What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
Why would celibacy be a requirement for a vocation as a priest? Protestant pastors seem to do fine without that requirement.
"And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful"
The impression I get when reading the New Testament is that its authors think it is nobler for a person to be celibate than to satisfy their sexual desires. The notion sensuality being a vice / inferior in Christianity and celibacy being a virtue can be traced all the way back to Paul. And sexual desire has been viewed as a vice since the beginning of Christianity. While modernity has certainly tempered the views of many Christians, and I think that is a good thing, the perception of sexual desire as a vice is simply historically one of the basic evil fruits of Christian ideology.
The following passage from a letter from Paul, Paul calls his self-deprivation, "self-control" and a "gift"; and suggests that people should reject sex, but if people lack the "gift" Paul has, one should marry, not for things like, say "love", but simply to avoid "burning with passion". And in Paul's marriage, a woman is expected to have her body ruled by her husband, and man is expected to have his body ruled by her wife; which shares the same reasoning of customs and laws that contributed to marital rape and other atrocities. Furthermore, married couples are likewise encouraged to avoid sex at times so that they can dedicate themselves to "prayer." Right, because one cannot pray while having sex in the same "season"? In what world would that be a problem? Well, in a world where sex is in some way morally tainted.
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." Corinthians 1:7
"like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other."
Like everything else? Like masturbation and orgies?
It’s funny, because there are actually Catholic priests who do marry (in some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men can become priests), and it’s possible that the RC Church could change the celibacy requirement for men discerning the priesthood in the future. Christ having been celibate is typically used to justify the celibacy requirement for priests who, in administering the sacraments, are in that sense filling Christ’s role. But then there are also all sorts of practical considerations that have led Church officials to want to keep the requirement.
It’s good to keep in mind when looking at the attitudes of early Christians to sexuality that the dominate culture (that of the Romans) was pretty depraved when it came to sexuality. The Romans had no conception that, say, a man who used a slave to satisfy his sexual desire was in any way committing any sort of violation of that person. Given how rampant sexual abuse was, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that huge portions of the earliest converts to Christianity in the Roman Empire were women and slaves. And while the idea that a wife belonged to her husband would have been accepted as true across many ancient cultures, the notion that a husband belonged exclusively to his wife was pretty novel. Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things. But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. Louise Perry, who recently came out with a book that basically argues that the sexual revolution was a failure, has argued that Christian ideas about sexual ethics were what enabled the feminist movement to develop in the modern period (and I’m not so much referring to the more recent libertarian “choice” feminism so much as the movement that sought legal parity within marriage and protections for women’s sex-based rights). If you look at what [Catholic] Christian theologians have written about sex in last last several decades, I think you might be surprised to find that their take on the matter is nothing like the caricature that been popularized in our culture. I’d recommend “Love and Responsibility” as a good place to start.
I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify.
A man who is not your wife?
What are you confused about? Men can be women. Women can be men. Thus men can be wives and women can be husbands. This is in the catechism of the church of woke.
I’ve got another one too — what if a man has a wife and the only way he can be aroused enough to have sex with her is if he fantasizes about men? Thus every time the man has sex with his wife he must fantasize about sexual acts with men. Disordered or ordered according to the catechism of Catholic Church?
I have a hypothesis that celibacy emerged as a virtue for priests from the painful and resentful depths of self-hating and self-ignorant gay men. Or bitterly envious losers. The two top competing hypotheses for the formation of the catholic priesthood.
The man who can only get aroused enough to have sex with his wife if he fantasizes about men probably should never have gotten married. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.
But yes, sexual acts (including fantasies) that don't take place within marriage & are ordered to procreation would be considered disordered by the Catholic Church. So basically most human beings, whatever their sexual orientation, fall foul of Church teaching.
Why are you so hostile to celibacy? Any why would you presume that a desire to live a celibate life could only come from resentful self-hating, "self-ignorant" gay men? Or that celibacy is a consequence of someone being a "bitterly envious" loser? Can you really not imagine that there could be people in the world that are not like you AND are also decent? Or is it your habit to judge people you don't know or understand?
A lot slow on this reply, but I would like to re-emphasize what I specifically wrote: "celibacy as a virtue for priests". Thus, my "hostility toward celibacy" is only directed at it when conceived as virtuous (and more specifically for catholic priests). If a person is celibate but does not view it as virtuous and sensuality in general as sinful or morally inferior / suspicious, then that person would not fall into the class of people who view "celibacy as a virtue" and thus my hypothesis would not relate to them. I suggest you read things I write in the future more carefully. Or is it your habit to judge people you don't understand?
Just to be clear: celibacy isn’t so much a virtue as it is a requirement for certain vocations. The virtue connected to mastering and/or properly directing sexual desires/urges would be chastity, which everyone, whatever their vocation, can and should strive for. And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful; like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other.
Why would celibacy be a requirement for a vocation as a priest? Protestant pastors seem to do fine without that requirement.
"And sensuality isn’t in and of itself sinful"
The impression I get when reading the New Testament is that its authors think it is nobler for a person to be celibate than to satisfy their sexual desires. The notion sensuality being a vice / inferior in Christianity and celibacy being a virtue can be traced all the way back to Paul. And sexual desire has been viewed as a vice since the beginning of Christianity. While modernity has certainly tempered the views of many Christians, and I think that is a good thing, the perception of sexual desire as a vice is simply historically one of the basic evil fruits of Christian ideology.
The following passage from a letter from Paul, Paul calls his self-deprivation, "self-control" and a "gift"; and suggests that people should reject sex, but if people lack the "gift" Paul has, one should marry, not for things like, say "love", but simply to avoid "burning with passion". And in Paul's marriage, a woman is expected to have her body ruled by her husband, and man is expected to have his body ruled by her wife; which shares the same reasoning of customs and laws that contributed to marital rape and other atrocities. Furthermore, married couples are likewise encouraged to avoid sex at times so that they can dedicate themselves to "prayer." Right, because one cannot pray while having sex in the same "season"? In what world would that be a problem? Well, in a world where sex is in some way morally tainted.
"Now concerning the matters about which you wrote. It is well for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control. 6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." Corinthians 1:7
"like everything else in life, it has its proper place, but can become sinful when pursued in an improper context and without the desire for the good of the other."
Like everything else? Like masturbation and orgies?
It’s funny, because there are actually Catholic priests who do marry (in some Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, married men can become priests), and it’s possible that the RC Church could change the celibacy requirement for men discerning the priesthood in the future. Christ having been celibate is typically used to justify the celibacy requirement for priests who, in administering the sacraments, are in that sense filling Christ’s role. But then there are also all sorts of practical considerations that have led Church officials to want to keep the requirement.
It’s good to keep in mind when looking at the attitudes of early Christians to sexuality that the dominate culture (that of the Romans) was pretty depraved when it came to sexuality. The Romans had no conception that, say, a man who used a slave to satisfy his sexual desire was in any way committing any sort of violation of that person. Given how rampant sexual abuse was, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that huge portions of the earliest converts to Christianity in the Roman Empire were women and slaves. And while the idea that a wife belonged to her husband would have been accepted as true across many ancient cultures, the notion that a husband belonged exclusively to his wife was pretty novel. Yes, of course there have always been men who have abused their wives and manipulated Scripture to do bad things. But since marriage is supposed to be founded in love, it doesn’t make sense to interpret the language of wives and husbands belonging to each other as justifying rape, since rape is obviously antithetical to love. Louise Perry, who recently came out with a book that basically argues that the sexual revolution was a failure, has argued that Christian ideas about sexual ethics were what enabled the feminist movement to develop in the modern period (and I’m not so much referring to the more recent libertarian “choice” feminism so much as the movement that sought legal parity within marriage and protections for women’s sex-based rights). If you look at what [Catholic] Christian theologians have written about sex in last last several decades, I think you might be surprised to find that their take on the matter is nothing like the caricature that been popularized in our culture. I’d recommend “Love and Responsibility” as a good place to start.
I should have been more specific and said “like everything else in life that is good”. Masturbation and orgies obviously would not qualify.