetically pleasing Mass, but don't look down your nose at the plain people who get up and go to their local parish for Mass, Sunday after Sunday.

I'm sure you know Our Lord is quoted in Scripture teaching that remarriage after a divorce constitutes adultery. The Church has always taught that presenting yourself for communion while conscious of mortal sin is a sacrilege. Scripture itself teaches this clearly. 1 Corinthians 11:27

To be fair though, how many go to confession before presenting themselves to communion? How many Catholics are even aware of the existence of mortal sin?

The Church has always taught. Yep. The Church will always teach. The only consciences we should be concerning ourselves with are our own. The minute we start speculating about other Catholics, we're the Pharisee of Luke 18:11.

If Francis were to open the doors for the ordination of women into Holy Orders, would you accept that a valid development? Or would you call a spade a spade and accept that he's contradicting even his immediate predecessors. The pope's authority cannot be so unlimited that Catholicism becomes little more than a doctrine of papal voluntarism. The truth being whatever any given pope decrees at any given moment. There must come a point where reason protests.

Yes I would. For the reason I stated earlier. If you are a Catholic, you accept that the Holy Spirit guided the choice of Pope Francis and that's good enough for me. I know an order provincial who said to me years ago that the Church would probably end up ordaining married priests at least because there simply weren't enough priests to go around. His order's priests were overwhelmingly elderly and there weren't enough young ones to take their place. I know another priest in another country who had a parish so large it had multiple chapels scattered throughout and he would go to one at a time, Sunday to Sunday, and in the intervening weeks there was no Mass for the people at the other chapels, who had no cars and had to walk. Having multiple Mass options is a privilege not afforded to much of the world.

When you get to the point that reason protests enough to disown the Pope, so to speak, then maybe you'd like to check out (or reread) Fides et Ratio.

I'm not trying to be harsh here, it's just that I've lived through all of this and nearly lost my faith entirely, so what you're saying is all too familiar. Not only for myself but for the trads I used to talk to. I haven't got that faith back yet, either, but this year I made a reasoned decision to keep going to Mass and to say "Lord, I believe. Please help my unbelief." The Mass I go to isn't sublime, but it's Mass. I do have other churches I can visit where the experience is more emotional, but I remind myself it's not simply about emotion. It can be easy to expect that the Mass must do certain things for us and when it doesn't, it disappoints.

 

[Echogem222]

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.

Maybe I'm reading into this post the wrong way, but you did have the world "religion" in your title, which implies all religion (And you also mentioned this part: "growing disillusionment with religion all together"). So, I'm writing this reply with the assumption that you are willing to debate about that.

Anyway, though there are a lot of religions out there which are similar to Catholicism (like religions with God or Gods in them), not all religions are like that, or even remotely similar to Catholicism in other ways. My religion (Flawlessism) for example, teaches faith through using educated critical thinking skills, it's both a religion and a philosophy, because of this, it can be developed by anyone with the right skillset (so not a prophet or something equal to that), it can also be corrected by anyone with the right skillset if mistakes are made and pointed out. It has about a six-year history of it being developed through trial and error, so there's a lot of reasonability to it because of the mistakes that were made and learned from.

I'm fairly certain that you don't know of my religion (because it's new compared to other religions anyway), but if that sounded like a religion you would still have an issue with, I would like to know your reasons why, and why you would reject all other religions as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

The insistence 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.

I am not familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church so I was not aware that the Church requires abstinence for all who are unmarried with the threat of eternal damnation. I thought that confession is supposed to remove one's sins so one does not go to hell.

Although I do not approve of either of these acts, I think it is rather absurd to say someone is going to burn in hell for having sex out of wedlock or for masturbation.

The Catholic Church is not requiring complete abstinence, it is only saying that sex should only be allowed within marriage. I agree. I believe that sex should only be allowed in marriage and I think that many societal problems are the result of sex outside of marriage. That is the understatement of the year. Statistics show that most abortions are the result of sex out of wedlock and many broken marriages are the result of adultery. Broken marriages result in broken families and divorce and children end of paying for the selfish acts of their parents.

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.

And so what you are saying is that the Catholic Church is still using the rhythm method? I do not think sex should be limited within marriage and I think birth control should be used because the alternative is unwanted pregnancies which often leads to abortions.

At the end of the day, a medieval teleology that reduces human sexuality to procreation is far too reductive. It probably does harm people.

I do not believe that sex should be limited to procreation, but I believe that it should be limited.
The following quote represents what I believe, according to my religion.

'The Bahá’í Faith recognizes the value of the sex impulse, but condemns its illegitimate and improper expressions such as free love, companionate marriage and others, all of which it considers positively harmful to man and to the society in which he lives. The proper use of the sex instinct is the natural right of every individual, and it is precisely for this very purpose that the institution of marriage has been established. The Bahá’ís do not believe in the suppression of the sex impulse but in its regulation and control.'”

Lights of Guidance/Chastity and Sex Education - Bahaiworks, a library of works about the Bahá’í Faith

 

[Glaurung]

I am not familiar with the teachings of the Catholic Church so I was not aware that the Church requires abstinence for all who are unmarried with the threat of eternal damnation. I thought that confession is supposed to remove one's sins so one does not go to hell.

The Catholic faith teaches that any consent to sexual desire (in act or thought) outside of married coitus open to procreation constitutes a mortal sin. Confession removes the guilt of mortal sin but should you die in mortal sin without having gone to confession you will go to Hell save for an act of perfect contrition.

Although I do not approve of either of these acts, I think it is rather absurd to say someone is going to burn in hell for having sex out of wedlock or for masturbation.

To be fair to the Catholic Church, all of Christianity taught this until very recently.

The Catholic Church is not requiring complete abstinence, it is only saying that sex should only be allowed within marriage. I agree. I believe that sex should only be allowed in marriage and I think that many societal problems are the result of sex outside of marriage. That is the understatement of the year. Statistics show that most abortions are the result of sex out of wedlock and many broken marriages are the result of adultery. Broken marriages result in broken families and divorce and children end of paying for the selfish acts of their parents.

It does require complete abstinence, unless you're married and open to procreation. But to your wider point I think there's a false dichotomy between libertinism and puritanism. Sexual irresponsibility does cause problems. Yet to require people to completely deny their sexual feelings on pain to eternal torment is psychologically damaging. If human concupiscence is so offensive to God that it warrants eternal punishment in his eyes, why give us such a powerful sexual instinct to begin with?

And so what you are saying is that the Catholic Church is still using the rhythm method? I do not think sex should be limited within marriage and I think birth control should be used because the alternative is unwanted pregnancies which often leads to abortions.

The Catholic faith teaches that the possibility of procreation is inherent to the sexual act. To separate sex from the possibility of procreation is to use the sexual faculty in an unnatural way. This does not mean you have to intend to procreate each time you have sex. You don't even have to be fertile. You just can't intentionally destroy the potential for procreation. In this teleological view of sex, contraception and non-procreative acts violate natural law. The purpose and intentionality imbued within creation.

 

[Trailblazer]

To be fair to the Catholic Church, all of Christianity taught this until very recently.

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​

Sexual irresponsibility does cause problems. Yet to require people to completely deny their sexual feelings on pain to eternal torment is psychologically damaging. If human concupiscence is so offensive to God that it warrants eternal punishment in his eyes, why give us such a powerful sexual instinct to begin with?

Once, a number of years ago, a Baha'i friend of mine who owned a forum posted a post that addressed that, and it made perfect sense to me. I liked his post so much I asked him if I could post it elsewhere and he gave me permission. Here is the part of his post that addressed that question.

"God is calling us to struggle against our lower nature and to become who we truly are: not material beings, not sexual beings, but spiritual beings who are in control of the physical side of our nature and who can thus find true happiness living in conformity with His will. Although not scriptural, there is a possible explanation of why He has made it so hard that I ran across long ago in a Baha'i children's book: Because if it were too easy, it wouldn't be worth anything. Or put another way, because only by being challenged can we really prove our love for God."

The Catholic faith teaches that the possibility of procreation is inherent to the sexual act. To separate sex from the possibility of procreation is to use the sexual faculty in an unnatural way. This does not mean you have to intend to procreate each time you have sex. You don't even have to be fertile. You just can't intentionally destroy the potential for procreation. In this teleological view of sex, contraception and non-procreative acts violate natural law. The purpose and intentionality imbued within creation.

Unless that is explicitly stated in the Bible I don't think the Catholic Church has the authority to say that any sex that doesn't allow for the possibility of procreation is unnatural and should be disallowed. I agree that sex is primarily for procreation, but in marriage it is also for bonding. To quote my Baha'i friend again:

"Sex is primarily about reproduction. That's why it even exists in the first place. It's a biological mechanism that increases diversity in the gene pool, for one thing. Its role in relationships in some species is a secondary role, not the primary one, which evolved much later."

Imo, there are couples who should not have children, for psychological reasons, not the least of which that they came from dysfunctional families and never learned what they would need to know to be a good parent. There are also couples who cannot afford to raise children. It is not responsible to have children unless you are prepared to give them what they need, emotionally and materially. I don't think this should mean that those married couples should not have sex. Admittedly, I am somewhat biased, since I was married for 37 years and never had any children. I was widowed last year, and it is sad for me that I am all alone since I never had any children, but I will always know that I did the responsible thing, since neither my husband or myself were psychologically prepared to have children. It was a struggle for both of us just to get through life.