My Current Thinking on the Church, Religion and Sexual Morality

[Left Coast]

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.

Same applies in the US. Most American Catholics admit to using contraception. (Gasp!)

 

[PureX]

@Glaurung I am curious about what you've liked about Catholicism. I mean what you found essential about it that related to your own faith in God.

Also, I am under the impression that there is a lot of variation in the way Catholicism is being understood and practiced from place to place, and even from congregation to congregation, around the world. That Catholicism in the U.S., for example, is being experienced and expressed quite differently from Catholicism in the South America. Or even from "red state" to "blue state" within the U.S.

I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic grade school, was an alter server, and so on. And I remember there being a quite lot of room for interpretation being allowed regarding how one might understand the biblical texts AND the Church's doctrines. Somehow it was technically 'unauthorized' to think for oneself, and yet was allowed, anyway.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe this is always going to be a problem. If I believe in orthodoxy then how can that be changed but if I believe in change how will I know the changes are correct. I had to leave a church because the orthodox view would not permit an alternate view and I had to leave another church because it was becoming apostate. At least the Baptist church I attend now permits my alternate views even though it doesn't welcome them and hasn't reverted to apostasy.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe the question is what difference makes it impossible to stay. I left my home American Baptist church because the pastor referred to it as catholic. I felt that was antithetical to what the denomination taught so I rashly left without seeking a remedy. Unfortunately I had turned down a dark road that leads to Hell without realizing I had done so.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe God is not in the business of accepting do it yourself morality.

 

[Glaurung]

@Glaurung I am curious about what you've liked about Catholicism. I mean what you found essential about it that related to your own faith in God.

Catholicism possesses an ancient continuity that stretches back to the early Church. It is the ancient Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire and civilized barbarian Europe. To embrace the Roman Rite is to embrace the heritage that built of great cathedrals and invented the university. It is to embrace an intellectual tradition that illuminated some of the greatest minds to walk this Earth. Catholicism is demanding in its moral rigor but it is also beautiful and profound. Or it can be, but since the 1970's the beauty and profundity of the tradition has been watered down. I have made no secret of just how much I resent that.

 

[PureX]

Catholicism possesses an ancient continuity that stretches back to the early Church. It is the ancient Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire and civilized barbarian Europe. To embrace the Roman Rite is to embrace the heritage that built of great cathedrals and invented the university. It is to embrace an intellectual tradition that illuminated some of the greatest minds to walk this Earth. Catholicism is demanding in its moral rigor but it is also beautiful and profound. Or it can be, but since the 1970's the beauty and profundity of the tradition has been watered down. I have made no secret of just how much I resent that.

But didn't those things happen because the message and promise of Jesus the Christ resonated as both true and hopeful to people? That the divine spirit of our creator exists within each of us, and that if we will allow ourselves to embody that spirit we will be healed and saved from ourselves, and can help others to do the same. Point being that Christianity did those those things, not Catholicism specifically. Catholicism aided that process, but it also inhibited it, as well. And still does. And so did and does the various other religious expressions of Christianity.

Religions are an organized human expression of a divine revelation and promise. So of course they will sometimes fail in their endeavor to aid that revelation and promise. And of course we will differ in our assessment of when and how that is happening. It's inevitable.

 

[anna.]

I believe the question is what difference makes it impossible to stay. I left my home American Baptist church because the pastor referred to it as catholic. I felt that was antithetical to what the denomination taught so I rashly left without seeking a remedy. Unfortunately I had turned down a dark road that leads to Hell without realizing I had done so.

Well, catholic small c means universal, so maybe he meant it in that way?

 

[anna.]

Catholicism possesses an ancient continuity that stretches back to the early Church. It is the ancient Christianity that conquered the Roman Empire and civilized barbarian Europe. To embrace the Roman Rite is to embrace the heritage that built of great cathedrals and invented the university. It is to embrace an intellectual tradition that illuminated some of the greatest minds to walk this Earth. Catholicism is demanding in its moral rigor but it is also beautiful and profound. Or it can be, but since the 1970's the beauty and profundity of the tradition has been watered down. I have made no secret of just how much I resent that.

Interesting that when asked what you liked about Catholicism, conquering and building and intellectualizing came to mind.

 

[Glaurung]

Interesting that when asked what you liked about Catholicism, conquering and building and intellectualizing came to mind.

Christianity conquered an empire that sought to destroy it. And after that empire fell, it forged a better civilization in its place. By that same vein I have a respect for Islam in that it accomplished a similar feat in building a great civilization of its own.

 

[anna.]

Christianity conquered an empire that sought to destroy it. And after that empire fell, it forged a better civilization in its place. By that same vein I have a respect for Islam in that it accomplished a similar feat in building a great civilization of its own.

Is that all the Church means to you? Conquering and civilizing and intellectualizing? That's all City of Man stuff. Where's the City of God in all this? What do the sacraments mean to you? The beatitudes?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

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.

Jesus was supposedly called out for being coddled, I guess. Judaism already had traditional worship and Jesus just poo-oooed all over it.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Fundamentally, I cannot accept a Church that despises her own past.

Then why teach repentance? You should feel sorry about sinning, right?

 

[metis]

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.

And that's an important point in general because it is we, not the Church, that'll be judged in the final analysis.

Catholic dogma in general is not considered infallible, which makes sense because even though the Church fathers and theologian did and do their best to interpret the texts, but anyone who been in scriptural studies well knows that it's an imprecise art. The item you mention about was developed by the early Church but was only based on one verse in Torah whereas one "spilled his seed" instead of following through with YHWH's demand for him to impregnate his wife.

The last survey I saw had it that over 95% of Catholics don't agree with the Church's teaching on that. Plus, as time goes on, conditions may change that may make a former teaching obsolete. An example would be the Church's gradual acceptance of the Creation accounts as being allegorical.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Interesting that when asked what you liked about Catholicism, conquering and building and intellectualizing came to mind.

Especially since Christianity didn’t invent universities

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Christianity conquered an empire that sought to destroy it. And after that empire fell, it forged a better civilization in its place. By that same vein I have a respect for Islam in that it accomplished a similar feat in building a great civilization of its own.

Imperialism and colonialism are sins imho.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Is that all the Church means to you? Conquering and civilizing and intellectualizing? That's all City of Man stuff. Where's the City of God in all this? What do the sacraments mean to you? The beatitudes?

There will always be those who choose Barabbas over Christ.

 

[Bthoth]

I believe God is not in the business of accepting do it yourself morality.

Morality is self imposed.

Your actions are yours to be weighed and measured, the variety of religions are just the scales.

Have the scales been created to be equally acceptable to all?

 

[exchemist]

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 think your examples illustrate that it is a bit naïve to suppose that dogma in the Catholic church is immutable.

Personally I see no reason to accept the ludicrous proposition that every piece of dogma must be infallibly correct, for all time, just because the church prays for (and then claims) divine inspiration for its judgements. There is a reason why papal infallibility, for example, is strictly circumscribed. In the end all dogma is mere human interpretation of what is thought to be God's will, and as such may well be discerned imperfectly from time to time. I think myself that @Glaurung 's understandable discomfort - which like you I share - over the church's approach to sexual morality can be approached in that light. I think a lot of it is just wrong, frankly. But then I have never bought into the notion that one has to accept 100% of doctrine or leave the church. I think that's ridiculous to expect, for any thinking person.

There are other doctrines and traditions that have not always been present. The tradition of priestly celibacy seems only to have become mandatory after the first thousand years of the life of the church. The practice of private regular confession seems to date from about the same period. So it does change over history, which is what one should expect. I don't see that this conflicts with the idea of divine guidance of the church's teachings.

 

[Glaurung]

Jesus was supposedly called out for being coddled, I guess. Judaism already had traditional worship and Jesus just poo-oooed all over it.

Temple worship ceased when the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70CE. In any case, your reply is a non sequitur. The coddling refers to Rome's duplicity concerning the rejection of Church teachings by liberal factions within the Church. That Rome, especially under Francis, has tolerated and even implicitly supported those who wish to undermine the moral doctrines Rome claims to safeguard.

Then why teach repentance? You should feel sorry about sinning, right?

Your reading comprehension needs work. What has your reply got to do with what was posted? You're not making sense.

Imperialism and colonialism are sins imho.

Europe's conversion was mostly organic. The Aztecs on the other hand had their destruction (and conversion) coming in my honest opinion. Christianity is better than an imperial cult of mass human sacrifice.

Is that all the Church means to you? Conquering and civilizing and intellectualizing? That's all City of Man stuff. Where's the City of God in all this? What do the sacraments mean to you? The beatitudes?

I obviously believed Christianity was true and its spread willed by God. I saw the greatness of Christian civilization as a consequence of its religion being true. I'm sorry if you think admiring Chartres Cathedral is 'man centered' idolatry. I disagree. Beauty and grandeur are part of the Catholic faith. Or at least they are meant to be.