![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/Wedding.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Catholics believe that sexuality has a deep, fundamental purpose, designed by God. That purpose is procreation \/ reproduction. That much is obvious and need not really be defended. Everyone knows that every baby (apart from artificial insemination, etc.) comes about by a process that was initiated by sexual acts. The differences of opinion arise due to various views as to the relationship of sexuality to the mutual (and\/or exclusive) commitment of human beings, to reproduction, and to natural law.<\/p>\n
\u201cEveryone\u201d used to know what the Bible teaches about sexuality. Today, however, we have many people pretending that the Bible doesn\u2019t teach certain things about sex. Since some folks with a \u201csexual agenda\u201d care about the Bible, or (more accurately) the authority and legitimacy that it has traditionally granted in western civilization, they will play games and try to force it to teach what they\u00a0want<\/i>\u00a0it to teach, rather than conform their own behavior (insofar as they accept biblical authority and its status as inspired revelation) to what the Bible clearly teaches about sexuality.<\/p>\n
Many Christians \u2014 who are fully willing to abide by what the Bible teaches \u2014 do not understand\u00a0why\u00a0<\/i>the Bible teaches what it does about sex, even if they accept that it teaches certain things that have been accepted in Christian cultures, to more-or-less degrees. That brings us to apologetics: my field. People are (or were until recent times) widely familiar with what the Bible and traditional Christianity (and God) hold to be wrong in the realm of sexuality, but have no clue why certain things are prohibited, and other things required.<\/p>\n *<\/p>\n Contraception (deliberately thwarting a possible conception and engaging in sexuality under those circumstances) is wrong because it has an essential \u201ccontralife will\u201d: it insists on separating what ought not be separated (sexuality from possible conception, or being \u201copen\u201d to conception). Catholics believe that a couple can space births and decide to postpone children or have no more children, for appropriately serious reasons of health, emotional factors, and finances. This is what Natural Family Planning is about. The difference is that the practicing Catholic abstains from sexuality during the woman\u2019s fertile periods, if they have legitimate reasons not to conceive a child.<\/p>\n Pope Paul VI, in his landmark 1968 encyclical,\u00a0Humanae Vitae<\/i><\/a>, predicted several dire consequences for society and individuals, should contraception be widely practiced.\u00a0They have all come true<\/a>. Ideas have consequences; behaviors have consequences. He could see the bad things coming because he understood why contraception was wrong in the first place, and hence, knew that it would have terrible fruits. Now we are living with those.<\/p>\n The Church holds that homosexual\u00a0orientation\u00a0<\/i>itself is not sinful. It is only when these desires are acted upon or excessively dwelt upon (lust), that it becomes sinful. In that respect it\u2019s not that different from heterosexual non-marital sexuality. Men and women after puberty have sexual desires, because God designed it that way, in order for more children to be born. These natural desires need to be controlled and delegated to the proper place and time to find fulfillment.<\/p>\n The difference between \u00a0homosexual and heterosexual sexuality is that the former (when acted upon in the usual ways) is, we believe, contrary to natural law in all circumstances, whereas the latter is sinful\u00a0outside<\/i>\u00a0of marriage and a procreative will, but\u00a0not<\/i>\u00a0sinful\u00a0within<\/i>\u00a0those purviews.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n This brings us to the deeper rationales for what is allowed and disallowed in the Christian (and specifically Catholic) view. Bluntly and generally expressed, the Catholic view is that male orgasm must occur within the act of vaginal intercourse with one\u2019s spouse (of the opposite sex) that one is committed to for life, and that female orgasm must also be in conjunction with the overall act of love (intercourse), open to life and possible conception (i.e., no contraceptive devices or intent).<\/p>\n Sexual acts that are apart from this circumstance are wrong and sinful. This is Catholic sexuality in its most basic expression, or in a \u201cnutshell.\u201d It all has to do with commitment to one person of the opposite sex, in marriage, becoming \u201cone\u201d with them (as the Bible says) for the purpose of procreation and also for pleasure and closeness of the couple.<\/p>\n Now, why this alone is considered \u201cproper sexuality\u201d and other forms are not, requires much explanation, and gets into arguments from natural law and what is \u201cnatural\u201d and what is \u201cunnatural.\u201d I think there are\u00a0at least<\/em>\u00a0three ways to make this argument in an entirely non-religious, non-biblical way.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n *<\/em><\/p>\n The first argument<\/em>\u00a0is by analogy to\u00a0other organs and functions of the human body<\/em>. We instinctively believe that certain things are unnatural and should not be separated. The example I use is taste buds and nutrition, in conjunction with eating. The \u201cnormal\u201d understanding is that food should be enjoyed for its taste and also utilized for nutritional \/ health purposes. Both are, or should be present. We prove that this is what we believe, without thinking much about it, by our reactions to those who violate it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n On the other extreme, we have the junk food junkie. We think a person who eats exclusively Twinkies, chocolate-covered cherries, and cotton candy, or suchlike, is quite bizarre and not even remotely responsible about his or her diet. And that is because we know that food must have nutritional value, which is, in fact, its fundamental purpose, beyond merely enjoying its taste. Both have to be together. Some decadent ancient Romans used to deliberately throw up so that they could eat some more and enjoy the pleasurable sensations of eating. They separated nutrition from food in so doing, much as contraception separates procreation from sexuality:<\/p>\n Stories of Roman orgies with the participants throwing up during the meal are described in Roman courtier Petronius\u2019\u00a0Satyricon<\/em>, from the 1st century AD, but no specific room is designated for the act. Cassius Dio in his\u00a0Roman History<\/em>\u00a0and Suetonius, secretary of correspondence to the emperor Hadrian, in his\u00a0On the Lives of the Caesars<\/em> also provide plenty of stories of imperial excess and vomiting while dining. (\u201cWhat was really a vomitorium?,\u201d<\/a> Archaeology.Wiki<\/em>, 1-27-17)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The second argument<\/em>\u00a0I have made from natural law is\u00a0the analogy of bestiality as an unnatural form of sex<\/em>. Even in our \u201cpermissive\u201d day and age, it appears that most people, of whatever sexual preference, agree that this is wrong and should not be done. Again, if we ask, \u201cwhy?,\u201d we find that those who oppose it have not thought all that much about it. They intuitively or instinctively know that it is \u201cwrong\u201d or unnatural or obviously improper; weird, odd, bizarre, and regard those who do it as exceedingly strange and abnormal.<\/p>\n In the Christian view, of course, the reason is simple and straightforward: animals are fundamentally different from human beings, not being made in the image of God. But presently, we are discussing purely secular arguments. It\u2019s not at all clear why, in a secular outlook, sex with an animal is necessarily wrong or even improper. If the end of sexuality is merely pleasure and nothing else, what would it matter how it is achieved? It\u2019s just a sensation, like other sensory pleasures. Yet, nonetheless, bestiality is instinctively frowned upon, just as is incest: one of the few other remaining sexual taboos.<\/p>\n In\u00a0my recent paper about this analogy<\/a>\u00a0I even traced the laws worldwide, which are slowly but surely changing, with more permissibility of bestiality, as the world becomes more secularized. There are movements now, advocating bestiality, just as there is the notorious \u201cMan-Boy Love\u201d association. The analogy is clear by now, I trust. Society regards bestiality as unnatural and wrong, because, basically, it \u201cjust\u00a0is<\/i>.\u201d No one feels a particular need to argue\u00a0why\u00a0<\/i>it is wrong. Well, that is how human homosexual acts were regarded by most in society until recent times: unnatural: even by observing female and male anatomies, and how they \u201ccomplement\u201d one another.<\/p>\n The difference between the two, is a matter of arbitrariness (in the secular outlook). The Christian thinks bestiality and homosexual sex are unnatural. The homosexual \u201cactivist\u201d draws the line in a different place, thinking one thing is fine and the other detestable. But it\u2019s not at all clear to me what the essential\u00a0difference<\/i>\u00a0is, under secularist and\u00a0materialistic<\/i>\u00a0evolutionary assumptions.<\/p>\n The third argument<\/em>\u00a0from natural law is one having to do with the\u00a0health repercussions of homosexual sex<\/a>. These go far beyond simply AIDS. There are various adverse health consequences, especially as a result of anal sex, because (we would argue), acts are done that do not further the health of human beings, and run contrary to health. Activists can deny this all they want. The facts are out there and can be found in any serious online search: all the way up to a significantly lower lifespan for active homosexuals.<\/p>\n We argue that, \u201cwhat is against natural law will in fact be unhealthy.\u201d In terms of active homosexuality, this is demonstrable. Moreover, we know that active homosexuality (especially among males) is most often highly promiscuous. The multiplication of partners has obvious risks involved with STDs and other diseases that are contagious. The same, of course, applies to heterosexual promiscuity. All the more reason to abide by the traditional marriage to one man or woman for life view . . .<\/p>\n This is the nutshell presentation of the Catholic view of sexuality. Many things can, of course, be argued and defended in much more depth. I would venture to roughly guess that probably some 85% of Catholics and 99% of non-Catholics have not read about\u00a0at all<\/i>, let alone\u00a0understood<\/i>, the above reasoning and rationales.<\/p>\n With that level of sheer lack of knowledge, it is virtually impossible that Catholic views can be perceived in anything but a highly caricatured, stereotypical, prejudiced fashion, with all the usual silly allusions to repressed nuns and dictatorial celibate old men in red robes (and by extension, God Himself), who allegedly want everyone else to be as miserable as they supposedly are. There is very little serious discussion of these things, because in order to have that, one must first understand<\/em> the fundamental premises<\/em> of views other than one\u2019s own.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Related Reading:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n Christian Sexual Views and Support from Sociology (Discussions About Christian Sexual Morality and Marriage with Atheists)<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>[12-8-06]<\/p>\n Q & A: Catholic Sexual Morality and Contraception<\/a>\u00a0[1-1-08]<\/p>\n Condoms as a Solution to AIDS & Other STDs?<\/a>\u00a0[6-1-09]<\/p>\n Bestiality: Anti-Christian Morals\u00a0Reductio<\/em>?<\/a>\u00a0[12-21-15]<\/p>\n Catholic Sexuality: Cordial Dialogue with an Agnostic<\/a>\u00a0[12-30-15]<\/p>\n Dialogue on NFP: Anti-Sex and Anti-Pleasure?<\/a>\u00a0[1-23-17]<\/p>\n Dialogues on the Sexual Revolution & Weinstein\u2019s Victims<\/a>\u00a0[10-14-17]<\/p>\n Epstein and Weinstein: The Fruit of the Sexual Revolution<\/a>\u00a0[11-4-17; rev. 7-19-19]<\/p>\n I Condemned Society-Wide Sexual Coercion in 2007<\/a>\u00a0[11-17-17]<\/p>\n Sex and Catholics: Our Views Briefly Explained<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 2-2-18]<\/p>\n Sex, Lies, & Videotape (\u201cDiscussion\u201d w Angry Atheist)<\/a>\u00a0[2-15-19]<\/p>\n Mini-Debate on Libertarianism and Laws About Sex<\/a>\u00a0[3-7-19]<\/p>\n Vs. Atheist David Madison #40: Jesus:\u00a0All<\/em>\u00a0Sexual Desire is Lust? (Replies to some of the most clueless atheist \u201carguments\u201d to ever enter the mind of a sentient human being . . .<\/a>)\u00a0[12-18-19]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n (originally 12-29-15)<\/p>\n Photo credit:\u00a0<\/strong>Princess Madeleine of Sweden and Christopher O\u00b4Neill wedding: photo by\u00a0Bengt Nyman, 8 June 2013<\/span>\u00a0[Wikimedia Commons<\/a>\u00a0\/\u00a0\u00a0Creative Commons<\/a>\u00a0Attribution 2.0 Generic<\/a>\u00a0license]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Catholics believe that sexuality has a deep, fundamental purpose, designed by God. That purpose is procreation \/ reproduction. That much is obvious and need not really be defended. Everyone knows that every baby (apart from artificial insemination, etc.) comes about by a process that was initiated by sexual acts. The differences of opinion arise due […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":43044,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[123],"tags":[1753,575,1564,127,1755,1754],"class_list":["post-43041","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-sexuality-and-gender-issues","tag-catholic-sexuality","tag-contraception","tag-extramarital-sex","tag-homosexuality","tag-premarital-sex","tag-traditional-sexual-teachings"],"yoast_head":"\nMoreover, most Catholics and almost all Protestants do not even dimly understand the distinctive Catholic teachings on sex, such as the prohibition of contraception. But I should note that\u00a0all<\/i>\u00a0Christian communions thought contraception was gravely sinful until 1930, when the Anglicans first allowed it in hard cases only. Thus, it is simply historic Christian teaching, not just a \u201cCatholic thing.\u201d It has become the latter because we are the only ones who never forsook the traditional teachings, whereas other Christians decided to reject those.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nLikewise, secularists and atheists and agnostics who ultimately don\u2019t care what the Bible teaches, because they deny that it is revelation, and believe various myths about its nature and origins, want to hear non-biblical, non-religious secular, purely rational rationales for why certain sexual activities are \u201cwrong.\u201d Thus, the following attempt of mine to defend biblical \/ Catholic teaching on the basis of secular arguments has, I think, no small usefulness.<\/div>\n\n*<\/div>\nThe Catholic Church teaches that it is wrong to deliberately separate sexuality from procreation, because the latter is its most fundamental purpose. It\u2019s a natural law argument:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n
1) The deepest and essential purpose of sex is procreation.<\/div>\n2) Separating sex from procreation is a violation of this purpose and is against natural law.
\n3) Therefore, whatever does so is sinful and wrong.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n*<\/div>\nGod created sex for this purpose and also for pleasure, within its proper sphere (marriage between a man and a woman). He created it for the happiness and deep fulfillment of human beings. Whatever is prohibited by Him is for the purpose of fostering this fulfillment, not to make people miserable and repressed and \u201cincomplete\u201d, etc. We believe that when people follow the design that God has for sexuality, that they are the happiest, and that families and society prosper and flourish as a result (and that this is sociologically demonstrable). To the extent that they do not follow the guidelines, the opposite will be the result.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\nCatholic sexuality is not anti-woman, anti-pleasure, anti-orgasm, anti-homosexual (persons), anti-natural desire. That\u2019s how many people construe it because they don\u2019t properly comprehend its nature or rationale. It\u2019s based ultimately on very simple principles:<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n
1) God created sexuality for a purpose.
\n2) If we follow that purpose, we\u2019re most happy and fulfilled.
\n3) If we deny it, then we will be unhappy and unfulfilled.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\nSo, for example, if a person completely separated the pleasure of taste from eating and insisted on eating bark, insects, rotten food (that still held some nutritional value), we would consider that exceedingly strange and odd. Why? Well, it\u2019s because we believe that food ought to be enjoyed while nourishing us. Taste buds have no direct relation to nutrition whatever. They are purely for sensory pleasure, yet everyone believes that the pleasure should not be separated from the nutritional aspects of food.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\nSexual Revolution: Not \u201cLiberation\u201d But Societal Tragedy<\/a>\u00a0[8-6-01]<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n\n***<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\n\nPractical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or<\/span>\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to<\/span>\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to<\/span>\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and<\/span>\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\nOr you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general.\u00a0If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a<\/span>\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/span><\/div>\n\n\n*<\/span><\/div>\nPayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0<\/span>About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong> from the bottom of my heart!<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/span><\/div>\n***<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n***<\/div>\n