Sin, Judging Others & the Sex Revolution
When a journalist asked Pope John Paul II for his response regarding Catholics who reject Church teachings, he told the journalist when children go off and disobey what their has taught, a father does not love them any less.
Now more than ever, we need to reinforce the teaching: as you judge so shall you be judged. This means that if you judge another without compassion, you will be judged without compassion. If you judge another without love, you will be judged without love. Judging others is a very, very dangerous thing, and it's critial to ask God for His forgiveness and His help on this matter.
There is a reason why God said judgment and vengeance belonged to Him. We do not have the comprehensive understanding necessary. We don't have all of the knowledge necessary to judge others fairly. Even the menial sins are dangerous. I don't know if you have ever been judged based on lies or ignorance, but it is a very painful experience. Such an experience may tempt a person to judge someone else thus multiplying the problem. Without stopping to think, "Does this statement contain any judgmental words," it may be easy to do at times, especially when surrounded by unkind words.
It is okay to say that certain actions are not in compliance with Church teachings. It is not okay to judge another based on a given set of circumstances. It is okay to say that lying is wrong but, even when a person lies it is not okay to call him a liar. Do we understand what we are doing when we judge others without ALL of the facts? The Church teaches that we are all guilty of sin for what we have done and/or what we have failed to do. I don't use the term sinner because it's too easy to use the word to judge others, while leaving people with the impression that I am not guilty of sin. We have failed to stop racism. We have failed to stop violence. We have failed to stop hatred. Clearly we are all guilty of sin, not the least of which is a lack of faith in God and a lack of faith in our ability to stop sin with God's help and God’s grace.
A wise man once taught me it's a mistake to consider any point in time as a final summation. As I understand it, telling someone that he should be or will be condemned to hell is not in compliance with Church teachings.
As for the sex revolution, if it has convinced people that they're missing out if they're not engaging in sex then it is a lie. Sexual energy, like any other form of energy, can be channeled in many joyful and fulfilling ways. These are absolute truths: 1) The joy of sex is physical and transient. 2) The joy of love is lasting and eternal. 3) They may occur at the same time, but they should not be confused.
The Sex Revolution, like all temptations, is based on big, fat lies. Maybe we aren't doing an adequate teaching job on the subject of sex.
The sexual revolution is
The sexual revolution is different than the Sex Revolution. I should've made the distinction in my post; sorry about that. The Sex Revolution was a negative outcome of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution had many positive aspects, not the least of which was an increase in women's rights and ability to maneuver in society.
Sometimes we have a tendency to mix up discussions about sexuality, which include: differences between the sexes; heterosexuality; and homosexuality; with discussions about the act of sex itself. Sex is an act. The word sexual can refer to many things only one of which is the act. For me sexual reflects a state of being. In a natural context, the word sexual is pure. It shouldn't be confused with acts of seduction. The act of sex can be pure or impure. (Consider rape which is generally accepted as impure across the board.)
I would argue that engaging in the act of sex is not the way to become sexually liberated.
To the degree that a person chases the act of sex the way a drug addict chases his next fix a person becomes imprisoned. I'm not trying to imply that this is the norm, but I have seen it happen. It starts with a boost to the ego and goes downhill from there. I see men fall victim to it more frequently because society encourages men to engage in the act of sex, while women are encouraged to be chaste. Sometimes men are taught that sex is a "passage to manhood." Having sex can become synonymous with "being a man" - a big fat lie. Contrast this with the first time a woman has sex; a "loss of virginity." When I was young I was told that men had to struggle to control their sexual urges. I was taught that men thought about sex every 15 seconds. These are just some of the lies that encourage men to become irresponsible with regard to sex.
Everyone has the ability to train his/her body to respond as he/she sees fit. Just because it takes time to develop this ability does not mean a person is incapable of achieving it. Sometimes peer pressure encourages people to avoid taking control of their very own lives. This is another lie of the Sex Revolution: real control over your sexual desires is not necessary.
While it's true there was sexual hypocrisy and repression in the Victorian era, it's also true the same hypocrisy exists today. The revolution may have advanced the spread of infectious disease, but I'd argue that it has not eliminated the hypocrisy. The hypocrisy has merely adapted itself to new societal norms.
I have often tried to help people see there is a short term joy and there is a long term joy. A person shouldn't be willing to sacrifice the long term for the short term. Unless the short term joy leads to long term joy then you are not with the right person. The acid test is usually found outside the bounds of sex - in personal intimacy. Becoming dead to the natural emotions that accompany a healthy sexual relationship doesn't fix the problem, and it certainly won't help a person achieve long term joy.
Socrates was the missionary
Socrates was the missionary of 'know thyself'. He taught, we are told, by questions. Urging his students to find the answers that lay within, from within. Yes, guided, stimulated and challenged by the mentor, the one who has gone before, the process of "education" (e-duction or leading out,)learning is as much about learning to learn as it is about the content. Seeming to be the antithesis of Plato who held that knowledge, truth, is out there whole and entire ensconced in 'ideas' which we must somehow first emulate then pierce and gain access to or become one with. In gross terms this appears to me to be the distinction between Christ's model and the Catholic Church's medieval restoration model. This latter model inevitably leads to 'judgment', comparison with the 'ideal' the 'model' the constructed-expectation and pegging against it in laddered hierarchy of 'better-than', 'lesser-than', 'good or evil'. Strange, but I like Socrates and Jesus better than...
It seems that the 'Jesus' way lasted for some time but I guess it was just too impractical with a rapid growth from a group of friends to international conglomerate; with all the complexities of evangelization, new members and the need for training manuals, guidelines and long-term stretegic planning, growth model and all that. Yes, models: models of management, models of thought, models of behavior; models of asset and image management; models of models - operative ideals for corporate survival and growth in a competitive environment. Now I get it. But, Jesus would have been let go for His inefficiency.
Hooray for some honest
Hooray for some honest dialogue on the subject. It is very simple, in my view, from a Gospel perspective. From a human perspective, everything is complicated. I think this is where the Anglicans supporting Bishop Gene Robinson went wrong-not in supporting his humanity and personhood in Christ, but in confusing his behavior with true freedom and liberation; in other words, to endorse his lifestyle. Another view might see the obvious contradictions in this approach. If we are called to a singular obdedience to God, then to discriminate in Robinson's case does not honor him but the opposite, because then we are not allowing him full communion with the Word with the same challenges we all face, whatever our sexual orientation.
In cases like this, the sexal revolution has done its job, and gone so far as to create a politically correct Christianity that has lost transcendence, immanence, and subjective authenticity.
HOWEVER; I have one caveat to add to this: if what I say here sounds like "Church Teaching", that is an accident of grace. I am merely stating what I believe to be true, through whatever glass I see darkly.
Newhope, I like your through
Newhope, I like your through the glass darkly approach.
However, I find your statement that the Anglicans went wrong "in confusing his [Gene Robinson's] behavior with true freedom and liberation" unconvincing.
What behavior? As far as I know, Gene Robinson was chosen a bishop because his pastoral behavior is exemplary.
And isn't that what should determine the selection of all bishops?
I know, of course, that you are referring to what you call Bishop Robinson's "lifestyle." But what is that lifestyle? Is it synonymous with behavior? And is behavior in the "lifestyle" sense synonymous with bedroom behavior?
What I'm getting at is this: it seems extraordinarily off-target for any of us to focus extraordinary attention to what others do in the privacy of the bedroom. Before appointing a heterosexual bishop, do churches that have married bishops give the bishop-to-be a grilling about their "behavior"--in the bedroom?
Do they ask what kinds of sexual play a bishop-to-be engages in with her spouse, what positions she and her spouse choose, whether they practice coitus interruptus, and so on?
I realize that these are distasteful questions. But they are distasteful whether applied to straight or gay couples. Does it behoove us to imagine that a couple, whether gay or straight, even engages in ANY sexual behavior at all? It is entirely possible that some couples of either orientation live together without genital expression of their love--for any variety of reasons.
And, ultimately, it is not our business to care what goes on in their bedrooms. This should not be the criterion by which a bishop is selected.
And when this intense scrutiny--and the overdeveloped imagination about bedroom behavior--are applied exclusively to those of one orientation, it is impossible to say that the church is acting justly in its approach to those brothers and sisters in Christ who come from God's hand with that particular orientation.
William D. Lindsey
William, we are called to
William, we are called to respect the Sacredness and Dignity of one another no matter where we are or what we are doing. All "homosexual" sexual acts are not consistent with God's intention for Sexual Love. Some "heterosexual" sexual acts are not consistent with God's intention for Sexual Love. Christ did not say that His call to Holiness does not include the bedroom.
Would you please, Anne, give
Would you please, Anne, give us a list of these inconsistent acts. If you are alluding to oral sex, Fr. Corapi says they're not inconsistent. Would you cite the places where these acts are condemned. Perhaps the sticking point, so to speak, is that you cannot imagine someone performing these acts with a sense of the sacredness of the act and the dignity of the partner. But I believe millions of folk have no such fears. Jesus ordained that the most loving thing we can do is to hold Him in our mouths.
The Catechism can
The Catechism can help:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
Thanks again Thomas for the
Thanks again Thomas for the catechism references. But I was addressing Anne's contention that some heterosexual acts are inconsistent with God's will and the dignity of the partners. I was trying to get her to give us a list. I have asked the same question many times before.
Yes, Thomas, when people
Yes, Thomas, when people with deep-seated heterosexual tendencies engage in homosexual acts, these acts are intrinsically disordered. It would seem that heterosexual acts engaged in by those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies would also be instrinsically disordered, though the Catechism does not really define intrinsically disordered to logical completion.
Instinsically disordered behavior is different from objectively disordered acts. I'm sure you'd agree that if the sole object of sexual acts is to conceive children, a lot of people behaving naturally, and thus in an instrinsically ordered way, have engaged in objectively disordered sexual activity.
All people are called to chastity, but what is chastity exactly?
Hello Marie, An intrinsic
Hello Marie,
An intrinsic disorder is one seen from the perspective of nature, not from the perspective of sexual preference or inclination. The standard for sexual acts is found in human nature, which is expressed in masculine and in feminine forms, and in their conjugal union. Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered from the standard of human nature. The Catechism says of homosexual acts, "They are contrary to the natural law."
The natural law is an objective and necessary standard. The natural law is distorted by sin, true, but it remains binding on us. The Church can, through divine revelation and the guiding of the Spirit, rightly discern and pronounce the natural law.
The Catechism says much about chastity - I wouldn't want to quote such a long section, but you might start reading with this paragraph:
2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.
Thomas
The nature of a gay person
The nature of a gay person is not human nature?
It seems to me that from the
It seems to me that from the perspective of nature it is entirely natural that some people have homosexual inclination as well as interests that are outside the culturally imposed restrictions of masculine and feminine. What the Church is referring to as natural law is actually more of a cultural thing than a natural thing. It is certainly a primary feature of nature to see to it that there is a next generation, however, it is not the only natural thing the way the Church seems to understand it.
If chastity is the successful integration of sexuality, then a homosexual person would have to establish a homosexual relationship in order to be chaste. The complete and lifelong gift of a man and a woman is only one version.
Thomas, do me a favor.
Thomas, do me a favor. Reread this and substitute 'infertile hetersexual' for homosexual. Then come back and tell me any of this section is pastoral. By the definitions of moral sexuality you have constantly repeated to us, an infertile heterosexual is as intrinsically disordered as a homosexual. Why aren't both treated the same?
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
colkoch, You'll have
colkoch,
You'll have explicitly to connect the dots for me that you see here - I don't see your point at all. Infertility is a disorder, but the conjugal union of two persons, one or both of whom are infertile, is not a disordered act - infertility naturally comes upon all of us with age, but this does not invalidate a marriage! Homosexual attraction is a disorder, and the homosexual union of two persons is a disordered act.
I'll copy here the relevant section from the Catechism:
The gift of a child
2373 Sacred Scripture and the Church’s traditional practice see in large families a sign of God’s blessing and the parents’ generosity.
2374 Couples who discover that they are sterile suffer greatly. “What will you give me,” asks Abraham of God, “for I continue childless?”
2375 Research aimed at reducing human sterility is to be encouraged, on condition that it is placed “at the service of the human person, of his inalienable rights, and his true and integral good according to the design and will of God.”
2376 Techniques that entail the dissociation of husband and wife, by the intrusion of a person other than the couple (donation of sperm or ovum, surrogate uterus), are gravely immoral. These techniques (heterologous artificial insemination and fertilization) infringe the child’s right to be born of a father and mother known to him and bound to each other by marriage. They betray the spouses’ “right to become a father and a mother only through each other.”
2377 Techniques involving only the married couple (homologous artificial insemination and fertilization) are perhaps less reprehensible, yet remain morally unacceptable. They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children.”
2378 A child is not something owed to one, but is a gift. The “supreme gift of marriage” is a human person. A child may not be considered a piece of property, an idea to which an alleged “right to a child” would lead. In this area, only the child possesses genuine rights: the right “to be the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of his parents,” and “the right to be respected as a person from the moment of his conception.”
2379 The Gospel shows that physical sterility is not an absolute evil. Spouses who still suffer from infertility after exhausting legitimate medical procedures should unite themselves with the Lord’s Cross, the source of all spiritual fecundity. They can give expression to their generosity by adopting abandoned children or performing demanding services for others.
Thomas
Thomas, I have a copy of the
Thomas, I have a copy of the catechism in my office. I don't need the quotes.
The Church also marries couples who don't discover they are infertile, but know that before hand.
This particular line from the Cathechism in reference to in vitro fertilization between married partners is quite interesting:
"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that “entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person."
Essentially I read this to be saying that the 'act' of sexual intercourse is pre eminent to the desire of the parents or, the desire of a child to be born. A correct sexual act is more important than the desire of the parents to have a child, or the child's desire to be born.
I find this notion intrinsically disordered.
If we use scripture for a basis, I am led to the conclusion the children desire to be born, and born to specific parents. The Angel Gabriel makes this abundantly clear when he asks Mary if she will be the mother of Jesus. Both she and Jesus had a choice in the incarnation of their relationship as mother and son.
It is not inconceivable to me that parents feel an outside pressure to have a child because somewhere somehow a child wants to be born to them.
In this case outside intervention is a blessing, not an immoral act.
If infertility is a natural law process for both men and women as a product of age, then why does the Vatican circumvent this process for males by allowing the use of drugs like Viagra?
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Oh Frannie, this is a 40,
Oh Frannie, this is a 40, not a 4 rating. This one has to throw a wrench in the left brain gears.
Please note this: http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Thanks Col55 for your
Thanks Col55 for your thoughtful comments. It is so much easier to keep heart,soul and mind closed while yelling judgments than to listen to the Lord in the messiness of everyday through those he has sent to teach us lessons.
May we all be "Seekers".
There is a great deal of
There is a great deal of wisdom in your topic. I agreed with you to the point where you said the sex revolution is based on lies. The fact is most of our culture, all cultures are based on lies. I disagree with the statement because I see it from a different perspective. I see it as a balancing.
I believe that the "sexual revolution" was a response to the repressive victorian era sexual morality. There have been other similar "rebellions" and "revolutions" throughout history. The industrial revolution was one example. The environmental revolution another. Each of these and others are part of a natural process at work in our cultures, a balancing process to bring our cultures into a more appropriate harmony and to guide us to greater responsibility.
In that perspective, while tragic, the rampant sexual immorality is a reflection of the balancing of sexual attitudes. It is guiding us to a more balanced sexual responsibility, something no amount of catachistic "though shall nots" will ever be able to do. In the same way oil spills such as the exxon valdez and others are a reflection of the balancing of our environmental attitudes and are guiding us to more balanced attitudes of environmental responsiblity.
I believe JP1 was murdered because he was beginning the process of bringing the church back into balance. He was acvitively removing corrupt clergy from the Vatican at his death, and had he continued, we could easily have a church today that would be a true and radiant expression of what Christ intends it to be. Instead we have legalistic hypocrisy and corruption at all levels of the magisterium. This also is a reflection of a balancing. At the parish level there are multitudes of parishes and laity who are faithfully living the example of Christ in their everyday lives. Again, a reflection of balancing.
I have taken a personal stand against the hypocrisy and corruption that exists in the church leadership. For that I have been labeled a "liberal protestant" by those who call themselves "righteous orthodox". By doing so, they think they have found a way to discredit my stand and silence my voice. In a recent post it was implied that I should be "judged" as a heretic and treated accordingly. They obviously have not paid attention to the lessons of history, or for that matter, to the teachings of Christ. This also is part of the balancing that Christ is producing within His church.
A pendulum swings both ways, in ever diminishing arcs. Eventually coming to rest in the middle, eventually finding perfect balance, eventually coming into harmony with all the opposing "forces" at work on it. Eventually the church will find the appropriate balance and officially regain "true church" status. The only question is when, and how much devastation will be left in its wake.
Well said ForeverSeeking. I
Well said ForeverSeeking. I do think that the sexual revolution is more than 'big, fat lies'. It is, in part, social and spiritual progress in search for a context a new morality and, if nothing else a search for fundamental meaning from which we have been excluded by edicts and fabricated meaning. Definitely there is licenciousness and perversion as well as pernicious self-gratification. It is and was ever thus.
The church itself, I hate to say, is 'stupid'. It mouthes love but defines human love as functions of duty, procreation, guilt and angelic bodylessness. As Christ's 'love' is meaningless without acts with and towards fellow men; human love is less than human without the context of sexuality as integral to its meaning. No, I don't mean that we all must 'have sex', but we do all have sexuality, and even an analogous term must, to be understood properly, incorporate its various applications.
Dear Forever Seeking, We
Dear Forever Seeking,
We must be related since I have a plaque above my bathroom mirror that says "Seeker."
As a card carrying veteran of the sexual revolution, I find your sweeping condemnation (big, fat lies) inconsistent with my experience. I would be the last person to say that all the fruits of the revolution are sweet, but I'm sure all of them are not bitter either.
I know some people get tired of my going on and on about physiology, but education was in my opinion the ground of the movement. And now--40 years later--(Lord, am I really THAT old?) I am not surprised that people still don't understand the simplest things about the way their bodies work.
After education came communication. The rev made it possible for us to talk to one another: parent and child, friends, lovers, the revolution gave us the vocabulary and the comfort to speak clearly and accurately about our deepest selves.
We recovered the social history of sexuality and became able to see our lives today in the context of what had gone before.
We strove for justice. We fought oppression. We championed nonviolence. We recovered joy. We found freedom.
I honor the good things about the revolution. Are you able to ackowledge any at all? Frannie
--(Lord, am I really THAT
--(Lord, am I really THAT old?) --- (big sigh) yes frannie, we really are!!
As I limped out of the doctor's office last month, she smiled and gently reminded me that I'm not 27 anymore. I'm so glad she did not tell me to start acting my age.
Thank you for so fluently reminding that there was more than just sex from that experience, so much more -- it was a time when we who were young were speaking out about the many aspects of society that simply were not working anymore. There have been a lot of positive changes as a result of our work, and unfortunately some negatives as well.
My prayer is that today's youth will be able to take what we created, (good and bad) and build on it or create from it a world where love is more fully expressed, where peace is the rule instead of the exception, and where there is acceptance and harmony with space for all beliefs to be practiced and honored.
PS. Thanks for your positive
PS. Thanks for your positive feedback. I do appreciate it.
For the Seeker(s) - One of my favorite quotes on the way to achieve progress.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the men of old. Seek what they sought" - of Chinese origin
As for the philosophers a couple of fun tidbits
"He who in himself believes, fraud cannot presume." - Emily Dickinson
My dad was a physics-philosophy major, who was taught by the Franciscans. I can't help but be reminded of a wise Franciscan saint who advised the Pope (and millions more over time) to keep one eye on God and one eye on the world at all times. My dad also taught me NEVER ASSUME.
Take care friends!