re: #385 Liet_Kynes

2. I beg to differ especially if we limit the population to non-married Catholic lay persons who have been properly catechized. Even if we open up the population to include a general Christian and generally poorly catechized most people spend most of their lives celibate.

If you include masturbation as a violation of celibacy, no they don’t. At all.

3. It is only weird if you think of being a priest as having to give up your gender.

Um, you were the one bringing up gender stuff, man. The whole gender trip is just weird in and of itself.

4. I find that the social onus for a non-married lay person to be celibate has grown way too lax. This has dragged down the social onus on priests to be celibate. Those sinning priests need their feet held to the fire, but that fire can be hotter and quick if we are also holding the laity’s feet to the fire.

Yeah. More sexual repression. That’s the ticket. That’s the way to revitalize the church. Really bear down on the shame for kids, that’s great for them.

5. The Church’s view of human sexuality is dependent upon her view of how God relates to mankind, it is not predicated upon “observable behavior of the majority”. It is also not logical to assume that the presence of a behavior amongst a majority of a population guarantees that that behavior is moral as morality is dependent upon what is true not what is popular.

I didn’t say anything about morality, though. The church’s view on human sexuality— that masturbation is damaging, for example— is simply incorrect. Masturbation is in no way, at all, in the least, associated with any negative effects.

The church does, yes, base its view of sexuality off of theology, and not of actual human sexuality. This is why its view of human sexuality is massively screwed up. The church has an inhuman view of sexuality.