Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Fidei Defensor]

Do you really believe that? Can you really read the Gospels and think that Jesus would send someone to eternal damnation for not assenting to a minor point of theology, which most people don't even understand or know about, because it happened to have been defined as "dogma" at some point in History?

 

Personally, I think the above quote has just as much value as the claims it makes about Scriptural and Early Church Tradition foundation for that dogma.

The point, though, is whether the Church has the authority to make the claim in the first place. I believe it does. I believe that it has the authority to say "if you deny X article or faith or dogma, you have removed yourself from the faith."

[Fidei Defensor]

It just generally seemed apt.  ''You'll gain more with an affectionate word than you ever would from three hours of quarreling. Control your temper." - St Josemaria Escriva

Extra points for quoting my favorite saint!

[AccountDeleted]

The point, though, is whether the Church has the authority to make the claim in the first place. I believe it does. I believe that it has the authority to say "if you deny X article or faith or dogma, you have removed yourself from the faith."

 

 

And since we don't know what what a person really believes deep in their heart (unless they actually announce it to the world at large), I think we need to bring back the Inquisition so we can get all these horrible apostates to confess their disbelief out loud, even if it requires a little torture.

 

Then with proof in hand, we can burn them at the stake  -- sorry, got a bit carried away, we can just excommunicate them or sue them if they call themselves Catholics. Whew! I'm so glad we have a solution now. I fell so much safer.  

 

NB: and for Peregrina, lest she worry too much  --- this whole post is JJJ  (Just a joke,Joyce).  :)

 

 

 

Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one sits on one's bottom.  ~Taki

[Fidei Defensor]

And since we don't know what what a person really believes deep in their heart (unless they actually announce it to the world at large), I think we need to bring back the Inquisition so we can get all these horrible apostates to confess their disbelief out loud, even if it requires a little torture.

 

Then with proof in hand, we can burn them at the stake  -- sorry, got a bit carried away, we can just excommunicate them or sue them if they call themselves Catholics. Whew! I'm so glad we have a solution now. I fell so much safer.  

 

NB: and for Peregrina, lest she worry too much  --- this whole post is JJJ  (Just a joke,Joyce).   :)

 

 

 

Humor is a reminder that no matter how high the throne one sits on, one sits on one's bottom.  ~Taki

I see your point, and I agree for the most part. However, if someone is openly saying they don't believe in "X" and they don't believe the Church has the authority to teach "X" as faith, that is a bit of a different story.

[Perigrina]

 
 
Peregrina - I like the idea of 'soft words' because 'a soft answer turneth away wrath' but we all write in our own style and so if the concept of 'soft words'  (Did I use that expression? I don't remember it but anyway, ok) is too 'touchy feely' for you, then perhaps you need to redefine 'soft words' into a phrase that is more acceptable to you. Your profile says that you try to keep from losing your temper and that you are striving for "orthodoxy, charity and humility" in your posts, and you ask us to let you know when you are messing up. So I haven't been trying to be inflammatory or offensive, but perhaps to suggest that there are ways --- and then there are other ways --- to express the same thing (or something similar) perhaps without causing quite as much pain.

 

If you are particularly searching for examples of unkindness in my posts however, to prove some kind of point, I am sure you will find many accidental ones -- but this statement, "More Catholic than the Pope." was not meant as a slur or in jest but as a question of fact to Credo (he and I had been having a back and forth personal conversation that was actually amusing (hence the emoticons)  but since his posts seemed to be insisting that there was no way to proclaim the Truth without it causing pain to the person, I thought about some of the speeches that the recent Popes have made about this, and it brought out my very valid comment about being more Catholic than the Pope.

 

I like the expression "soft words"  and the Scripture passage it is an allusion to. And I would be pleased if you would correct me if I am failing in orthodoxy, charity or humility.  But I need you to be more specific than saying there are ways to say the same things without causing as much pain.  What have I said that caused anyone pain?  I can't recall anybody saying that I have hurt him.  I have not intended to cause any pain. So it is pretty hard to know what you are talking about or how to improve it.

 

I was not searching for unkindness in your posts.  It leaped out at me.  You may not realize this, but "more Catholic than the Pope" is a very common accusation thrown at trads, so it is a bit of a button-pusher.  I thought that someone with as much time on the phorum as you have would have come across this before and realized what you were doing, but I should not have assumed this. 

 

 

I know that there are those on phatmass who feel that we are not being tough enough on the 'softies' of the Church, but our very own Popes have asked us not to focus on the legalistic side of our faith as much as on the merciful side. So my comment was not entirely out of line. No, it is not right to advocate things that go against the direct teachings of the Church, such as divorce, abortion, etc, but neither do we need to obsess (Francis' words) about these issues all the time and to judge each other because of them. Before Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to 'go and sin no more', he first asked her if anyone had judged her. When she said no, He then told that her neither would He judge her. THEN He told her to go and sin no more. So her first impressions of Him were of a non judgmental nature. She knew she had done wrong, but the fact that He showed her mercy and compassion before giving her advice - well, who knows whether she did go and sin again, but my bet is that she would have been much more likely to have wanted to please Him after He was kind to her than if He had stood over her and told her the 'painful Truth' that she was a sinner. His way was just a little more subtle. At least, that's the message I get from that story.

I am sorry that to some it seems as if things aren't as 'orthodox' on phatmass as they used to be, but we aren't here to focus on the legalistic aspects of our faith and use them to judge each other (and our visitors), but to support and love and encourage each other, and to provide an example of our faith. I am not saying the rules don't matter (Popes Francis and Benedict have both said they do matter) but only that we need not focus on them to the detriment of charity and mercy.  

 

Jesus said to us "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." John 13:35 

 

Concern for orthodoxy is not legalism.  Although I am sure you do not intend it, this is a very offensive thing to say. "Legalistic" is another hot-button word that it would be good to avoid if one wishes to be kind and loving.

 

I have not judged anybody.  I have not said that anyone is not a Catholic.  I have been explaining that the Catholic understanding of revelation and authority is an essential part of our faith.  

[Dr_Asik]

The point, though, is whether the Church has the authority to make the claim in the first place. I believe it does. I believe that it has the authority to say "if you deny X article or faith or dogma, you have removed yourself from the faith."

I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Apostolic Church of Jesus-Christ, and that it has authority to dogmatically define the core tenets of faith. However, in the case of the Assumption, I don't see how it is core to Christian faith, as manifestely most Church Fathers have not believed in that or at least not cared enough to write anything about it; there's no clear reference to it in the Scriptures; and I don't see either that it holds any necessary logical connection to any other core tenet of Christian faith. Therefore, I see the application of the category "dogma" to this idea as an abuse of the Church's authority.

 

Now it's always this slippery slope argument that if you can deny one dogma then you deny the authority by which all others are defined and you end up with your "personal opinion" religion. This is a bit silly. First, no one starts with the Church's authority as the basis of his belief. The basis of Christian belief is the belief is that God exists and that Jesus was raised from the dead. If neither of these is true, then the "authority of the Church" is nothing. As Paul puts it, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Then you have to believe that Jesus has sent Apostles to preach in his name with authority, and that this authority continues to this day through their successors. If and only if all of this is true, then it is true that today there exists a Church that has the authority to teach in matters of faith, in the name of Christ.

So, at a fundamental level, our faith is not assent to Church teaching, it's free, personal discovery of the risen Christ, that's where it all starts. That's where it started for Peter, James, Paul, and every genuine Christian since then. We then build on top of that basic belief that we need to assent to Church teaching for certain reasons, but because we understand why the authority of the Church is necessary, we can also understand its limits. If the Church defined dogmatically that E=mc^3, I think precious few would think that Christ actually wants us to believe that or else.

 

So why is the authority of the Church necessary? Because in the absence of Christ being physically there to explain the supernatural, if no one is invested with divine authority to do that, then no one can claim to know anything about it. And if we can say nothing with certainty about God and Christ and the Resurrection etc., then faith has no content and Jesus might as well not have existed. This means that some people (the Church) have authority to teach about what it means to have faith in Christ, but it also means that this authority doesn't extend to any arbitrary subject like science or engineering. But knowledge is a continuum with no precise boundaries between branches. It's unclear where theology ends and ethics begin. It's therefore equally unclear how far the authority of the Church extends.

 

Hence my position: just as human knowledge cannot be strictly divided into perfectly distinct compartments, so the authority of the Church cannot be a black and white thing where this falls 100% under her jurisdiction and this is 100% out. There are gray areas. Many would say that some moral teachings would fall in somewhat in a gray area, as ethics are part of natural human science and the Church cannot claim exclusive ownership. In the case of the Assumption, I would argue that this belief is quite peripheral to Christian faith, so there's simply no way that assent to that is critical to salvation.

Edited June 26, 2014 by Dr_Asik

[chrysostom]

I have not judged anybody.  I have not said that anyone is not a Catholic.  I have been explaining that the Catholic understanding of revelation and authority is an essential part of our faith.  

 

Indeed, but the original topic really does make it hard to pry apart what applies in principle and what applies to individual persons on this forum.  I'm not sure if it's possible on this thread to move forward from that.

 

Does the Catholic Church possess infallible teaching authority and is she the body of whom Christ is the Head?  If so, how do we identify the extent of what she has infallibly taught?  Is it necessary to have certainty about what constitutes the deposit of faith left us by Christ?  If the Catholic Church does not have infallible teaching authority then is there any reliable way to transmit or identify the deposit of faith? 

 

These and other similar questions are floating around and some good debating is happening, but there is a lot of discussion about showing charity that is fine but also making it difficult to do things like comparing premises and conclusions.  Is anyone interested in continuing the discussion in a more abstract manner on another thread?  Or maybe that would just clutter things up some more.

Edited June 26, 2014 by chrysostom

[Fidei Defensor]

I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Apostolic Church of Jesus-Christ, and that it has authority to dogmatically define the core tenets of faith. However, in the case of the Assumption, I don't see how it is core to Christian faith, as manifestely most Church Fathers have not believed in that or at least not cared enough to write anything about it; there's no clear reference to it in the Scriptures; and I don't see either that it holds any necessary logical connection to any other core tenet of Christian faith. Therefore, I see the application of the category "dogma" to this idea as an abuse of the Church's authority.

 

Now it's always this slippery slope argument that if you can deny one dogma then you deny the authority by which all others are defined and you end up with your "personal opinion" religion. This is a bit silly. First, no one starts with the Church's authority as the basis of his belief. The basis of Christian belief is the belief is that God exists and that Jesus was raised from the dead. If neither of these is true, then the "authority of the Church" is nothing. As Paul puts it, "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." Then you have to believe that Jesus has sent Apostles to preach in his name with authority, and that this authority continues to this day through their successors. If and only if all of this is true, then it is true that today there exists a Church that has the authority to teach in matters of faith, in the name of Christ.

So, at a fundamental level, our faith is not assent to Church teaching, it's free, personal discovery of the risen Christ, that's where it all starts. That's where it started for Peter, James, Paul, and every genuine Christian since then. We then build on top of that basic belief that we need to assent to Church teaching for certain reasons, but because we understand why the authority of the Church is necessary, we can also understand its limits. If the Church defined dogmatically that E=mc^3, I think precious few would think that Christ actually wants us to believe that or else.

 

So why is the authority of the Church necessary? Because in the absence of Christ being physically there to explain the supernatural, if no one is invested with divine authority to do that, then no one can claim to know anything about it. And if we can say nothing with certainty about God and Christ and the Resurrection etc., then faith has no content and Jesus might as well not have existed. This means that some people (the Church) have authority to teach about what it means to have faith in Christ, but it also means that this authority doesn't extend to any arbitrary subject like science or engineering. But knowledge is a continuum with no precise boundaries between branches. It's unclear where theology ends and ethics begin. It's therefore equally unclear how far the authority of the Church extends.

 

Hence my position: just as human knowledge cannot be strictly divided into perfectly distinct compartments, so the authority of the Church cannot be a black and white thing where this falls 100% under her jurisdiction and this is 100% out. There are gray areas. Many would say that some moral teachings would fall in somewhat in a gray area, as ethics are part of natural human science and the Church cannot claim exclusive ownership. In the case of the Assumption, I would argue that this belief is quite peripheral to Christian faith, so there's simply no way that assent to that is critical to salvation.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

 

I think your conclusion that the Assumption is "quite peripheral" requires further discussion, though that is for another thread.  

 

I would just point out, however, that her assumption into heaven makes sense as a divine gift rewarding her for virtuous and sinless life, befitting the vessel through which our Savior entered into his humanity.  It speaks volumes about the importance of Mary as the new "ark of the covenant" and her place as Queen of Heaven.

[AccountDeleted]

I see your point, and I agree for the most part. However, if someone is openly saying they don't believe in "X" and they don't believe the Church has the authority to teach "X" as faith, that is a bit of a different story.

 

 

Agreed with some reservations. There seem to be some areas where even Church scholars and theologians don't all agree (which seems good to me - it means there is thinking going on). But if we are talking about a basic tenet of the faith and someone is openly stating that they don't believe in it, then they might want to reconsider whether they can legitimately continue to consider themselves a Catholic. I don't think it's for us individuals to condemn them, but there might be ways of communicating with them that enquire about their belief without immediately alienating them?

 

I have a brother who is married to a Catholic woman, they raised the kids in Catholic schools, did all the right things, etc. He attended Mass with them and told me he even cries at the song 'Amazing Grace', and considers himself an 'honorary Catholic' (his words). He was raised agnostic, as I was, and yet he is very open to the the Catholic faith, so one day I asked him why he wouldn't convert and get baptized. He told me that he would like to do it because it would please his wife very much, but that unless and until he could agree with everything in the Nicene Creed, he could not, in all good conscience, make the statement that he does believe - so baptism is out for him (at this point in time). I consider this an honorable decision. He also told me that if one cannot believe in the rules of an organization, then one should not join it. 

 

So it's not that I don't see the point of absolutes, but I know that if someone like my brother is ever going to come into the Church, it won't be through quoting the Catechism at him, or even scriptural sources or patristic authorities. He is very much an intellectual and would debate every point and ask for proofs that don't always exist since faith is more than just reason. He will come because his heart is opened by God and the Truth is revealed to him in ways that his reason can accept -- and speaking from my own conversion, that change of heart came about by seeing the example of other Catholics whom I admired - a bit like Bl John H Newman saying he was waiting until he saw an example of a saint. 

 

I'm on your side in so many ways, but perhaps our approaches are just a little different?

[Fidei Defensor]

Agreed with some reservations. There seem to be some areas where even Church scholars and theologians don't all agree (which seems good to me - it means there is thinking going on). But if we are talking about a basic tenet of the faith and someone is openly stating that they don't believe in it, then they might want to reconsider whether they can legitimately continue to consider themselves a Catholic. I don't think it's for us individuals to condemn them, but there might be ways of communicating with them that enquire about their belief without immediately alienating them?

 

I have a brother who is married to a Catholic woman, they raised the kids in Catholic schools, did all the right things, etc. He attended Mass with them and told me he even cries at the song 'Amazing Grace', and considers himself an 'honorary Catholic' (his words). He was raised agnostic, as I was, and yet he is very open to the the Catholic faith, so one day I asked him why he wouldn't convert and get baptized. He told me that he would like to do it because it would please his wife very much, but that unless and until he could agree with everything in the Nicene Creed, he could not, in all good conscience, make the statement that he does believe - so baptism is out for him (at this point in time). I consider this an honorable decision. He also told me that if one cannot believe in the rules of an organization, then one should not join it. 

 

So it's not that I don't see the point of absolutes, but I know that if someone like my brother is ever going to come into the Church, it won't be through quoting the Catechism at him, or even scriptural sources or patristic authorities. He is very much an intellectual and would debate every point and ask for proofs that don't always exist since faith is more than just reason. He will come because his heart is opened by God and the Truth is revealed to him in ways that his reason can accept -- and speaking from my own conversion, that change of heart came about by seeing the example of other Catholics whom I admired - a bit like Bl John H Newman saying he was waiting until he saw an example of a saint. 

 

I'm on your side in so many ways, but perhaps our approaches are just a little different?

I do think we're on the same page. 

 

What it ultimately comes down to is honesty. If one honestly believes themselves to be a good Catholic, I won't argue. But I think that there comes a point where rejection of a number of tenants of morals and faith means that you can't in good conscience be called a Catholic anymore.  It really is up to the individual to be honest with themselves about it.

[Socrates]

I suspect this is the most likely case

 

That would be the obvious atheist position.  My post was primarily directed at those who call themselves "Catholic," but don't believe what the Church teaches.

 

 

I think the people whom follow the Catholic church but don't believe in its infallibility are following and associating with the Church because they mostly agree with its values and message. Similar to how other people follow non Catholic churches which don't make arrogant, fraudulent or delusional claims to be infallibly instructed by god. Because it is a best fit for them at that point in their life.

 

 

Because I think its religious claims are bs, I would never accept the LDS "church," even if I agreed with a lot of Mormonism's social values and such.  Ultimately, it's about honesty.

[Socrates]

(i.) The Church has actually been a great influence upon my morality. Before I returned home to Rome, I was a sex-positive proponent, I was ambiguous on capital punishment, I was very pro-choice, etc., etc. So please do not spout that venom off your tongue as if you know a thing about me.

 

Sounds like you're at least making some progress.  I'll keep praying for you.

 

(ii.) I feel like you people are hard of hearing. I have never claimed to be the ultimate arbitrator of moral truth, which is why I commonly refrain from imposing my moral beliefs upon others. Upon whom have I imposed my own ethics? I have never once said that my brothers and sisters cannot follow NFP and union of procreative/unitive in their own lives. 

 

 

If anyone can simply decide for himself which moral teachings to accept and reject, the Church's moral teaching has no real binding authority.  Every man becomes in effect his own little magisterium, which renders the real magisterium pointless.  (Please see my post on the previous page.)

[AccountDeleted]

I like the expression "soft words"  and the Scripture passage it is an allusion to. And I would be pleased if you would correct me if I am failing in orthodoxy, charity or humility.  But I need you to be more specific than saying there are ways to say the same things without causing as much pain.  What have I said that caused anyone pain?  I can't recall anybody saying that I have hurt him.  I have not intended to cause any pain. So it is pretty hard to know what you are talking about or how to improve it.
 
I was not searching for unkindness in your posts.  It leaped out at me.  You may not realize this, but "more Catholic than the Pope" is a very common accusation thrown at trads, so it is a bit of a button-pusher.  I thought that someone with as much time on the phorum as you have would have come across this before and realized what you were doing, but I should not have assumed this. 
 
 
 
Concern for orthodoxy is not legalism.  Although I am sure you do not intend it, this is a very offensive thing to say. "Legalistic" is another hot-button word that it would be good to avoid if one wishes to be kind and loving.
 
I have not judged anybody.  I have not said that anyone is not a Catholic.  I have been explaining that the Catholic understanding of revelation and authority is an essential part of our faith.

 
Unfortunately, you are taking things way too personally here, even when I try to lighten things up with a joke or two. And obviously my own posts seemed to offend something in you (push your buttons as you put it) so it might be a perfectly good idea for your own peace of mind if you just blocked all my posts, then you wouldn't have to read them.
 
I'm not sure I know how to say things any clearer than I already have about how we communicate with others in a gentler way but I am certainly not going to go through every one of your posts in this thread to try to 'prove' that you could have been more charitable or offer suggestions as to how you might 'improve'. You are the best judge of your own posts and if you feel that you have done your best so far, then who could ask for more? I have made my comments in this thread, not about any one poster in particular, even if I responded to some of your posts, but in general, as a theme. I wish you would take it that way. I just don't have time to respond to each and every poster individually so sometimes I respond to those that seem to help me make my point. And if you think that I am being continuously hurtful or offensive (which you obviously do), then for heaven's sake, don't use me as an example of how to behave! :)
 
As for 'pushing buttons' in the 'trad' (your word) crowd, well, blow me down! I have been a rad-trad myself (was member of an EF parish even!) and it didn't push my buttons to be called legalistic or more Catholic than the Pope because I made every effort not to be those things. It is an easy pit to fall into, to want everyone to think the same way, do everything the same way, etc. (humans like the sense of belonging) and there is an honest danger that some people can get so caught up in the whole letter of the law that they forget the spirit of the law. I just love that passage when the Pharisees are mad at Jesus for letting his disciples glean corn on the Sabbath. He told them that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. He wasn't saying don't obey the rules, just don't get hung up on them to the exclusion of what's really important. 
 
That's why I might use a phrase like 'More Catholic than the Pope" or 'legalistic' when it seems that things get focused on the minutiae like receiving on the hand, veiling, EHMCs, or even just judging whether a person should refer to themselves as Catholic if they don't agree with everything the Church says. I know these are perfectly valid debate topics, and there's no reason why we can't all have a little fun considering these things, but when it starts to get judgmental, and people run away because they feel condemned, that's when it seems a little out of line. But I don't recall calling YOU more Catholic than the Pope or saying that YOU are legalistic. If anyone can complain to me, it's probably Credo (or Tardis - did I call him a name too, I don't remember). 
 
And yes, 'the Catholic understanding of revelation and authority is an essential part of our faith.' You are right. But if you also read what I posted from Popes Francis and Benedict, you will see that even they don't want people driven away by the way we convey this to them. That's all. 

 

 

 

NB: Nothing to do with this thread but just a little aside to you Peregrina. I have a nephew who took things so personally in school than whenever the teacher would say something like "You're all in big trouble now!" my nephew would think it was directed at him personally. This made him so tense that at parent/teacher night the teacher discussed it with my sister and came to the conclusion that from now he would always put in a disclaimer. So then he would say something like  "You're all in big trouble now. Except for you, John." [not his real name] If you like, when I post about things here that might push some buttons, I can always use a disclaimer that says, "Except for you Peregrina!" What do you think?

 

Honestly, I'm not a bad person - I'm just drawn that way. :)

[superblue]

I am still looking for an resources that expressively dictates that Catholics should be running around declaring who is more of a Catholic than another in such a harsh and wrong manner,  quote scripture and church what ever ya like, but to be a giant hypocrite and labeling oneself as some kind of official super catholic and there by is qualified to go and rattle off links, scriptures, dogma, etc as if it is some check list an then shove it in someone elses face, is not going to do anyone any favor nor is it going to have groves of people changing their ways.

 

I am seeing how this is really nothing but one big game of grabby grabby an lets see who wears out first of being self righteous enlightened perfect " Catholic ".

 

Because that is what is really going on aint it, going to sleep at night knowing that one has as all these doctrines and tenants dogmas, etc at their finger tips along with the Catechism that backs up everything they say so that must mean he or she is really the better Catholic, lol because that is really what it is all about, lol nothing to do with what the priest tries to teach us during the homily, nothing about living a life in the imitation an likeness of Christ, it is just who knows all these rules and follows them perfectly, and lets forget about those who are not even Catholic because they are already going to hell, poor souls, all the millions of Muslims, Buddhists, Jews, Atheists , and the offshoots of the Catholic Church that are no longer follow the Pope, or any of these things being discussed, oh how doesthest they walk this earth awaiting eternal damnation unbeknownst to them and yay the enlightened ones you elites of the Catholic faith who have all this information at your finger tips can sleep easy knowing that you are walking in perfection  and trying your best with playing grabby grab online to say yes lord I dideth good I showed them I know everything and I tried to force them to believe me. I judgedeth them with the perfect resources at my finger tips I did good ! 

 

Gold Stars to all you enlightened ones, an keep up the good work at educating us poor poor souls who only hope to one day be as perfect as ye.

 

:notworthy:

 

 

and as for joining any Clique, id rather eat a bag of rusty nails than conform to any online Clique, let alone a real life one.

 

:o)  :harhar:  :proud:  :dance:  :tv:  :bananahi:

 

 

 

 

 

[mortify ii]

You know, if you never told me, I would never have known that millions of procreative cells are released upon male ejaculation! I have only been a male for 25 years and never realized what that was for!

 

(i.) Your notion that taking procreation out of the equation reduces sexuality to a base form of physical pleasure is blatantly nonsense. Emotional bonding is in no way, a base form of pleasure;

 

Thwarting the procreative aspect degenerates sex into a base act. Think about it, putting a condom on means I want the pleasure without the responsibility. I want to gratify my lower self, taste a moment of pleasure, but I don't want to enter into a relationship that would lead to another life sprouting. How about this, if you don't want to use sex for what it's meant for in a marital bond, then don't have sex! I know this will be shocking but guess what, you don't need sex! And if you feel you do, your passions are unbridled, perhaps from too much porn or decades of subtle sexual advertising. 

 

(ii.) The problem with your natural law argument is that there is no logical reason to jump from the fact that millions of procreative cells are released to that being sex's primary purpose. Sexuality is deeply tied to deep emotions, which is evidenced by the fact that homosexual couples are bonded through sex. The fact that sterile couples can still have meaningful relationships is proof that sexuality serves a fundamental purpose different from that of procreation. You are right that mere procreation is not meaningful, but you are wrong in that the unitive function is intrinsically good by-and-in-itself. It produces virtue in those who take it meaningfully, and the Vatican's vilification of the unitive essence is misguided.

 

 

No, *you* are the one that is misguided. We're talking about sex and not relationships. Sex is not about the emotions, if it were men would not have to worry about putting on condoms, but it just so happens that for every healthy male this act carries with it an unavoidable and intrinsically connected procreative aspect, so much so that active measures must be taken to reduce it the "emotional" experience you refer to. What does this mean? It means sex is a procreative act, and this is so not most of the time, but *all* of the time. Sex *is* procreative. If you like someone and want to "emotionally connect" but not procreate with them, then sex is not for you! You can emotionally connect by holding hands while walking in the park instead, or drinking a glass of wine while watching Friends. If you do decide to enjoy the pleasure without the responsibility, realize that you are *corrupting* what sex is, and in fact is no longer sex in a formal sense. It's no longer unative either, because deep down there is a selfishness rooted in fulfilling your own desire. So yea, stick to holding hands.

 

 

(iii.) I am offended by your insinuation that I am non-temperate. I am actually celibate. 

 

 

 

How long has it been, like a week? ;)