Comments on: There is something deeply troubling about the Catholic Church’s problem with sex http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862 A multi-author blog with a range of opinions on news, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and life Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:28:30 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249628 Herr Doktor Mon, 18 May 2009 15:43:52 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249628 When I was a kid, I was impressed by the lack of ascetism among Catholics. They had carnivals where you could gamble and drink beer. The sour-pussed kill-joys were rather protestants. The only area in which I could identify anything that smacks of asceticism among Catholics would be the celibacy of priests, which I think has much to do with a certain passage (I can't look it up now) where Paul recommends such a practice (or does so at least by implication). Whatever asceticism is still there apparently comes from the teaching of the apostle. When I was a kid, I was impressed by the lack of ascetism among Catholics. They had carnivals where you could gamble and drink beer. The sour-pussed kill-joys were rather protestants.

The only area in which I could identify anything that smacks of asceticism among Catholics would be the celibacy of priests, which I think has much to do with a certain passage (I can’t look it up now) where Paul recommends such a practice (or does so at least by implication). Whatever asceticism is still there apparently comes from the teaching of the apostle.

]]> By: pentamom http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249627 pentamom Mon, 18 May 2009 14:47:32 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249627 Well, I think it exactly informs the Roman Catholic approach to sexuality. That's my whole point. I guess we just see it differently-- to me, it's as clear as anything. Well, I think it exactly informs the Roman Catholic approach to sexuality. That’s my whole point. I guess we just see it differently– to me, it’s as clear as anything.

]]> By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249611 Herr Doktor Sat, 16 May 2009 13:50:53 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249611 I really don't see in what regard this general philosophy of asceticism (from the middle ages or earlier) informs the moral theology of any large group of Christians in any significant way. I really don’t see in what regard this general philosophy of asceticism (from the middle ages or earlier) informs the moral theology of any large group of Christians in any significant way.

]]> By: pentamom http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249606 pentamom Sat, 16 May 2009 12:52:33 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249606 Whether it is widely practiced or not is a different issue from whether it informs the moral theology of one or several groups of Christians. If the moral theology is traceable back to people who thought that way in the past and wielded great influence, it is still relevant. Whether it is widely practiced or not is a different issue from whether it informs the moral theology of one or several groups of Christians. If the moral theology is traceable back to people who thought that way in the past and wielded great influence, it is still relevant.

]]> By: Scott http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249604 Scott Sat, 16 May 2009 12:17:47 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249604 *Scott — I can’t decide which is the more “masculine” trait — to be a good soldier who follows the rules or to be a rebel who doesn’t care about the rules. (I’m not saying they are morally equivalent, I’m only wondering which one is more “masculine.”)* My opinion is that being a good soldier who follows the rules is more masculine---but with the caveat that those rules are followed because a soldier knows those rules are an effective way to destroy the enemy, protect the homeland, and so on. This is like liturgy. A masculine priest understands that liturgy is *work*. It isn't a stupid game, a sing-a-long, or the weekly meeting of a community volunteer organization. Although from many liturgies, you could easily be misled! pax, Scott *Scott — I can’t decide which is the more “masculine” trait — to be a good soldier who follows the rules or to be a rebel who doesn’t care about the rules. (I’m not saying they are morally equivalent, I’m only wondering which one is more “masculine.”)*

My opinion is that being a good soldier who follows the rules is more masculine—but with the caveat that those rules are followed because a soldier knows those rules are an effective way to destroy the enemy, protect the homeland, and so on.

This is like liturgy. A masculine priest understands that liturgy is *work*. It isn’t a stupid game, a sing-a-long, or the weekly meeting of a community volunteer organization. Although from many liturgies, you could easily be misled!

pax,
Scott

]]> By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249602 Herr Doktor Sat, 16 May 2009 10:28:32 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249602 This general philosophy of asceticism, as far as I can tell, is not very prevalent among Catholics, Protestants, or any other group that I can think of in contemporary western socieities. I don't think there is any reason to worry about it. This general philosophy of asceticism, as far as I can tell, is not very prevalent among Catholics, Protestants, or any other group that I can think of in contemporary western socieities. I don’t think there is any reason to worry about it.

]]> By: pentamom http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249601 pentamom Sat, 16 May 2009 02:49:53 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249601 As for the food is excrement thing, I'm referring to the writings of some medievals who thought that the way to curb gluttony was to remind you of all the unappetizing things that happen to food after if passes over your palate, and the way to control lust was to talk about how women's bodies have bile swishing around inside them that eventually becomes this, that, or the other unappetizing bodily fluid -- and who'd want to be intimate with THAT? But what that does is deny that a good gift of God is a good thing, rather than teaching you to understand that not all good things are equally good in every way at every time to every degree, and how to act upon it. Cutting off your hand is much more consonant with understanding HOW good things are good, and when they might not be; telling you that the thing you were doing with your hand is really bad all the way down is usually false. As for the food is excrement thing, I’m referring to the writings of some medievals who thought that the way to curb gluttony was to remind you of all the unappetizing things that happen to food after if passes over your palate, and the way to control lust was to talk about how women’s bodies have bile swishing around inside them that eventually becomes this, that, or the other unappetizing bodily fluid — and who’d want to be intimate with THAT? But what that does is deny that a good gift of God is a good thing, rather than teaching you to understand that not all good things are equally good in every way at every time to every degree, and how to act upon it. Cutting off your hand is much more consonant with understanding HOW good things are good, and when they might not be; telling you that the thing you were doing with your hand is really bad all the way down is usually false.

]]> By: pentamom http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249600 pentamom Sat, 16 May 2009 02:45:11 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249600 I am not talking about ascetic practices in particular, but the general philosophy of asceticism, which by effect if not by design teaches that the closer you can get to not taking any kind of sensual pleasure, the better you're doing. If you take an ascetic approach to food because you know you don't handle food appropriately, that's one thing. But if you are attempting to arrange your life around the belief that the closer you can get to not taking any pleasure in food whatsoever, without actually starving or malnourishing yourself, you're creating a disorder in your outlook on life that's going to have all kinds of negative implications. The same goes for sex, or money, or what have you. Acting like an ascetic because you know you can't handle some good things is good; believing that the less of all good things you have, the better overall, is arguing with God, which is always a losing proposition. I am not talking about ascetic practices in particular, but the general philosophy of asceticism, which by effect if not by design teaches that the closer you can get to not taking any kind of sensual pleasure, the better you’re doing. If you take an ascetic approach to food because you know you don’t handle food appropriately, that’s one thing. But if you are attempting to arrange your life around the belief that the closer you can get to not taking any pleasure in food whatsoever, without actually starving or malnourishing yourself, you’re creating a disorder in your outlook on life that’s going to have all kinds of negative implications. The same goes for sex, or money, or what have you. Acting like an ascetic because you know you can’t handle some good things is good; believing that the less of all good things you have, the better overall, is arguing with God, which is always a losing proposition.

]]> By: JH http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249597 JH Fri, 15 May 2009 18:58:07 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249597 Greg, > You also ask if I pray about it. Do you think it would make a difference? I don’t. Yes, I do think it could make a difference. Greg,

> You also ask if I pray about it. Do you think it would make a difference? I don’t.

Yes, I do think it could make a difference.

]]> By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249596 Herr Doktor Fri, 15 May 2009 18:30:49 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249596 I certainly agree that some people go overboard with ascetisism in one form or another and make life difficult for others. (I have no use for prohibitionsists or people who regard food as excrement, though I have fortunately not encountered anyone of the latter type and would be inclined to think that this is a very small minority.) Here I am only dealing with the "biblical" issue and the attempt to take the "bite" (if you will) out of the teachings of Jesus. I certainly agree that some people go overboard with ascetisism in one form or another and make life difficult for others. (I have no use for prohibitionsists or people who regard food as excrement, though I have fortunately not encountered anyone of the latter type and would be inclined to think that this is a very small minority.) Here I am only dealing with the “biblical” issue and the attempt to take the “bite” (if you will) out of the teachings of Jesus.

]]> By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249595 Herr Doktor Fri, 15 May 2009 18:20:19 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249595 I am only trying to point out that those proponents of Christianity who practice an ascertism which seems rather extreme to you or me do have their biblical reasons for doing so. It might not be based on a "balanced reading" (if such a thing should be possible), but it is based on the teachings of the most authoritative figure from a Christian point view, and indeed even stated in an even more extreme way by him than anyone would normally find palatable. Everyone I know (and of course I don't everyone) seems to think that Jesus is using hyperbole when he tells you to pluck out your eye. Very well, but the question remains: Just how hyperbolic is this injunction? Regarding food as excrement is certainly less drastic than actually plucking out your eye. So maybe these people are on to something, as far as I can tell, at least with regard to their own personal constitution or situation. I am only trying to point out that those proponents of Christianity who practice an ascertism which seems rather extreme to you or me do have their biblical reasons for doing so. It might not be based on a “balanced reading” (if such a thing should be possible), but it is based on the teachings of the most authoritative figure from a Christian point view, and indeed even stated in an even more extreme way by him than anyone would normally find palatable. Everyone I know (and of course I don’t everyone) seems to think that Jesus is using hyperbole when he tells you to pluck out your eye. Very well, but the question remains: Just how hyperbolic is this injunction? Regarding food as excrement is certainly less drastic than actually plucking out your eye. So maybe these people are on to something, as far as I can tell, at least with regard to their own personal constitution or situation.

]]> By: John Krehbiel http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249594 John Krehbiel Fri, 15 May 2009 18:05:49 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249594 I agree with Pentamom, that part of the problem is that when people don't know how to control a problematic behavior, they ban it outright. The thing is, that works with hallucinogens, not so much with food. For some behaviors, they are only problematic in some people, such as alcohol consumption. I think there are addictive personalities, and people who have that personality are more likely to try to control behavior in others. For instance, people who have alcoholics as relatives are more likely to want to place severe restrictions on alcohol. I wonder if people who enter a life of self-denial for religious reasons are disturbed for some reason when they experience any kind of pleasure, and when they see somebody else having fun, they feel like they have to put an end to it right away. I agree with Pentamom, that part of the problem is that when people don’t know how to control a problematic behavior, they ban it outright. The thing is, that works with hallucinogens, not so much with food. For some behaviors, they are only problematic in some people, such as alcohol consumption.

I think there are addictive personalities, and people who have that personality are more likely to try to control behavior in others. For instance, people who have alcoholics as relatives are more likely to want to place severe restrictions on alcohol.

I wonder if people who enter a life of self-denial for religious reasons are disturbed for some reason when they experience any kind of pleasure, and when they see somebody else having fun, they feel like they have to put an end to it right away.

]]> By: pentamom http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249591 pentamom Fri, 15 May 2009 17:50:37 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249591 Yes, Herr Doktor, that makes sense, but my point was that you don't make enjoyment the bad guy, and you don't fight temptation by persuading yourself that attractive human beings are "really" piles of bile and offal or that delicious food is "really" excrement-in-waiting. Certainly there are things that it's best to avoid because the enjoyment of them leads you into sin, and you aren't capable of exercising self-control in that area (or perhaps more properly, the appropriate self-control in that situation IS avoidance) but stifling or despising enjoyment as such is not the appropriate response. It's hard to square that idea up with many other things in the Bible, e.g. the way blessings (yes, material and sensual ones) are portrayed as signs of God's favor, the Song of Songs, references in Proverbs to how folly leads to loss of enjoyment, etc. Yes, Herr Doktor, that makes sense, but my point was that you don’t make enjoyment the bad guy, and you don’t fight temptation by persuading yourself that attractive human beings are “really” piles of bile and offal or that delicious food is “really” excrement-in-waiting. Certainly there are things that it’s best to avoid because the enjoyment of them leads you into sin, and you aren’t capable of exercising self-control in that area (or perhaps more properly, the appropriate self-control in that situation IS avoidance) but stifling or despising enjoyment as such is not the appropriate response. It’s hard to square that idea up with many other things in the Bible, e.g. the way blessings (yes, material and sensual ones) are portrayed as signs of God’s favor, the Song of Songs, references in Proverbs to how folly leads to loss of enjoyment, etc.

]]> By: Greg Krehbiel http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249590 Greg Krehbiel Fri, 15 May 2009 17:43:05 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249590 >The passage clearly seems to mean that if something tempts you it is (at least somtimes) better to remove the means whereby you are tempted. Yes, that's what it means. >The passage clearly seems to mean that if something tempts you it is (at least somtimes) better to remove the means whereby you are tempted.

Yes, that’s what it means.

]]> By: Herr Doktor http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862&cpage=1#comment-249589 Herr Doktor Fri, 15 May 2009 17:09:55 +0000 http://crowhill.net/blog/?p=5862#comment-249589 Jesus is clearly not saying, "If your eye offends you in certain instance, close it in those instances". Jesus is clearly not saying, “If your eye offends you in certain instance, close it in those instances”.

]]>