Sexuality according to Gods will
Sexuality according to Gods will
Anonymous asked this question on 2/14/2001:
A while back I was dating a guy who was in seminary [uh yeah... he’s since left] but he wasn’t able to satisfactorily explain these things to me either - or he chose not to. Could someone please help?
First, I don’t understand why birth control is against Catholic belief/acceptance. It is my understanding that the reasoning behind it is that it is taking the life of an unborn child (as with abortion) but birth control prevents the ‘occurrence’ of a fetus, so why is it so objectionable?
I’m also told that oral sex is ‘wrong’ and I’m totally not sure why. Likewise, why is masturbation considered a sin? Again, I was told that oral sex [as well as masturbation] is considered to be a sin because it ‘wastes’ semen which could otherwise become a child, but that would only apply to males receiving oral sex, wouldn’t it?
My final question today is in regard to homosexuality. I’ve read in the Bible where it says something about it being wrong for a man to mate with another man, but why is it that so many ‘devout’ Catholics seem to HATE homosexuals? I even know priests who refer to them as fags and queers, and how they should be herded into camps. What about hate the sin, not the sinner? Love thy neighbor?
I have heaps of questions about Catholicism, and I’m sorry that all of my questions today seem to be sexual in nature.
I think in order to help you we have to respond to the question beneath your question. Let me explain.
Time and again, the non-Catholic or non-believing brethren ask for the why of prohibitions and precepts of the Church. That’s ok. However, they want generally logic cogent answers that convince those who look for clarifications.
However, on this board those who answer are Catholics who respond from "inside" of their faith. The problem is that the "outside" person does not appreciate the answer because he-she is looking from "outside", meaning that he-she does not realize that the answer in faith has some very important implications. It’s not his-her fault. He-she doesn’t know. That’s all.
The problem is compounded by the fact that the faith-answer implies additionally a personal experience that enhances the human existence into a totally different dimension. You can’t really explain to somebody what is being in love if he hasn’t had this experience, can you? That's why trying to understand from "outside" is doubly in jeopardy.
Therefore, doubting and arguing against Catholic answers is perfectly natural and logic but beside the point. In order to argue on the same level you would have to understand what is Christian faith and ultimately the questioner should have the faith-experience. Do you appreciate the abysm that exists?
What’s the solution?
In your case, there is the possibility to argue philophically. Arguments are reasonings about what is obvious and evident for the human intelligence.
I could argue: Look at the human body. How is it fashioned? Every part of the body has its proper use. That’s evident. You don’t apply the eyes in order to eat and you don’t use the derriere for looking.
The sexuality of the body points into the direction of an encounter of male and female and face-to-face. The body is made that way. Are we agreed?
Ergo, philosophically the structure doesn’t point in the direction of homosexuality. The physical structure doesn’t point in the direction of oral sex. And why for God’s sake are we so ecologically exacting regarding nature and soil and water and animals but use so easily mechanical, chemical and other methods that modify the type of sexual encounter suggested by physical structure?
If we were all reasonable and philosophical persons, we would look at the inherent structure of all beings and would read its purpose and act accordingly. The enlightened republic of Plato! Why don’t we? Are we stupid or can’t we just come to a mutual agreement? What gives?
Here we are reaching the critical point of the question beneath your question. Why can’t we just be reasonable? You will have your explanation for that.
The Church has the real explanation. That may sound arrogant. But it's the truth. If you follow my reasoning than you will have to admit that there is a concatenation that can't be dissolved without destroying everything. Read on.
God has created man and woman and put them in charge of His creation. However, man/woman sinned. He-she wanted things to be his-her way. Therefore, he stepped outside of the God's, the world's harmony because of the decision to be godlike becoming judge himself-herself regarding what is good, and what is bad.
He-she put the existence in jeopardy because it rocked the foundation. You can't destroy your bridge and continue to walk without difficulty. He-she found himself-herself nude and prone to death. And from this moment on he-she has to bear the burden of concupiscence, the inclination to act in a way that is not reasonable and many times is quite deadly so.
This reality of being deadly unreasonable can be experienced personally because we suffer it again and again.
But the explanation, the reason why humanity is so unreasonable and can’t agree on a common procedure that’s something else. You could explain mythical, psychologically or just accept the fact. Many conclude: You have to live with it and do the best.
Consequence: in order to avoid suffering everybody uses the method he-she prefers. Consequence: in order to get pleasure everybody is ingeniously occupied inventing new ways to get it. The only reasonability is that I don’t force anybody who doesn’t consent. I do what I want.
However, the best for me is a different thing for every individual. That’s why we need the police, that’s why we have wars, that’s why we kill each other, that’s why we admit homosexuality, intercourse contra naturam, abortion and solicitation.
We should expect that the human intelligence could provide a solution. However, experience proves the contrary. Saint Paul in his letter to the Romans traces the history of what really ails humanity. Our intelligence didn't reach the attainable knowledge of God’s existence and that produced our unreasonable behavior he describes vividly. Read the first chapter. He has an explanation about homosexuality too.
You could ask: who can prove that Paul was right? Now we come to the basis of Catholicism's answer.
You see, in order to help humanity God had to speak to His children so they might understand what was happening, what they should avoid in order to be happy. He had to remind them that from the beginning humankind wrought havoc wanting to be godlike. And that all the problems stem from there. He spoke again and again. It wasn’t enough. God even chose a special people in order to conserve the truth. However, they failed miserably.
So at the end He had to send His Son incarnated to overcome death, violence and unreasonable behavior through death on the cross. He rose the third day and from then on, those who believe in Him will be enabled not only to reasonable behavior but even to sacrifice themselves for the happiness of others.
Where is the proof that things are just like that? Prove it to me. I can't! Well, I can prove that it's reasonable to believe. However, at the end I can only invite you to accept revelation freely. Why is this so?
Because it’s about human freedom and because humankind chooses its own destruction, that God has to reveal the truth about Himself and about humanity. God is extremely respectful regarding human freedom. That's why He doesn’t use his superior knowledge and power in order to force man to his own good. He proposes His revelation. You can accept it and you can say "no" to God. That’s a supreme proof of God's love.
The Church conserves this treasure of revealed truth about God and about man and with the assistance of the Holy Spirit interprets this revelation with authority to help all generations. Accepting this interpretation encompasses faith. Now you see that asking from "outside" responds merely to philosophical arguments. Only divine revelation explains the whole truth and reality.
That’s the question beneath your question. You can have many questions. We will try to give many answers and many arguments. We will reason with those who don’t believe. But do you understand our position? We think that we are telling you God’s truth.
Now we are at the critical point on your side. In order to push back our arguments you must prove that God hasn’t revealed Himself in His only Son. You'll have to prove that His Son hasn’t taught us the truth about how to live in happiness. In addition, you have to prove that the Church hasn't received the mission to teach all generations where to find the truth and the real happiness.
Remember the tale of the blind men that touched an elephant. Every one had a different idea how and what is an elephant according the anatomy's part he touched. Well, only the Church sees the whole elephant, not because she is smarter. It's because God revealed the whole truth about it.