The Meeting Point; new Catholic sex education course

Absolam

Diverted from the School Patronage thread.

Absolam

Fleawuss wrote: »

Of course it is. You don't need any of the links available to know full well that the RCC regards homosexuality as a "disordered inclination". As i said, I'll leave it to pedants to argue the toss (pun intended) about acts and states.

Which would make it not a code word; it's just one of a number of disordered acts, or disordered inclinations, from the Church's point of view.

Fleawuss wrote: »

We might but we won't because I didn't. I said it was a code for word gay. I didn't say anything beyond that.

Sure; but the word is also used for acts (and inclinations) that don't (necessarily) involve being gay (or acting gay). So there's no objective reason to think in the circumstances to believe that the word is actually being used as code for the word gay.

Fleawuss wrote: »

Masturbation is disordered. :D

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that's not the most signficant disagreement you have with Church philosophy :D

Fleawuss wrote: »

Though one might ignore the implication of the text that disordered actions lead to evil nonetheless the absurdity of the implication is quite well revealed in your own post here.

Oh, I don't know; it holds together pretty well if you think about it. Once you accept that a homosexual, or masturabatory, or fornicative act is disordered, and that engaging in it is going to feel good, despite it being intrinsically evil, it does seem that it will appear good to us, despite obviously being evil. Dotage and spawn of Satan don't even need come into it...

Fleawuss wrote: »

All Heads of State are Heads of State ex officio i.e. by the nature of the office they hold i.e. head of state. What you are trying say is that the pope is elected Bishop of Rome which makes him pope which makes him head of state of the Vatican.

Well.. no. The majority of Heads of State because that is the position they are appointed to; they're not ex-officio Heads of State, they are simply Heads of State. The Pope is appointed to a position which is not a Head of State; it's the Bishop of Rome and head of the Catholic Church. The Head of State of Vatican City State is only Head of State by virtue of being the Bishop of the Holy See, as the Holy See holds the Vatican City State as a territory. Hence, actually ex-officio.

Fleawuss wrote: »

I don't think the angle is vanishingly oblique at all (only of course if one does not wish to see possibilities because of where one is standing). However, you will understand that I won't be advertising any position here to those who are committed to the status quo.

Not really to be honest... but I can understand someone not trying to demonstrate a factual link that makes Irish school teachers agents of a foreign state, given that it would be impossible to do.

Fleawuss wrote: »

I note the casting of denunciation as affirmation. Amusing to see after all these years.

Well.. I can't say any of the topics presented for discussion read as denunciations (absent any inferences of code words, which would rather render a denunciation moot anyway), but they do all read as affirmations, which is to say positive statements; none of them are phrased negatively. That's probably why the educator's notes call them affirmations.

Fleawuss wrote: »

I note also your hopeful construction as to how female teachers might avoid thinking about the stuff that they are expected to teach about women. An important strategy to promote. I'm sure you have easy access to all sorts of rules and guidelines around ethos and the hiring of teachers for RC schools; I don't. Would any of those guidelines (I'm using this as a catchall term) state requirements around being practising RCs and upholding ethos?

Oh, I'm sure I never said female teachers might avoid thinking about the stuff that they are expected to teach about women. I said the educators involved with the course are expected to present these affirmations for discussion.

Bristolscale7

Absolam wrote: »

involve being gay (or acting gay).

An important distinction that the seminarians at Maynooth study carefully.

smacl

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

An important distinction that the seminarians at Maynooth study carefully.

When they're not on Grindr that is

Absolam

Bristolscale7 wrote: »

An important distinction that the seminarians at Maynooth study carefully.

Well... I imagine there are at least some for whom the distinction between states and acts are at least as significant as they are for Fleawuss, certainly.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I don't know; it holds together pretty well if you think about it. Once you accept that a homosexual, or masturabatory, or fornicative act is disordered, and that engaging in it is going to feel good, despite it being intrinsically evil, it does seem that it will appear good to us, despite obviously being evil. Dotage and spawn of Satan don't even need come into it...

is that your opinion? would you tell teenagers that masturbation is intrinsically evil?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

is that your opinion? would you tell teenagers that masturbation is intrinsically evil?

Well, I understand the the Catholic Church's view is that masturbation is an intrinsically disordered action, so I'm not surprised the view could be discussed in the Catholic Church's new sex education course; in fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I understand the the Catholic Church's view is that masturbation is an intrinsically disordered action, so I'm not surprised the view could be discussed in the Catholic Church's new sex education course; in fact I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

do you agree with their position?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

do you agree with their position?

Does it make a difference?

Hotblack Desiato

silverharp wrote: »

do you agree with their position?

Asking a direct question expecting a direct answer? Careful now.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Does it make a difference?

so the merits of it can be discussed, is it good information or bad information on a purely practical level?. some religious ethics overlap with reasonable behaviour and ethical standards some might not and be poor advice.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

so the merits of it can be discussed, is it good information or bad information on a purely practical level?. some religious ethics overlap with reasonable behaviour and ethical standards some might not and be poor advice.

Whether I agree or disagree with doesn't actually make any difference to that though; surely it can stand or fall on it's own merits?

On a purely practical level it's good information to have if you want to be a good Catholic, and if you don't it's irrelevant, I would have thought.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Whether I agree or disagree with doesn't actually make any difference to that though; surely it can stand or fall on it's own merits?

On a purely practical level it's good information to have if you want to be a good Catholic, and if you don't it's irrelevant, I would have thought.

but does it imply that being a good catholic has negative consequences for your mental or physical health if the advice is wrong?

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but does it imply that being a good catholic has negative consequences for your mental or physical health if the advice is wrong?

You're implying that believing that masturbation is an intrinsically disordered act could have negative consequences for someone's mental or physical health? I'm not convinced that implication is likely to be true, certainly for the vast majority of people, or at least, not significant negative consequences beyond some occasional discomfort. I certainly wouldn't be advocating prohibiting the advice on the basis that it will have negative consequences for someone's mental or physical health. Would you?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

You're implying that believing that masturbation is an intrinsically disordered act could have negative consequences for someone's mental or physical health? I'm not convinced that implication is likely to be true, certainly for the vast majority of people, or at least, not significant negative consequences beyond some occasional discomfort. I certainly wouldn't be advocating prohibiting the advice on the basis that it will have negative consequences for someone's mental or physical health. Would you?

parents generally want to give their kids the best advice and or indicate where there is wiggle room. an absolute statement that masturbation is disordered and wrong presumably doesn't appear to be a good starting point.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

parents generally want to give their kids the best advice and or indicate where there is wiggle room. an absolute statement that masturbation is disordered and wrong presumably doesn't appear to be a good starting point.

Unless you believe that masturbation is disordered and wrong? In which case you should probably be giving them that advice, shouldn't you?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Unless you believe that masturbation is disordered and wrong? In which case you should probably be giving them that advice, shouldn't you?

but what are the arguments for it being disordered and wrong and what is the goal of complying with such rules. if they were good arguments then it might be good advice for everyone, if not then it might be about control or some other nefarious purpose.

King Mob

silverharp wrote: »

but what are the arguments for it being disordered and wrong and what is the goal of complying with such rules. if they were good arguments then it might be good advice for everyone, if not then it might be about control or some other nefarious purpose.

The argument is that the church said so.
And the goal is to be a good Catholic. Which is the most important goal for a sex ed course...

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but what are the arguments for it being disordered and wrong and what is the goal of complying with such rules. if they were good arguments then it might be good advice for everyone, if not then it might be about control or some other nefarious purpose.

I'd say King Mob isn't too far off in his assessment when it comes down to it, though I think it's fair to say there's no pretence that the sex ed is anything other than a particular religious view of sexuality; there's no real discussion of the more mechanical aspects of sex ed for instance. And of course when the Church 'says so' there is a wealth of thought behind what it says; the Church has had millennia to establish the reasoning that boils down to 'it says so', and happily shares it with the inquisitive.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

I'd say King Mob isn't too far off in his assessment when it comes down to it, though I think it's fair to say there's no pretence that the sex ed is anything other than a particular religious view of sexuality; there's no real discussion of the more mechanical aspects of sex ed for instance. And of course when the Church 'says so' there is a wealth of thought behind what it says; the Church has had millennia to establish the reasoning that boils down to 'it says so', and happily shares it with the inquisitive.

but the reasoning is the interesting bit. is the reasoning that masturbation leads to pre marital sex? , is it to keep teenagers and men horny so they are more likely to marry? I get the impression that Islam today is a bit like Christianity in the past, the goal was and is to keep the men thirsty so that they would be more likely to want to marry or to put it crudely to keep the price of sex high by restricting access. A secular modern society pretty much implies the opposite, lower "the price" to the point that unlimited p0rn becomes a substitute for the need to even have sex at the extreme.

smacl

Absolam wrote: »

And of course when the Church 'says so' there is a wealth of thought behind what it says; the Church has had millennia to establish the reasoning that boils down to 'it says so', and happily shares it with the inquisitive.

Of course the what the church says with regards to sex also hasn't changed much in millennia either, and comes from an age where child mortality rates were high, world population was low, and the amount of physical labour involved in surviving was such that large families made sense. Most of this of course is no longer true, so what the church says about sex is in fact millennia out of date. From a point of view of procreation and world population, planning families is good for the species, planet and individual families. We also live in an age where sex is recreational, and most times most people in our society have sex it is not with the aim of reproduction.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

but the reasoning is the interesting bit. is the reasoning that masturbation leads to pre marital sex? , is it to keep teenagers and men horny so they are more likely to marry? I get the impression that Islam today is a bit like Christianity in the past, the goal was and is to keep the men thirsty so that they would be more likely to want to marry or to put it crudely to keep the price of sex high by restricting access. A secular modern society pretty much implies the opposite, lower "the price" to the point that unlimited p0rn becomes a substitute for the need to even have sex at the extreme.

Well, it's certainly commendable that it's the reasoning you're interested in; as I said the Church happily shares a great deal with the inquisitive so I'm sure there's much you could find out. I'm not terribly convinced of your speculations though; you're assuming there's a drive to push people into marriage without providing any reasoning. The Church had strong views on sex long before it involved itself in marriage so your thinking might not align too well with the facts there. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of resources to check out on the subject.

Absolam

smacl wrote: »

Of course the what the church says with regards to sex also hasn't changed much in millennia either, and comes from an age where child mortality rates were high, world population was low, and the amount of physical labour involved in surviving was such that large families made sense. Most of this of course is no longer true, so what the church says about sex is in fact millennia out of date. From a point of view of procreation and world population, planning families is good for the species, planet and individual families. We also live in an age where sex is recreational, and most times most people in our society have sex it is not with the aim of reproduction.

Sure... though the Church itself has changed radically over the millenia. I'm not sure the Church's attitude towards sex was entirely based on the circumstances of the age either; I doubt the Church Fathers were much exercised by the point of view of procreation and world population, though if there ever was an age where sex wasn't recreational, I'd be honestly amazed. I think it's fair to say the Church's attitude to sex owes more to it's fundamental philosophies than a drive to keep the species going around the planet.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Well, it's certainly commendable that it's the reasoning you're interested in; as I said the Church happily shares a great deal with the inquisitive so I'm sure there's much you could find out. I'm not terribly convinced of your speculations though; you're assuming there's a drive to push people into marriage without providing any reasoning. The Church had strong views on sex long before it involved itself in marriage so your thinking might not align too well with the facts there. Still, I'm sure there are plenty of resources to check out on the subject.

my interest is limited to this thread for now, was hoping you might have an opinion on what it is as opposed to having an opinion on what it is not. I have the reasonable assumption that religious ethics in this area were largely based on the physical realities of pre industrial societies that having an ordered family structure was necessary for survival.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

my interest is limited to this thread for now, was hoping you might have an opinion on what it is as opposed to having an opinion on what it is not. I have the reasonable assumption that religious ethics in this area were largely based on the physical realities of pre industrial societies that having an ordered family structure was necessary for survival.

Interesting... what makes the assumption reasonable?

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

Interesting... what makes the assumption reasonable?

lets take pre marital sex , its reasonable to assume that there would be ethics in this area due to the potential high cost of "recreational sex" in terms of unwanted pregnancy ,the fact that a religion wraps it up in a bow and adds some bells and whistles isn't particularly surprising.
As for rules for masturbation I'm willing to concede its the result of erm philosophical masturbation as opposed to any calculated move that gave an evolutionary advantage but also wouldn't probably be a thing unless sexual ethics weren't generally important to these societies.

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

lets take pre marital sex , its reasonable to assume that there would be ethics in this area due to the potential high cost of "recreational sex" in terms of unwanted pregnancy ,the fact that a religion wraps it up in a bow and adds some bells and whistles isn't particularly surprising.

But...thinking it is reasonable to assume there would be rules based on your perception of sex at the time is a bit different to thinking it is reasonable to assume that a particular religions views are based on your perceptions, isn't it? I would have thought any reasonable assumption of the rationale behind, say the Catholic Church's, views on an issue should be based on some familiarity of what they actually hold out as being their rationale... otherwise it would be an unreasonable assumption. Don't you think?

silverharp wrote: »

As for rules for masturbation I'm willing to concede its the result of erm philosophical masturbation as opposed to any calculated move that gave an evolutionary advantage but also wouldn't probably be a thing unless sexual ethics weren't generally important to these societies.

I think maybe you're reading something into religious viewpoints that isn't necessarily there.

Both religious and civic strictures obviously evolved out of our need to find ways of successfully living together but once we get past the basics I think they have very little in common with a drive for evolutionary advantage.
You've mentioned masturbation which probably wasn't ever going to limit an individuals ability to procreate anyway, but the Christian Church has from the early days had a fondness for celibacy, even amongst married members, and that certainly was never going to help with assuring the spread of the species.

On the other hand, the Church is fairly open about it's actual reasoning as I said; far more informative to look at what it says rather than concoct assumptions, reasonable or otherwise, I would have thought. Certainly, if you actually want to answer your question "what are the arguments for it being disordered and wrong and what is the goal of complying with such rules" I'd say the Church is far more likely to give an accurate answer than even the most reasonable assumption.

Absolam

With regard to the subject in hand, apparently not all Catholics are fans of the new course.

One of the issues mentioned is "Failing to name and condemn sexual behaviors, such as fornication, prostitution, adultery, contracepted-sex, homosexual activity, and masturbation, as objectively sinful actions that destroy charity in the heart and turn one away from God." and another, perhaps apropos of our conversation Silverharp, is "Not stressing celibacy as the supreme form of self-giving that constitutes the very meaning of human sexuality."

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

But...thinking it is reasonable to assume there would be rules based on your perception of sex at the time is a bit different to thinking it is reasonable to assume that a particular religions views are based on your perceptions, isn't it? I would have thought any reasonable assumption of the rationale behind, say the Catholic Church's, views on an issue should be based on some familiarity of what they actually hold out as being their rationale... otherwise it would be an unreasonable assumption. Don't you think?

for a religion to be successful it needs to help achieve society's goals, had christianity been based on living like hippies in a commune or stating that sex and is disordered and should be avoided, either the religion would have died out or the society would have

Absolam wrote: »

I think maybe you're reading something into religious viewpoints that isn't necessarily there.

Both religious and civic strictures obviously evolved out of our need to find ways of successfully living together but once we get past the basics I think they have very little in common with a drive for evolutionary advantage.
You've mentioned masturbation which probably wasn't ever going to limit an individuals ability to procreate anyway, but the Christian Church has from the early days had a fondness for celibacy, even amongst married members, and that certainly was never going to help with assuring the spread of the species.

It can be an issue, today with the free access of porn etc excessive masturbation can ruin relationships and possibly be an alternative to engaging with the other sex. Religions tend to turn things into a binary good/ bad which may help overall enforcement with large numbers of poorly educate people.
With celibacy sure wasnt the initial advice not to get married as himself would be back before long. As himself didnt come back and it became the religion of an empire it wasnt going to be the general advice for the population

Absolam wrote: »

On the other hand, the Church is fairly open about it's actual reasoning as I said; far more informative to look at what it says rather than concoct assumptions, reasonable or otherwise, I would have thought. Certainly, if you actually want to answer your question "what are the arguments for it being disordered and wrong and what is the goal of complying with such rules" I'd say the Church is far more likely to give an accurate answer than even the most reasonable assumption.

it circles back to sex being only for procreation within marriage so any "misuse" of the equipment is going to be considered "disordered". it ties into societies not viewing sex as recreational

Absolam

silverharp wrote: »

for a religion to be successful it needs to help achieve society's goals, had christianity been based on living like hippies in a commune or stating that sex and is disordered and should be avoided, either the religion would have died out or the society would have

That's a pretty dubious assertion; Islam is pretty successful, and it generally pushes societies into orienting towards achieving it's goals rather than helping to achieve societies goals (if societies even have goals, a dubious assertion in itself). Christianity actually has encouraged adherants to avoid sex, hence my points about celibacy above. But it's going strong all the same...

silverharp wrote: »

It can be an issue, today with the free access of porn etc excessive masturbation can ruin relationships and possibly be an alternative to engaging with the other sex. Religions tend to turn things into a binary good/ bad which may help overall enforcement with large numbers of poorly educate people.

Still, I don't think now or then has masturbation ever been a threat to the survival, or even success, of the species, has it? So the religious view of it hasn't really about it being a threat to the survival, or even success, of the species.

silverharp wrote: »

With celibacy sure wasnt the initial advice not to get married as himself would be back before long. As himself didnt come back and it became the religion of an empire it wasnt going to be the general advice for the population

It would certainly appear to be a possibility alright, though from what we've seen recently the advice certainly hasn't exactly fallen out of fashion, so it may have a bit more to it than the thinking of the first couple of centuries.

silverharp wrote: »

it circles back to sex being only for procreation within marriage so any "misuse" of the equipment is going to be considered "disordered". it ties into societies not viewing sex as recreational

Well, I'm not sure it circles back to it; the Christian view is fairly consistent in that the entire view of sex is based around how it relates to God. Societies may adopt that view due to being primarily Christian, sure, but that Christianity adopts that view due to societies being against recreational sex? I think that's back to unreasonable assumption I'm afraid.

silverharp

Absolam wrote: »

That's a pretty dubious assertion; Islam is pretty successful, and it generally pushes societies into orienting towards achieving it's goals rather than helping to achieve societies goals (if societies even have goals, a dubious assertion in itself). Christianity actually has encouraged adherants to avoid sex, hence my points about celibacy above. But it's going strong all the same...

Islam is successful in its own way and as such Islam is a religion and political sytem so it wants to be the driver of society goals, It restricts access to sex which encourages marriage and baby making. As for celibacy sure you can make a virtue out of it but if you know 90%+ of the population will never bother trying it, it makes a great piece of virtue signalling and gives prestige to the priest class even if half of them wouldnt have been in the market for a wife anyway

Absolam wrote: »

Still, I don't think now or then has masturbation ever been a threat to the survival, or even success, of the species, has it? So the religious view of it hasn't really about it being a threat to the survival, or even success, of the species.

no its not that important, its just an offshoot of the sex is for procreation and not for pleasure in its own right. I did read that there was a medieval belief that the sperm were basically viewed as little humans , so there was a bit of the "spilling the seed" being wrong.

Absolam wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure it circles back to it; the Christian view is fairly consistent in that the entire view of sex is based around how it relates to God. Societies may adopt that view due to being primarily Christian, sure, but that Christianity adopts that view due to societies being against recreational sex? I think that's back to unreasonable assumption I'm afraid.

Christianity is based on Judaism which had influences from earlier religions. if a particular society needed to be wary of unwanted pregnancies which I'd imagine was most of them then the local religion would reflect these values. the way I look at religion codified pre existing ethics or was possibly the mechanism necessary to transmit these values.