Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[chrysostom]

I think there are a lot of people around who just aren't feeling very debatey right now.  It takes a lot for me to get off my rear and make two or three measly posts in this subforum.

[John Ryan]

John Ryan, what about those teens who are in the Catholic Church and have engaged in premarital sex, should they be scorned ? and how dare you once again suggest an opinion to insinuate that the Catholic Churches' teaching on sex might be wrong, how dare you have an opinion that does not go along with everyone else here, and I think it is high time that you sir be labeled phishy  we all know you are just faking being catholic come on now .  ** Pulls up my big boy pantaloons ** An I can say for certain you are phishy  because I do everything the Church tells me to do with out even asking why so there is my authority for doing so.

 

I am not a proponent of licentiousness. If people are in committed relationships and love each other, who am I to judge?

 

The Church teaches that sex has two purposes - procreation and closeness with the other.   There is no such thing as sex in and of itself without these aspects.  They are part of its nature.   It is wrong to try to remove either of these aspects from the sex act because that destroys its integrity.  

 

This is very different from saying that sex is evil.  It is saying that sex has an intrinsic nature that must be respected.  To violate the nature of sex is evil.  

 

I suspect that you can already see that it is wrong for there to be sex without its unitive aspect, to have desire for sensuality without any love or closeness.  Well it is just as wrong to remove the procreative aspect and for the same reason.  It is a distortion of what sex is meant to be.

 

I assent that sex without the unitive aspect is wrong, because it (a) degrades the other as an object; (b) treats sexuality as a mere physical sensation instead of something meaningful (in Freudian terms, there is no sublimation). I reject the Vatican's ideology, because it, by necessity, does violence to the unitive aspect of sexuality. It says that in-itself, the great love and emotional connection of the unitive sexual act is abomination. The love between the two is meaningless, and actually a mortal sin, if it does not include the procreative. It destroys any intrinsic value of the unitive in human sexuality. That is why I say that the Vatican ideology is anti-sex, because it denigrates the greatest essence of sexuality, which is love itself. 

[mortify ii]

I assent that sex without the unitive aspect is wrong, because it (a) degrades the other as an object; (b) treats sexuality as a mere physical sensation instead of something meaningful (in Freudian terms, there is no sublimation). I reject the Vatican's ideology, because it, by necessity, does violence to the unitive aspect of sexuality. It says that in-itself, the great love and emotional connection of the unitive sexual act is abomination. The love between the two is meaningless, and actually a mortal sin, if it does not include the procreative. It destroys any intrinsic value of the unitive in human sexuality. That is why I say that the Vatican ideology is anti-sex, because it denigrates the greatest essence of sexuality, which is love itself. 

 

So you love her but not enough to have a child with her, eh? Suddenly your post is reduced to what it really is, a pretentious paragraph that only ends up promoting the corruption of sex to experience a physical pleasure you've been trying to avoid. Did it ever dawn on you that at the moment of climax hundreds of millions of procreative cells are released? Does this not point to the fact that the procreative aspect is not only integral but primary, and that you thwarting the course of nature is a corruption of the act? Wake up John, you think the way you do because our minds have been blasted with sexual stimuli from a young age and we're mastered by our unbridled passions and pride. It takes a lot of balls to caricature our ancient and universal moral teaching as "vatican ideology" and then go on to reject it. Maybe some temperance and mortification would allow a little more blood to flow to the brain and you'd realize why this stuff is not silly but actually valid ;)

Edited June 25, 2014 by mortify ii

[Credo in Deum]

I assent that sex without the unitive aspect is wrong, because it (a) degrades the other as an object; (b) treats sexuality as a mere physical sensation instead of something meaningful (in Freudian terms, there is no sublimation). I reject the Vatican's ideology, because it, by necessity, does violence to the unitive aspect of sexuality. It says that in-itself, the great love and emotional connection of the unitive sexual act is abomination. The love between the two is meaningless, and actually a mortal sin, if it does not include the procreative. It destroys any intrinsic value of the unitive in human sexuality. That is why I say that the Vatican ideology is anti-sex, because it denigrates the greatest essence of sexuality, which is love itself.

No it doesn't! Who is Love? God is Love. What does God do? He creates, He unites, and He sanctifys. When is sex an expression of love? When it is open to Him who is Love itself and allows Him to work through it. When is sex not an expression of love? When it imposes limitations on Love's (God's) participation. Were you aware that sex -if done correctly- can be a means of obtaining graces from God?! If you didn't realize this then I invite you to think and pray about it. Maybe you will realize why the Church defends sex the way she does.

I would recommend reading: "Three To Get Married" by Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. Here is a link so you can read it for free, however, I still recommend buying a copy.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/MARRIAGE/3GETMARR.TXT

[PhuturePriest]

well I hear that. And honestly recently it has felt like sometimes it is just me holding the line against the dissenting mob on here ... real or not that's been my feeling a couple times ... which I have to say is not something I ever expected to experience at phatmass.

 

I appreciate it and am relieved when other people step up.

so thank you.

 

It's time to step up and burn heterodox fuzzies wherever they appear.

 

[PhuturePriest]

I am not a proponent of licentiousness. If people are in committed relationships and love each other, who am I to judge?

 

 

I assent that sex without the unitive aspect is wrong, because it (a) degrades the other as an object; (b) treats sexuality as a mere physical sensation instead of something meaningful (in Freudian terms, there is no sublimation). I reject the Vatican's ideology, because it, by necessity, does violence to the unitive aspect of sexuality. It says that in-itself, the great love and emotional connection of the unitive sexual act is abomination. The love between the two is meaningless, and actually a mortal sin, if it does not include the procreative. It destroys any intrinsic value of the unitive in human sexuality. That is why I say that the Vatican ideology is anti-sex, because it denigrates the greatest essence of sexuality, which is love itself. 

 

The Church teaches thus: The sexual act has two inherent qualities: Procreative, and unitive. If either of these is not present, it is sinful. That means if you are having sex for pleasure and are using contraceptives, that is sinful, as it is taking a necessary component (Procreative) out of the act. However, if you are having sex like robots simply to have babies, and it isn't unitive, that is also a sin.

 

Therefore your entire argument is moot. Yay theology.

[Perigrina]

well I hear that. And honestly recently it has felt like sometimes it is just me holding the line against the dissenting mob on here ... real or not that's been my feeling a couple times ... which I have to say is not something I ever expected to experience at phatmass.

 

I appreciate it and am relieved when other people step up.

so thank you.

 

Well I am here now.

 

[Perigrina]

I assent that sex without the unitive aspect is wrong, because it (a) degrades the other as an object; (b) treats sexuality as a mere physical sensation instead of something meaningful (in Freudian terms, there is no sublimation). I reject the Vatican's ideology, because it, by necessity, does violence to the unitive aspect of sexuality. It says that in-itself, the great love and emotional connection of the unitive sexual act is abomination. The love between the two is meaningless, and actually a mortal sin, if it does not include the procreative. It destroys any intrinsic value of the unitive in human sexuality. That is why I say that the Vatican ideology is anti-sex, because it denigrates the greatest essence of sexuality, which is love itself. 

 

I am going to try an analogy here.  Hang on tight.

 

If you wanted to cut off your arms for no good reason, the Church would tell you you not to do it and that it would be wrong.  This does not mean that the Church teaches that bodies without arms are evil.  There would be no problem with a person born without arms or a person who had good medical cause for amputation.  The Church is teaching that mutilation is wrong.  It is the nature of the human body to have arms and we must respect its wholeness.  This is not an anti-body position.

 

This is very much like the teaching about sex.  It is the nature of sex to have two aspects, the unitive and procreative.  Cutting these off is mutilating sex, destroying its wholeness.  It is the destruction of wholeness that is wrong, not that sex itself is evil.

 

Your position is like a person who believes that cutting off the right arm is wrong, but cutting off the left arm is OK.  It goes beyond that.  You object to protecting the left arm because somehow that takes away from the value of the right arm.  

 

As far as Church teaching goes, the unitive aspect of sex, In itself, is a very good and meaningful thing.  But so is the procreative aspect.  Removing either is wrong because it is a mutilation of the wholeness of sex.  When we say that removing the unitive aspect is wrong, that does not mean the procreative, in itself, is an abomination.  When we say that removing the procreative aspect is wrong, that does not mean that the unitive, in itself, is an abomination.  

[AccountDeleted]

I don't want to get into all the fine details of this debate because, frankly, I just don't have the time or the motivation but has anyone considered the possibility that not all of us come to the same conclusions at the same time, and that God can not only see the bigger picture, He can see the past, present and future of each one of us? The wonderful thing about being human is being able to think and to reason. Once we give up that freedom, then we face the danger of becoming cult-like automatons (even the Nazis claimed they were only following orders). Faith has to be combined with reasoning, and not everyone comes to their understandings in the same way, at the same time. Sometimes a person may want to believe something but face difficulties in doing so. Having faith does not necessarily mean to agree with everything - it means to trust that in following a certain path will get one where they want to end up, despite having reservations about the way the path is heading.
 
Yes, there is dogma and official Church Teaching, but sometimes a person just might not be at the point of being able to understand the reasoning behind a certain teaching, so they disagree with it (and I would hate to dwell on the whole sexuality issue here, there is a lot more to this debate than just sex, which is what it appears to have devolved into).
 
Not only that, there is already a lot of division in the Church that can cause even more confusion (rad-trads vs cafeteria Catholics and everywhere in between). From some of the things I have read all over phatmass, even I, a Church Militant and a postulant, am not really good enough to be called Catholic because I attend the NO and receive on the hand, and I am sure do a whole lot of other things that some people consider not really reverent or holy enough. 
 
What's my point? Hopefully, those who call themselves Catholic will continue to obey a teaching, even if they don't agree with it, but even if they aren't obeying at the moment, there is nothing to say that they won't come into a fuller understanding at some point in the future. It's a bit like children who might disagree with their parents ruling but they still obey it. But then sometimes they don't obey, but that doesn't mean they don't want to be part of the family anymore, they just have this need to assert their independence or make a statement or whatever the problem is at the time. Patience and understanding on the part of the parents (authorities) can avoid a complete disintegration of relationships in the family.
 
And yet what I am reading (or at least interpreting from what I read) is that you (no 'you' in particular - just a literary 'you') are a good Catholic,and you believe everything the Church teaches and you do everything the Church says (and maybe even more than the Church requires, because you are so reverent and so good) and you think that everyone else should do so too. That's great. But unfortunately for you, not everybody else is as obedient or faithful or holy as you are, and this upsets you, and maybe you even feel that it is your duty to show everyone else the error of their ways, and to convince them through your rhetoric that they aren't really Catholics unless they can be equally as believing and obedient. Of course this is only for the good of their own soul and has nothing to do with focusing on the stick in another person's eye - and if they can't be convinced, well then, they just shouldn't even be allowed to refer to themselves as Catholics. The only answer of course, is 'tough love', so kick them out of the family until the come up to your standards again. It's for their own good after all, isn't it?
 
Sarcastic? Yes, but it's what it sounds like here to me. It reminds me of the parable of the Prodigal Son, from the Good Son's point of view -- "Why wasn't that bad boy kicked out of the family? Why did Dad welcome him home like that - especially since I've been so good and he's been so bad?" 

 

The important thing for me is to remember that we are all sinners (even those of us who would like to think of ourselves as faithful to all Church teachings) so maybe the secret lies in Jesus' words on the Cross about forgiving them for not knowing what they were doing. Sometimes a person just honestly doesn't realize that they are off track (if they are) but do we seriously have to play cops all the time about other people's opinions or behavior? Wouldn't a little compassion, understanding, acceptance (of the sinner, not the sin) and love, go a lot further towards changing someone's mind than trying to overwhelm them with the 'rightness' of your position through words and scolding? I know, I know, it is for their own good, but honestly, I wonder if this kind of judging of others has ever borne any real fruit. Most people learn better from example than from sermons.
 
I like this parable... there are a lot of different interpretations around for it so I have put the commentary at the end of it. For me it indicates that sometimes we say we'll be obedient but we aren't or we act defiant and disobedient but then end up doing the right thing in the end. But only God knows the the reasons, the sincerity and the heart of the person involved. So let's not stop people from calling themselves Catholic for being imperfect and sinful creatures - where there's life, there's hope. And the fact that they still want to identify as Catholic, well, that might just be the lifeline they need at some future point in time (confession, last rites? who knows). God is patient with them (and us), I think we can be too.
  

Matthew 21:28-31
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
28 â€œWhat do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. 

 
There is much confusion in the textual tradition of the parable. Of the three different forms of the text given by important textual witnesses, one has the leaders answer that the son who agreed to go but did not was the one who did the father’s will. Although some scholars accept that as the original reading, their arguments in favor of it seem unconvincing. The choice probably lies only between a reading that puts the son who agrees and then disobeys before the son who at first refuses and then obeys, and the reading followed in the present translation. The witnesses to the latter reading are slightly better than those that support the other.

[Selah]

I'm sorry if you feel anger. I've been angry enough times in my life. I come here when the pope hits the news just to see how Catholics respond. Honestly, I don't see anything that makes me regretful of my own decisions but perhaps you are happy looking at me and thinking how you could have ended up differently.

 

Not sure how to be patient or kind, if I could be honest for a moment here, I've never seen anyone on this site actually practicing those virtues. Most people are viscious and impatient trying to pusth their own agendas and not listening to anyone else here. . And I post thinking I'm an outsider but really, are any of you friends? I see so much cruelty in posts here.

 

And then I forget and don't login for a year. And come back and nothing has changed. But when I post, a few go from attacking each other to taking offense at my words. And if this is Christian, then none of you have ever followed a single word of that Galilean hippy claiming to be god.

 

And I'm done.
 

 

*hug* praying for you

Edited June 25, 2014 by Selah

[Dr_Asik]

I think there's a line between "I assent to the Nicene Creed" and "I assent to all 2865 paragraphs of the Catechism of The Catholic Church which I have carefully studied and understood". If being Catholic means the latter then I think that there are probably almost no Catholics in the world.

[Perigrina]

No, it's not that. It's that I feel like I'm the only kid on the playground who doesn't fit in and is very unwelcome. It doesn't matter what I say or what I believe. I am not welcome here. And I get that, I'm not Catholic. And you have your little clique.

 

I don't think I'm smarter, I have my baggage like anyone else. But the moment I express my opinion, both sides descend. It's quite depressing because I'm told this will happen and then I tell them my friends it won't and then it does. :(

 

It has nothing to do with not being Catholic.  You come across like an angry person who is trying to pick a fight.  When you "express your opinion" it is most often an offensive rant.  I suspect that part of you wants people to get angry and be mean to you because that validates your view that Catholics are big meanies.

 

I started here less than two months ago. I know how this group treats new people.  There isn't a problem with this group.  It's you.  Not because of your beliefs, but because of the way you write.   There are non-Catholics who have been here for years and, from what I can see, who fit in just fine.

[AccountDeleted]

It has nothing to do with not being Catholic.  You come across like an angry person who is trying to pick a fight.  When you "express your opinion" it is most often an offensive rant.  I suspect that part of you wants people to get angry and be mean to you because that validates your view that Catholics are big meanies.

 

I started here less than two months ago. I know how this group treats new people.  There isn't a problem with this group.  It's you.  Not because of your beliefs, but because of the way you write.   There are non-Catholics who have been here for years and, from what I can see, who fit in just fine.

 

 

Even if someone appears to want others to get 'angry and mean' with them, it could be because they are actually looking for acceptance and validation. I didn't read into FS's posts the same things that you did, so perhaps we could give him the benefit of the doubt here?It's easier to catch flies with honey than vinegar, isn't it? As Catholics, heck, as Christians, we have an obligation to 'turn the other cheek' and to respond with love when we come across those who disagree with us. We all get angry and impatient when someone can't see our point of view, but FS has made some good points about coming here looking for some communication and feeling excluded. 

 

You say you started here two months ago.I have been on here 7 years and I can say there have been times when I have had to take a break due to hostility of some posters. We can all get alittle hot under the collar from time to time, but it doesn't hurt to try to treat each other (even non Catholics) with a soft word (it turneth away the old wrath) :)

[Perigrina]

I'm sorry if you feel anger. I've been angry enough times in my life. I come here when the pope hits the news just to see how Catholics respond. Honestly, I don't see anything that makes me regretful of my own decisions but perhaps you are happy looking at me and thinking how you could have ended up differently.

 

Not sure how to be patient or kind, if I could be honest for a moment here, I've never seen anyone on this site actually practicing those virtues. Most people are viscious and impatient trying to pusth their own agendas and not listening to anyone else here. . And I post thinking I'm an outsider but really, are any of you friends? I see so much cruelty in posts here.

 

And then I forget and don't login for a year. And come back and nothing has changed. But when I post, a few go from attacking each other to taking offense at my words. And if this is Christian, then none of you have ever followed a single word of that Galilean hippy claiming to be god.

 

And I'm done.
 

 

I try to be patient and kind and you have no idea how horrible I would be if weren't trying.  Do I succeed all the time? No. Being Catholic does not make people perfect.  I have seen many people on this phorum practicing the virtues of patience and kindness.  But I have not seen anyone who is perfect.  

 

You seize on our every flaw and mistake as if it proves we are not truly doing our best to follow Christ.  That just isn't how things work.

 

Also protip:  Don't complain about how people take offense at your words and in the next sentence refer to Jesus as a "Galilean hippy claiming to be god".  

[Credo in Deum]

I think there's a line between "I assent to the Nicene Creed" and "I assent to all 2865 paragraphs of the Catechism of The Catholic Church which I have carefully studied and understood". If being Catholic means the latter then I think that there are probably almost no Catholics in the world.

 

One does not need to study or understand something to assent to it.   A Catholic can say they assent to all 2865 paragraphs of the Catechism without having to understand each one.  In fact there are lessons in life when understanding will only come after obedience.  Plus It is irrational behavior to be suspect of everything, especially when the Church has proven Herself trustworthy in so many things.  It is perfectly rational to put ones trust in a credible person or Authority.   Without trust human relationships cannot last, and this is no different with our relationship with God and His Church.  She holds within herself mysteries of faith which can never be fully understood by the human intellect. 

 

Do you think Mary understood the Incarnation?  And yet what was her response? "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done to me according to thy word"--Luke 1:38.   What do you think would have happened if she said "wait, I am sorry Lord.  I can't assent to this if I do not understand it?"  Yet she didn't do this.   

 

Mary seat of Wisdom, pray for us!

 

 

Edited June 25, 2014 by Credo in Deum