I was raised as a Catholic, too, or at least that was the attempt by my family until I was about 12 years past birth. Roman Catholic peoples’ opinions on sexual/contraceptive matters seems to vary so much that I never have been able to make much sense of it. One Catholic family member of mine became furious at Catholic family another for having a vasectomy, for example. I perceive picking and choosing moral foundations cafeteria style to be a half-hearted way to embrace a religion. I’ve tried to get explanations on these matters, but the vague answers I receive are not satisfactory for me to reach true understanding. I don’t have much to contribute, but the discussion is interesting.
I don’t think that I could remember all of my ‘sins’ in order to confess them if I felt the need to do so.
We have a semantic problem at this point. You referred to mutual masturbation and sodomy within marriage. I am pretty sure that, (as long as it does not extend as far as ejaculation), mutual masturbation would be regarded as a form of foreplay, which is entirely acceptable. Note that the text on masturbation explicitly condemns it in the context of it occurring outside marriage–in other words, it is addressing the solo act.
Similarly, I would be pretty sure that the sodomy mentioned in the texts would be homosexual sodomy which would be right out from the RCC perspective since the church is not anywhere near recognizing same sex marriage. Again, the text from Aquinas is explicit in identifying ‘copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the “vice of sodomy.”’ The use of the word sodomy to mean anal intercourse in general, as opposed to “unnatural” same sex relations, is rather recent and is unlikely to have been the meaning of the quoted texts.
I could be mistaken on those points, but I don’t think that the texts quoted are addressing the same issues that our current language describes.
The question becomes blurry because there is either one right answer or no right answer.
The one right answer is in The Catechism of The Catholic Church, updated and revised 1994. You will therein find everything you ever wanted to know about mortal sin, venial sin, and how to differentiate them, the call of the baptized to a life of chastity (broad definition of chastity here), etc. You will also find that the Catechism is not a rule book per se (it is not a children’s guide), it is a thoughtful, spiritual, and profound document. I disagree with a lot of the conclusions about sexual behavior myself but that’s beside the point.
What isn’t beside the point is that the Catholic Church does really teach that for something to be a sin, mortal or otherwise, the first criteria is that you must believe it is, and commit it anyway. If you don’t believe it is a sin, according to the teaching you may a be really fucked up person, but it cannot be a sin.
The no right answer part is that very few Catholics I know – priests included – adhere to the sexual teachings of the Catholic church in the sense that they don’t do sexual stuff because it is objectively sinful. They may refrain because it is not moral, in the sense of harming others, but that is a more individual judgement. And nobody seems to have a problem with it, except some creepy rightwing bishops who aren’t the boss of me anyway.
The most unnatural method there is! I have a relative that is a Catholic nun, she has had several breakdowns. another who was a cloistered nun, left because of a breakdown, and one who is a RC priest who has also had several breakdowns, and now he is restricted from regular duties, and only can say Mass if no other priest is availible.I also know married people who have had difficulty with in their marriage, another case, the one woman I know, was pregnant all of her childbearing years, her children were abused because she took her frustrations out on them.
I think that’s true of all Christians, and quite possibly, Jews and Muslims too.
The Christian Bible covers a lot of territory and contains a lot of apparent contradictions. People focus on what they feel is important, and ignore a lot of what they think isn’t. I’d be surprised if that weren’t the case for other major religions with vast texts as their bases.
Regarding the term “sodomy”, it’s good that Aquinas gave a definition. However, Biblical references aren’t that clear. The meanings of the various original Greek and Hebrew terms are debated.
However, what Aquinas thought was “natural” was misguided; evidently he’s hadn’t made sufficient study of sexuality in nature to realize that homosexuality isn’t terribly unusual.
It might be fair to accuse Catholics of picking and choosing certain things from the Bible, but the Bible, by itself, is not the final authority in Catholic doctrine. Rather, the Church is. So while the Catechism may or may not be faithful to the Bible, if you take the Catechism as your starting point, there are certainly plenty of Catholics who accept exactly 100% of what the Church teaches.
You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
That is if Jesus really said that, or if it was’t attributed to him by Matthew. He sure didn’t allow the people to stone the woman to death,(as was quoted) but remineded them of their own sins!
Funny you should mention this quote. Just two nights ago I happened to enjoy visiting a friend of mine who is studying to be a Presbyterian minister. When I brought the quote up, he said that we have to remember that when Jesus said that, He was addressing a group of people (pharisees and such) who were very proud and self-righteous almost to the point of arrogance because they were “following the law.” Hence many of the chief priests and scribes were ever ready to condemn the transgressors of the law (re: the woman caught committing adultery) yet Jesus reminds them that following the law didn’t make them any better morally, as Jesus knew that these men regularly had sexual fantasies about other people, and we all know what we do most of the time when we are having sexual fantasies. That being said, we don’t have to be the Son of God to know that other people have sexual fantasies, but to take that quote and make it into a “mortal sin” is ridiculous in my opinion, because like it or not, as human beings it is simply something that we naturally sexual creatures do! So in conclusion, Christ’s admonition about looking at others with lust in our hearts was more of a warning against thinking that we are better than other sinners because we have “kept the law” when in reality, in our hearts, we are just as sinful and nasty as any other person, transgressor of the law or not.
This is a misrepresentation of the Church’s teachings. When there is a clear teaching there is no option, it is a sin. Only in the case of completely guiltless ignorance can one argue “I didn’t think it wasn’t a sin”. If you know or suspect it is a sin, you can’t argue ignorance. Sinfulness is not a matter of opinion.
And you also have to get into what it means to “look at a woman lustfully.” We are taught that temptation is not a sin*. What is temptation but the thinking about doing a sinful act? And what is lust except thinking about having sex with someone, which can be a sin?
In other words, taking those verses together, the sin must be something more than what we call lust today. Looking at someone lustfully must mean something beyond feeling sexual attraction to someone.
*Hebrews 4:15 (NIV) “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.”
The rules and regulations the Catholic Church have governing sex even in marriage are truly mind boggling. I have lurked on Protestant Christian boards and even Islamic boards which talk about sex in marriage and nothing comes close to the restrictive regulation of “Catholic Sex”.
Take these passages from a Catholic priest writing about sex in marriage.
I’m not sure who is writing that website (does not seem to be a priest) or how legitimate it is but I do note that you have taken at least one of those quotes from a page entitled " physical closeness during sexual abstinence.“. Take a look at some of the other sections like " Beginning the Conjugal Act " and " Ending of Marital Intercourse”
I agree with you, but in practical reality, the rules of the Catholic church have diverged so far from the laws of western democracies (well, actually it is the reverse, it’s the cultures that have moved; the church stayed where it was), that there is a great deal of blurriness – or you might call it liberality – in this area in people’s minds. And not just in the minds of those lazy, unrepentant sinners in the pews, but also those of many parish priests – the main break is at the level of bishops (appointed by the pope and hence more reflective of his views).
Remember how big the Catholic church is (larger than all the Protestant denominations put together). There is plenty of room for arch-conservative celibate priests who write arch-conservative blogs on matters they presumably have never themselves experienced, as well as a lot of other viewpoints.
One priest’s view, (it it was even the opinion of a priest), is not the same as the “rules and regulations the Catholic Church have governing sex.” There are a wide variety of opinions regarding approaches to sex, (within or outside marriage), and individual opinions do not constitute “rules and regulations.” And that is even before we get to the point, already noted, that you were quoting a passage discussing abstinence.
As I have noted, there is a strong theme of “no activity that fails to end in (attempted) insemination,” that runs through Catholic theology, (although there are voices that do not repeat that exact theme), but the notion that there are some number of explicit rules is overblown.
I believe that thought the RC and the Orthodox bishops of the day at the urging of Constantine, decided what was of God and what not,the RC feels that they only have the right translation. That was it until Luther’s time, then the many sects taught what they wanted to translate, now Christianity is the most divided of all religions.