Catholicism Minus Anti-Sex Stuff

if you could read you'd see that he answered that question in his post.

You are a deeply wicked man. Repent.

You are a deeply wicked man. Repent.

I will read or at least skim Theology of the Body but having been raised Catholic and having (attempted) been a fairly devout Catholic who read a lot I believe (possibly erroneously) I am familiar with many of its arguments. But there's an overwhelming absence of discussion about even the possibility of non procreative sex. Even between married couples who have already fulfilled God's commandment to multiply.

So perhaps you need to spell it out for me. What is the Catholic response to the Blakean conception of pleasurable sex as a gift from God to be cherished, nor spurned?

You think 75% of clergy aren't celibate? I'm surprised you think 75% of clergy have time to have relationships.

awrsipe.com/

Read Sipe if you want to see the outcome of Catholic sex teaching.

There's some info on the wiki page for Catholic sex abuse crisis too.

maybe it's just the countryside where half of the priests that were priests pre-pill had children they paid for.

Try again, Richard Sipe Isn't even remotely credible, he's a laughing stock.

>muh atheist bogeyman

To believe that Christianity is incompatible with science in this day and age is laughable. Science is the ultimate testament to God's glory.

>The role of sexual organs is procreation. Pleasure isn't

Women have a sexual organ that exists solely for pleasure, so you're kinda wrong.

>Projecting this hard
Having a crisis of faith user?

I've always wanted to fuck a qt Catholic priest. Would you be up to the task, with your sex positive philosophy?

talk to a priest and consider orthodoxy or lutheranism

Only if your female and the Church changes its doctrine on celibacy and fornication. I dont want to be a hypocrites like so many clergy.

>Projecting this hard
Having a crisis of faith user?

Greek Catholic priests don't have to be celibate btw, you can marry one on certain conditions.

bumping to hear what Constantine has to say

>tfw want to get into Catholicism
>tfw want to be celibate
>tfw masochist and therefore self-denial is more erotic and stimulating for me than simply indulging in my sexual desires

How do I proceed? Am I trapped?

Pleasure and pain aren't categories of Catholic thought in the same way utility isn't. Pleasurable sex is perfectly fine assuming it is between a married couple and open to life.

>Why is it ok to indulge our occasional appetites for sweet food and cigarettes as long as we avoid gluttony or addiction but NOT ok to engage in masturbation or fornication in a non addictive or manipulative way?
You really don't see the difference? Gluttony and nicotine addiction involves inanimate resources like food or tobacco while sex is a carnal impulse that involves other living human beings?

Masturbation isn't.

Who is this semen demon?

you heard it here first, folks, do not let somebody else put tasty tasty food into your mouth if you aren't hungry!

Masturbation is committing adultery in your heart.

understand what celibacy means, and you will understand that no repression takes place, only a redirection of energy.

How? How is it different from say eating chocolate?

How? I don't know how to get rid of those feelings. The very act of deliberately not indulging in sexual thoughts and behaviour is arousing to me.

You don't eat chocolate while thinking about fucking someone to satisfy your sexual urges?
If you do, it's the same.

>thinking about someone while you masturbate

Normie. I only masturbate to fictional characters or abstract people I made up.

what does atheism have to do with science?

Sure, but Christianity doesn't say we can't do good thing for other people. Sex provides pleasure to the other person as long as there isn't coercion. One could indeed argue that it is the purest form of "loving one's neighbor as oneself." It fulfills both of Christ's commandments:

1) Love the Lord God with all your heart
2) Love thy neighbor as thyself

Sex (even non procreative sex)

1) Glorifies God by letting us wonder in his creation and appreciate the beauty of others. Also the tremendous joy to be had in God's earthly creation that prefigures the more perfect joy of heaven.

2) Enables us to give a woman pleasure and come to appreciate her more fully. If you've had sex you agree that done lovingly it leads to greater understanding and tremendous catharsis.

How are these not worthy goals to pursue as a Christian? Abstinence gives glory to God but arguably so does fornication.

Love isn't providing pleasure.
This is complete nonsense hanging on something other than scripture and tradition, an introduction of terms foreign to both to explain it.

>progressive Catholicism is profoundly anti intellectual
True for any form of Christianity. If Aquinas/Calvin/Luther is right, that means that others are wrong, and thinking other people are wrong is mean, so lets just ignore theology. All of the intellectual leftists are Marxists and the like, not Christians

What is love? The giving of oneself to another? Self sacrifice correct? Rubbing my tongue all over a sweaty vagina hole is a pretty self giving act. I give of myself and sacrifice my pleasure for hers, in the process we both benefit.

What is love from your point of view other than generous self sacrifice and coming to know another more fully?

What are the terms scripture uses to discuss these issues? Or does it simply pass over the issue of human pleasure in silence?

WHY are there pleasures if God did not intend them to be pursued and why does the Church segregate sexual pleasures from other material pleasures?

The Catholic sex abuse crisis was the result of a normal % of pedos being covered up by incompetent bishops who were told by psychologists that pedos could be reformed by moving them to different parishes. Not related to Catholic teaching on sex

The Catholic child abuse crisis is a subset of a deeper and more ancient history of sexual activity on the part of the clergy. The sad truth is that each time you meet a Catholic priest there is a HIGH chance he is fucking another priest or bishop, or one of his female flock. A minority of clergy attain perfect and perpetual continence.

Also studies by the Vatican itself have revealed a clear and distinct gay subculture that begins in seminaries and perpetuates on from there. Groups of priests in each seminary class engaging in essentially condoned sexual activity on the campus--their brother priests either know or strongly suspect and nothing is done.

There have been around 500 convicted priests for pedophilia across the world with most of it being flase accusations (having worked on a case I can confirm it was a way to vent hatred of the church).
500 priests for crimes during 50 years is very little.
But homosexuality is common in the church, especially the progressive bishops in the Vatican. This was spoken of many times by Benedict XVI.

>Sex is beautiful and an expression of Gods perfect creation, regardless of whether reproduction occurs
OP is 100% correct.

I've seen this kind of delusion before because I used to live it. One day, even if it is several years down the line, you will regret your faith and your endless apologies for the Church. It is a grand and noble edifice but it desperately need change. It has changed many times throughout history, and now it needs it more than ever. This is for the long term mind you, it will be fine for a century or so thanks to booming Third World populations, but one they also decide that 10 child families are unsustainable literally 1% of Catholics will be in line with the sexual dogma.

I generally think that priestly celibacy was a very good idea for most of history, but could possibly be worth changing today, largely because it would cut down on the homos. But the logistics of having young married priests are difficult. An average US parish priest makes $30,000 and has housing taken care of. Now give him a wife and five kids.

de debil didit

>What is love? The giving of oneself to another? Self sacrifice correct? Rubbing my tongue all over a sweaty vagina hole is a pretty self giving act. I give of myself and sacrifice my pleasure for hers, in the process we both benefit.
How is eating pussy a self sacrificing act of love exactly?
In any case a deed of love for a Christian is something which is either guiding you to God (martyrdom, prayer) or helping another to attain life eternal. Eternal life is the endgame for every Christian. The alternative is eternal, indescribable suffering.
Now since Paul condemns sexual acts for pleasure alone as something which binds a soul to hell, it cannot be an act of love.
>What is love from your point of view other than generous self sacrifice and coming to know another more fully?
Eating pussy isn't self sacrifice, self sacrifice is working 10 hours/day to provide food and education to your family and helping them live under God's law.
>What are the terms scripture uses to discuss these issues? Or does it simply pass over the issue of human pleasure in silence?
Paul extensively, although I don't have a bible on me right now, I'll look it up (exact quotations) after work.
>WHY are there pleasures if God did not intend them to be pursued and why does the Church segregate sexual pleasures from other material pleasures?
Because it involves the birth of another human being. Sexual acts couldn't be divorced from reproductive functions in the view of the apostles as contraception wasn't a widely accepted vice.
Can you not tell apart something trivial like eating or watching a movie and engaging in something which creates new life?

>I generally think that priestly celibacy was a very good idea for most of history, but could possibly be worth changing today, largely because it would cut down on the homos.
While that may seem like a worthwhile cause, the homos are just the product of a progressive heresy within the church. It wasn't a historical problem, it's a modern one, related to the VatII.
>But the logistics of having young married priests are difficult. An average US parish priest makes $30,000 and has housing taken care of. Now give him a wife and five kids.
The church already does have married priests in certain rites, it probably wouldn't be as much of a logistical problem as it would be a theological one.
A Catholic must never think in utilitarian terms.

This isn't intended to be a gotcha question, I just want to know.

Why is it ok for two people, knowing they are sterile or past menopause, to engage in sex if sex is specifically for procreation and nothing else? Shouldn't they abstain or find someone who is fertile?

>How is eating pussy a self sacrificing act of love exactly?
This nigga right here doesn't know how much self restraint it takes to eat the pussy and not just stick your dick in there. You've either never done it or you're gay.

Also thank you for giving thoughtful responses (second guy wasn't me but I sort of agree with him)

This would play into the larger acceptance of hylomorphic view, that everything is comprised out of matter and form. In case of sterile people their matter is broken, even if their form is just as human as it is for anyone healthy.
During sex which is open to life, aka no contraception, they engage into something their form is meant to do and they partake in its teleology.

For this, I would recommend Edward Feser. His Aquinas and Last Superstition aren't a replacement for Aquinas, but will help you get into a mindset needed to understand Catholic faith. It is something 2000 years old, itself a continuation of another 1500 year old tradition. You cannot approach it with an emotivist, utilitarian, materialist mindset.
It's not easy, but it can be done.
For fiction, I have found Gene Wolfe to paint the worldview most accurate and beautiful.

>FFS
Friend OP, let me gently inform you - the Church *is* sex positive, as long as you grasp the teleology of sex.
For example
>Theologians debated the nature of orgasm and concluded that within a marriage the husband is obligated to do his 'best effort within morals' to ensure that his spouse orgasms during sex and that if he orgams first he is not free of this obligation
>That was in the 8th Century
Stop confusing
>What modern people like!
with
>A positive attitude toward sex

>To Augustine guy, can I get the short version?
GTFO of Veeky Forums

>Man makes a living attacking the Church
>"he's credible!"
pick one

Read 2 Timothy 4:3-4 bro

Is the EXCLUSIVE teleology of sex to reproduce? There is no secondary teleology of pleasure?

What of masturbation?

Have I not already explained masturbation?

He's a social scientist. He isn't attacking anything, he is describing empirical reality.

Well masturbation isn't necessarily sex. It is simply using the sex organ without the company of another. I suppose the fact that no reproduction is involved also disqualifies it?

He "described" that celibacy is responsible for the holocaust, has said the last two popes were homosexuals and believes clergy commit crimes at a higher percentage than the general population.

You want to distill 3,000 of Jewish and Catholic theology into a Veeky Forums post? Sure
The teleology of intercourse is reproduction; the pleasurable element is part of the unitive aspect of reproduction. This is why the husband is under an obligation to attempt to give his wife an orgasm during sex.
Masturbation is the solitary corruption of a unitive act; in addition to giving no chance for reproduction, it gives no chance for unity; it thwarts the goal of sex AND destroys the unitive aspect.
Perpetual impotence is an impediment to matrimony because it prevents the unitive aspect of the conjugal act.
.
Yes, you can - and should! - enjoy eating, but binging and purging is unhealthy.
Yes, you can - and should! - enjoy sex, but only in a moral manner

>"Celibate priests = the holocaust"
>"He's credible!"
pick one

I seriously doubt homo priests/monks weren't an historical problem. Becoming a priest was the perfect way for homos to not get married still be accepted by society. Its easy to have a rosy view of history where everything was great until Vatican II. Granted it was probably never as bad as it was in the 1970s, which was because of the reasons you mention.

Yes, alongside the whole committing adultery in your heart.
Really the whole teleology thing doesn't work on a purely philosophical basis to the extent Catholicism takes it.
Aristotelian ethics are essentially egocentric, and if we were to keep only to him proving Catholic sexual morality would not be an easy task.
That said, a lot of it works without faith, such as condemnation of homosexual activity, abortion etc.

stay away from based catholicism you brainlet normie

I'm not claiming there were none or that it was never a phenomenon.
I'm claiming that it was something relatively marginal compared to today based on it never being mentioned by any monk that I've read, and I've read a lot of Catholic writings.

if you can't take pleasure from the pussy eating itself you're the one who's gay, nigga.

There is no place for progressive religion on Veeky Forums. We're only into religion for the extremist belonging aspects.

Nice dubs

And I'm not him but couldn't it be argued that you can still get pleasure from eating WHILE gaining sustenance? Hence why pleasure from procreative sex isn't a sin?

no you homo, their form's not realized. Their matter's not different to anyone.

A bowl with a hole doesn't have its problem in its fucking matter, jesus, do your doublethink if you must, but keep poor Aristotle out of it.

>Hence why pleasure from procreative sex isn't a sin?
Pleasure is perfectly fine, in fact simultanious orgasm is should be sought according to theology.
What is the difference between form not being realised and their matter being damaged?
Of course, I may be wrong, I'm always happy to better my knowledge of these things, there is no need to be rude in what is a farely civilised thread.

>g-g-guys I'm too much of a thirsty beta to give up my porn
if you actually want salvation you have to change yourself

It's all bullshit, so cut the parts of bullshit that you don't agree with out, and go about your merry way.

That would just be the pre-Christian paganism of Europe

>2016
>believing in god
>not realising that in being so firmly contrarian with regards to leddit atheism and muh Dawkins he's just as shit and hivemind as what he rails against

If you are genuinely a christian/jew/muslim you are a certified

C
U
C
K

...

this is what most christians in general do, so fuck it, do it with sex stuff too.

Fedora posting is busted and unfunny now, haven't you heard? HAHAHA HAHA

>What is the difference between form not being realised and their matter being damaged?
>Of course, I may be wrong, I'm always happy to better my knowledge of these things, there is no need to be rude in what is a farely civilised thread.

The matter, the hylé, is what lies at the base of every being thing, as the necessary and to a certain extent restricting prerequisit to being. It's the hypokeimenon, the "subject" in a grammatical sense, it is necessary that something IS at all. In the case of a human, that's flesh and bones and whatnot, we would even go down to the molecules, the atoms nowadays (although Aristotle often had problems where to put elements vs their compounds but I digress).

That can't be 'damaged', it can only be applied wrongly. A sick person still has all the matter he'd need to be a healthy person.

The healthy person, that's the form, the essentia, that's what not only is necessary for BEING, but for being A BEING, for being what you are. I'm sure you're very familiar with essentia as somebody who's read up on his trinity theology.

If you deviate from what best helps you achieve what you are meant to - the teleological cause you've invoked so often this thread - that means your hylé isn't in the proper form. That might be because you've been damaged, because you're an embryo (whom's form cause is still the healthy adult) or just because of a cruel turn of fate, the element of randomness that dominates the sublunar plane. A form growing unhindered (and keep in mind we are talking about natural ousias here, not worked ones) will always grow into its true form, and any ousia that does not attain it is faulty in just that - the form.

Pardon?

Thank you for clarification.
I don't study philosophy so getting aristotelian anything completely right is hard as I have started reading it around 6 months ago for the first time.
I am just about to finish History of Philosophy Vol II and will reread Metaphysics and De Anima before delving into the Summa as a whole (law being my thing I for the most part keep to political philosophy of both Aquinas and Aristotle and other authors).

This is a pretty poor shoop

Source?

Catholicism isn't anti-sex at all.

Is that hard to realize?
Sex can be pleasurable but it is actually pretty dangerous stuff. You can have nasty STDs or unwanted pregnancy, easily.
Plus, it's dangerous on a psychological level. It's the main gateway for a broad variety of bad sentiments such as greed, envy and jealousy. It is addictive and it can drain all your eneedies, refraining you to pursue more edifying activities.
It can drive individuals to extort it from unwilling parts using violence. It is itself used as a form of violence, humiliation and dehumanization.
It can be used on a higher level to manipulate the behaviour of the masses, associating it with products, ideals, lifestyles etc.
It is a dangerous drive that human beings should learn to control.
That's why it's wisely considered a sin. It easily corrupts people and can have pretty bad consequences.

>it's also overrated as fuck

You appear to be retarded.

haha lol thanks so funy

Pretty sure this guy got sex ed in in the midwest.

"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be a slave."

I have never read a more turbobeta post in all my time here, so thanks for that at least.

But still you fear to not have sex and being labeled as "beta" or "virgin".
>he quoted Blade Runner
Fuck off with your cringey quotes.

b8? puritan? virgin? purity obsessed neck-beard?

Criiiingeeee!!! hahahah crrrrriiiiinnnnggggeeee cringggggge! cringe! cringe! crinnngggeeee!! haha

Can you just point out fallacies in my statements instead of trying to insult me?
Just prove me wrong, we are on the internet you will never know me personally, whatever I or you say.