The problem with the pope...*any* priest, really.

The position of the Catholic Church, and John Paul II, isn't just against abortion. It's against birth control of any kind. It's against any sex outside of marriage, any sex that isn't designed for procreation. In fact, it's against masturbation.

If the Pope was sincere, and that's one thing I'll definitely give him is I do think he was, that means he's never had any kind of sex, even wanking off.

How many of you could do this? (Remember, no masturbation.) Especially those of you who are male? Can't we postulate that the ability to remain completely celibate is on the far fringes of human behavior? I certainly think so.

This, of course, isn't about Pope John Paul II, really. They're all celibate, at least in theory. No sex? Ever? Anyone that can do that is either superhuman, has an abnormally low sex drive, or is repressing something very deeply (and sometimes that repression cracks like an egg and you molest altar boys.)

And this is the problem.

A person who doesn't have a sex drive--or manages to turn it off--making up rules about sex is like a deaf person advising me on music. That person does not have something I do--hearing--and is not equipped to advise me on something where hearing is a necessity. (No dis intended to the hearing-impaired, but it's a handy comparison.)

Since the Pope either had no sex drive or superhuman willpower to repress it, his capability of understanding my sex drive--or most people's--would be like me trying to explain The Beatles to someone who was born deaf. Can't be done, as there's no frame of reference. Anyone who can remain celibate is incredibly different from me on a very basic level.

I'm not dissing or discounting the ability to ignore a sex drive, just as I'm not dissing the hearing-impaired. If you don't have one or can supress it, more power to you. However, I don't want to hear your opinions on sex. They're completely, utterly irrelevant. If you saw me--an over 300 pound guy who inhales food without a second thought--would you take my advice on dieting? I certainly fucking hope not! My idea of a diet is to have the small fries instead of the large fries with the two Big Macs, OK? I'm the last person you want to hear about diets.

And someone who does not have or is capable of ignoring a basic sex drive is someone I don't want to hear from when it comes to sex.

But they keep talking about it. God, the Pope could've done so much good if he'd never talked about sex--if he recognized that his ability to remain celibate pointed towards a sex drive outside the norm. That so many Catholics ignore that part of his teaching--and too many wingnuts coopted it while ignoring the important stuff.

Talk about opportunity missed.

•  i agree

  And who decides what marriage is?  as far as i'm concerned i married my bf when we had sex.  who decides?  why does the church decide what's acceptable or that birth control is evil?  based on a book that some religious zealot had every reason to alter to suit his own needs?  so God would rather we have a dozen kids that we cannot feed?  I don't think so.  People want to believe what these so called intermediaries think... I think htere is something very wrong when you need a middleman to interpret something for you.  

  That's what priests are.  Pastors.  They are all middlemen who are interpreting a book that if it had any credibility at all would have to be a personal thing.  It's like watching the movie before you read hte book.  You are going to have someone else's interpretation in your head while you are reading.

  Another thing....  the hierarchy of the Catholic Church don't actually have to live like we do.  They seem to live in oppulence wearing fine linens and living like kings.  I know there are genuine priests and pastors who are actually trying to help people.  But for hte most part, I can't help but think the Church's entire goal is control.  Control over everyone.  

  I was raised in a Catholic household.  went to catholic school.  I am not a catholic now.  I saw the light nd the hypocrasy of these people a long time ago.  And I'll be damned if the Pope or any other 'christian' is gonna tell me what's what.  If the Pope doesn't like birth control... he shouldn't use it.  But keepyour damned so called beliefs to yourself!

  by ejpoeta on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:04:59 AM PDT

  •  control

    control is all most organized religion has ever been about....
    

    by johnfire on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:29:04 AM PDT

  •  Most people aren't as smart as you

    Just like most people can't just sit down with a text on microeconomic theory and a few hours later call themselves economists, most people just aren't smart enough to be able to understand the meaning of life by themselves.   They find a lot of help in over three thousand years of collective wisdom on that topic so they join the Church for that help.

    But I'm glad you are so wise and don't need that kind of help.

    by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:19:17 AM PDT

    •  jonah goldberg

      would disagree with you on becoming an expert i think.

      by kd texan on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:47:12 AM PDT

      •  So would the economics editor

        of the Wall Street Journal, I think.

        by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:12:40 PM PDT

•  sex

  Sex drive is a basic human fuction.  Of course the Pope had it.  Of course he masturbated; at least before he became a priest in young adulthood.  All kinds of religions have some form of self-sacrifice, whether it's giving up certain kinds of food, or food altogether during fasting.  Some religious orders forbid speaking.

  Your point about the Pope not being able to relate to or talk about your sex drive is like saying that I can't go to a male doctor because I'm a female, or vice versa.

  Many catholics (read that most)accept that there are certain rules of the church that they will just never be able to follow.  Most catholics, I would venture to say, practice birth control and masturbation. Many are pro-choice.  I am catholic and I don't have a problem reconciling my catholicism with my morality. No one is perfect.  There is always room for disagreement.  And, hey...there's always confession :-)

  by getmeoutofdixie on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:09:50 AM PDT

  •  I guess all that guilt...

    ...for failing to living up to the impossible standards of being a good Catholic makes for healthy collection plates :D

    *Disclaimer: Not meant to offend, just a funny thought that crossed my mind*

    by OrdinaryVanity on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:17:18 AM PDT

    •  probably so

      Catholic guilt is well documented.  But, I don't think anyone, short of Mother Theresa or Gandhi, can totally live up to the ideals of their religion.  I think of them more as goals, rather than hard and fast rules.  Hey, maybe that's why I haven't been to mass in months.

      by getmeoutofdixie on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:24:58 AM PDT

      •  Kind of like the law profession

        There are "ethical considerations," which are the ideals a lawyer is supposed to aspire to. Then there are "disciplinary rules," which establish a minimum standard. Fall below it and you're a candidate for disciplinary action.

        by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:49:40 AM PDT

  •  Well, to be honest

    My wife's gynecologist is female. That's very, very deliberate on her part. She wants nothing to do with a male gynecologist. I don't blame her.

    by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:25:13 AM PDT

    •  me too

      all my doctors are female.  I just trust them more.  Personal preference.

      by getmeoutofdixie on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:54:02 AM PDT

  •  Can you prove the Pope masturbated?

         Do you have film footage?
         Maybe he really did have "superhuman" self-control, which is actually not that difficult if one tries. If more people at least attempted to control themselves, this would be a WAY better world, in terms of less alcoholism, fewer murders, fewer extramarital affairs and teenage pregnancies, fewer invasions of Iraq for no reason, etc.
         Bill Cosby was right, that while we should worry about the Miranda rights of the street thug who stole the pound cake, we should also wonder why he stole the pound cake in the first place! Perhaps we should avoid evil conduct??
         Maybe we can only be truly human, by at least attempting to be "superhuman".

    by David Boyle on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:24:55 AM PDT

•  I agree also

  I joined the Catholic church due to an exteremely compassionate and talented priest. He was so good, he was moved to the largest church in our diocese. A few years ago he had to leave the priesthood. He got caught having an affair with a parishoner and caused a divorce. It was also learned that years ago, while a priest, he fathered a child.

  The next priest in our church was just as talented and compassionate. But many parishoners didn't like him and eventually he resigned his position at our church. Later, after he had moved to another church, the community found out he was gay when he was arrested for indecent exposure at a park where gays hang out.

  The next priest was a kind, fatherly type priest. While he was certainly sincere, he was a bit on the un-inspiring side.

  Our current priest is young and certainly preaches a great sermon. But there's little things he's done that makes me think there's a bit of arrogance of priesthood about him. It's hard to explain, but to me, the three previous priests connected with the people better than this guy, even though he has a great personality and can tell some outrageous (funny) stories during his homilies.

  My $.02
  

  by midgettd on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:24:33 AM PDT

•  Nothing useful

  to add, just wanted to push you over that 10-comment mark :-)  
  good piece - right on the money.

  by Austin in PA on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:24:45 AM PDT

•  Its all based biblically

  Nobody made this stuff up any time recently.  Paul said in abour 40-50 AD that the best life for a Christian man is celibacy.  Too much has been influenced by Paul and his ideas.  The Catholic church claims to be Jesus' church passed down through Peter and the popes....but the true early post-Jesus influence is Paul.  I understand some, disagree with a lot regarding sex.  But I don't think it is out of a desire to control, or out of any evil wishes.  I just think its overfocusing on the wrong issues.

  by ganner918 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:39:01 AM PDT

  •  Ironically

    While Paul argues against marriage, Peter (who according to legend was the first Pope) argues for marriage.

    by A Citizen on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:33:08 AM PDT

  •  It was politically expedient

    I'm no historian, but my understanding is that celibacy first became required for clergy is when the church began to have wealth.  Celibacy meant no legitimate children would result, and thus clergy would not have the need to steal to leave a legacy to their children.  

    by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:37:46 AM PDT

•  I agree with this diary

  I agree with this diary, and the hypocrisy of their teachings is why I am not a Catholic, and really, not much into organized religion anymore. It is one big corporation now, and for me, I get no spritual uplifting from it. However, your corrolation to deaf people teaching you music is a bit flawed, as Beethoven was deaf and wrote some of the most beautiful music ever written.;-)

  However about the sex, you are correct. That is why priests should be allowed to marry, and why the Catholic Church needs to come into the 21st Century. I never thought I would say this either, but I do believe that organized religion actually stops you from truly discovering your spiritual self. It is as if they must control every facet of your life to keep you contributing...The guilt factor is very important to them, and it is disingenous, and actually dangerous to free thinking. I remember a few days ago I was watching a report about the Pope dying, and one woman said she did not know which direction to go in now that he had died. She looked lost. I'm sorry, but if you place so much of your life into the hands of a man you don't even know, that is just plain delusional.

  by Patriot for Al Gore on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:45:04 AM PDT

  •  Beethoven became

    deaf; he was born a hearing person and heard for the majority of his life.  ChurchofBruce later clarifies that he meant people that were born deaf.

    Since the Pope either had no sex drive or superhuman willpower to repress it, his capability of understanding my sex drive--or most people's--would be like me trying to explain The Beatles to someone who was born deaf. Can't be done, as there's no frame of reference. Anyone who can remain celibate is incredibly different from me on a very basic level.

    His analogy still holds.

    by The Ticked Off Ohioan on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:01:56 AM PDT

    •  Right

      And I wanted to make sure I clarified that, because Beethoven did occur to me.

      Also, Beethoven's hearing loss was progressive, and most historians I've read don't believe he ever went completely deaf, or, if he did, it was at the very end of his life. But for most or all of the period of his 'deafness' he was most likely partially hearing-impaired. It made things difficult back then, but nowadays he'd slap on a hearing aid.

      Brian Wilson, one of my personal heroes, has 80% hearing loss in one of his ears. But his other one is fine. That's not 'deaf'. He can hear music. (Doesn't hear stereo very well, which is why Pet Sounds was originally released in mono, but he hears out of the one ear just fine.)

      by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:16:50 AM PDT

•  Mortal sin

  The rules are unrealistic enough, but the real kicker is the penalty for violating them--namely, eternal damnation. That's heavy stuff for a person with any kind of a sex drive. Not to mention a very good way to screw up a person's sexuality for the rest of his or her life.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:45:32 AM PDT

  •  Um, no

    The Church stopped talking about "mortal" sins three decades ago. And at least to the best of my knowledge, whacking off isn't among them. Although there was one medieval or patristic writer (I forget which one) who asserted that masturbation was a worse sin than murder, I don't think that view holds much water these days.

    by musing85 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:48:43 AM PDT

    •  Showing my age

      That was the version fed to me in elementary and high school.

      by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:50:44 AM PDT

    •  Mortal sin

      The Church still has mortal sin.  It refers to something so bad that you should refrain from going to Communion until you've gone to Confession.  It's called mortal because it a sin that seriously damages your relationship with God.  I don't believe masturbation falls into that category unless you're addicted to it, but other sexual sins like fornication do.  God knows that sin is a part of human life, however, so Catholics can just go to Confession now and then and it'll all be fine.  That's why the Church came up with that sacrament.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:05:53 AM PDT

      •  I sit corrected

        I had thought that we'd moved away from designating sins as "mortal" or "venial," in favor of "serious" or "grave" sins and the ordinary daily variety. But I see from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that, officially at least, the term is still in use. It also offers a definition of "mortal sin":

        1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

        1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."

        by musing85 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:44:08 AM PDT

•  Lets' define some terms

  I've done this before on this blog, but people still get too hung up on sex, priests, celibacy and Catholics.

  Definition of Celibacy:  No marriage.  That's it.  Nothing about sex.

  Definition of Chastity:  No sex outside of Church sanctioned marriage.

  All people -- priests, adults, single, married, gay, straight, children, old people -- are called to be Chaste.  That means no sex outside of marriage, not even masturbation.

  However, people aren't God, so they fail at such high standards, and they fail a lot especially in the masturbation part as well as the keeping sex within marriage part. Lots of singles have sex, including gay people, as well as priests.  Lots of married people also have sex with people they aren't married to.  It's all the same sin, whether a priest does it or spouse cheats on his wife.

  For Catholics there is a simple remedy to the sin -- try not to do it again, and go to Confession.  That's it.  No big deal.

  The sin merely provides a way for you to know that you are not God, but merely mortal. As a mortal, sometimes what seems the best you can do is a sin.  It doesn't mean you need to redifine what right and wrong are -- just to understand that you can't be right all the time.  Sin is human; it's the justification of sin that is evil, so Catholics can go to Confession regularly and they'll be fine.  It's really not worth getting hung up about.

  by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 06:46:35 AM PDT

  •  And, as far as celibacy goes...

    ...isn't the Dalai Lama celibate as well?

    by Leo McGarry on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:55:45 AM PDT

    •  If you're not married you're celibate.

      If you're not having sex outside marriage, you're chaste.

      It is possible (and given how people are, even likely) to be celibate but not chaste.

      I don't know for sure, but I'd bet the Dalai Lama is both celibate and chaste.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:02:22 AM PDT

    •  Yes he is,

           and I read an interview where the Dalai was asked how he kept chaste thoughts when, say, in an area where women in bathing suits might be, and he said he reflected on human decay and impermanence. (E.g., how are the bikini girls gonna look when they're 90, or even dead.)
           This is a traditional Christian/Catholic practice too, whether expressed in the Jesuit formula ac perinde cadaver (Latin for, basically, "live as if you were a corpse"), or the ars moriendi ("art of dying"), etc. There may be other Latin terms but I can't recall them all right now.

      by David Boyle on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:42 AM PDT

•  On the Catholic Church and sex.

  I was raised Catholic.  I learned about the official doctrines regarding sexuality in my catechism class.  Outside of these classes I never heard any sermon regarding sexuality.  There was the usual anti-abortion activism but since there was no clinic anywhere near us it was kind of vague to me.

  So yes, I heard about the official line concerning contraception and sex and homosexuality.  But it was never preached in church, it was never hammered into my delicate little head by either my church or my parents.  Then I wandered out into the big wide world and found other viewpoints.  I decided that the Catholic Church had nice ideals that few of us were going to live up to.  There were no prizes for being abstinent until marriage.  There were no commandments about homosexuality or contraception.  I ended up with two sets of religious rules: The ones that the Church came up with and the ones that the Bible had.  I gave way more credence to the Bible and not little pieces selected here and there, but the truths that are repeated over and over again.  Be kind. Be charitable. Love one another. Forgive one another.    I decided that God really didn't care if I was on the pill or used a condom or had sex without the benefit of marriage.  Maybe the Church did, in theory, but I wasn't being bombarded by sermons about abstinence and contraception, so I wasn't convinced that the priests thought it was a Big Deal either.

  Don't think that Catholics are soldiers and enforcers for each and every one of The Catholic Church's doctrines.  Catholics are just as likely to reflect their culture and education.  American Catholics may not hold the same views as African Catholics or South American Catholics because we come from vastly different cultures.

  This might make me a cafeteria Catholic, but I still consider myself a Catholic.

  by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:00:04 AM PDT

  •  Believe me, it was preached at mine n/t

     

    by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:18:23 AM PDT

    •  Where at?

      Just curious.  I think the biggest fault our priests had was being a little boring.  They were more interested in serving the parish than being enforcers of the Vatican.

      by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:13:05 AM PDT

      •  North Shore of MA

        I'm 40 years old, so we're talking about 25-26 years ago, but I distinctly remember a 30-minute "Thou Shalt Not Whack Off" sermon when I was 14ish. Couched far more delicately, of course--but, yeah, it was a half-hour-long diatribe against Dancing With Myself. Being a normal healthy and dateless 14 year old, I was Dancing With Myself regularly at that point. I was appalled at the diatribe.

         

        by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:41:36 AM PDT

        •  Ouch!

          That had to be harsh!  

          by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:01:19 AM PDT

  •  All Catholics are Cafeteria Catholics

    Anti-abortionists who delight in the death penalty, or who support proactive war, are cafeteria Catholics. Similarly pro-choice Catholics who argue against the war or death penalty on religious grounds. The whole sex thing, between the chastity and celibacy and birth control nonsense, basically ensures that no Catholic can ever follow all of the Church teachings. In fact, the Pope himself, by decrying condom use that would save the lives of millions of innocent Africans from AIDS, was himself contradicting Church teachings.

    The Catholic church gives its patrons an escape hatch in confession and the concept that sin only exposes our fallibility to ourselves, for purposes of correction and humility. The born agains have their own escape hatch as well, in that gross moral defects can be eliminated - repetitively - through a stock act of repentance.

    There is certainly a kind of immorality in all this, to my mind. How much better to stop the arrogance of "knowing" God's plan and just live to the best moral standards you can, without expectation of reward or of avoiding penalties.

    by Hrubec on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:28:24 AM PDT

    •  Not following the Church's teachings

      is different than trying to justify not following them.  

      All Catholics at some point sin -- disobey the teaching -- but most Catholics just say they're sorry and try again.  That's not being a cafeteria Catholic.  Trying to defend an abortion or a preemptive war is being a cafeteria Catholic.  Then you're not just sinning, you're trying to say you know better than God or anyone else by justifying a sin.

      by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:08:01 AM PDT

      •  Birth Control

        If you use birth control for years upon years, is that being a cafeteria Catholic? Because, clearly, you aren't just disobeying but trying not to. You are willfully disregarding the teachings of the Church.

        In the modern world, I venture to guess that 99% of Catholics disobey this teaching. In the third world, apparently, they give it more respect...and in the process, kill their wives and children with AIDS.

        by Hrubec on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:21:50 AM PDT

        •  I think God likes birth control

          Once upon a time, infant mortality was high and life expectancy was low.  Lowering the birth rate would have been close to ethnic suicide.

          Now infant mortality is down, life expectancy is up and we don't need child labor to keep the family business going.  I think God likes the fact that we are taking the task of conceiving, bearing and raising children as a thoughtful, conscientious and premeditated decision.  It respects life. It treats creating a new life as something that isn't taken lightly or carelessly.

          by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:34:37 AM PDT

          •  Not to mention

            Warfare was labor intensive, thus the bedroom became a theater of war.

            by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:40:30 AM PDT

          •  Thinking for God

            But you're thinking for God by coming to that conclusion, aren't you? The Pope speaks for God to the Catholic community and the Pope saw no nuance on this issue. This issue is an excellent example of the inanity of following Church teachings and of the necessity of doing it cafeteria style. Once you go down that road, of course, you lose the moral absolutism so near and dear to Conservatives, and open the door to their particular style of cafeteria dining, i.e. war good, death penalty good, abortion bad, gays bad, robbing the poor to reward the rich good.

            When I was a very little child, I think I began to lose my religion during the school sponsored ritual of "First Fridays". We went to Mass on the first Friday of each month and kept a bulletin board of the indulgences we were earning to free people from Purgatory. X amount of first Fridays could be traded in either to write off days on one's own personal Purgatory sentence or it could be offered up for someone already in Purgatory. It reminded me of my Mom's Green Stamp trade in center. I began right then, as a tiny six year old, to spy the fly in the ointment of adhering to "Church teachings".

            by Hrubec on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:53:13 AM PDT

        •  Exactly

          I was raised Catholic. This is a heavily Catholic area. I know lots of Catholics. I went to a Catholic high school.

          And, especially about birth control, there is a willful disregard of the Church's teachings. It's not "Oh, I've sinned." It's "Well, the church is out of touch on that issue so I'll just ignore it." It's widespread.

          by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:47:10 AM PDT

          •  No argument from me there.

            Catholics who willfully use artifical birth control are being cafeteria Catholics.

            That said, there is a big difference in the gravity of the crime between using a condom and killing innocent people during an unnecessary war.  The condom thing is still pretty forgivable even if someone is willful about it.  It falls in the stupid human tricks category as far as theology is concerned -- something people do because they are ignorant and stubborn, not necessarily because they think they are better than God.

            Killing, however, is always serious.  And playing God with life and death, by justifying a killing is called evil.  

            by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:08:42 PM PDT

            •  See, there's part of my problem

              (and I know you were speaking in Churchspeak so this isn't personal)--as far as I'm concerned, wearing a condom is a sign of being responsible and informed, not ignorant and stubborn.

              Anyhow....I agree with you that there's a big difference, even to the Catholic Church, and most likely to the late Pope, between condom usage and starting an unnecessary war. My point is that the Pope's message against said war was blunted by the constant sex crap. And the Pope (or at the very least the Church, and the Pope is the leader of the church) lost a lot of moral 'oomph' on anything to do with sex. Especially here in Boston.  

              by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:38:27 PM PDT

              •  The Pope's pronouncements regarding sex

                were relatively few.  It was not a priority at all for this papacy, and I don't think any other papacy either.  It's the media's and society's titillation with sex that gives it so much air time.

                Let's face it, most of us would rather open a girlie mag than listen to the pope talk about foreign policy.  So we perk up when the pope starts talking about the kinds of things that happen in girlie mags, and we ignore most of what the Pope has to say about the rest of life.
                

                by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 03:10:51 PM PDT

    •  It is a Good Idea.

      That is what my interpretation of the Bible is.  I am a fan of the gospel of Matthew.  His philosophy is "I know you are capable of being loving, caring, forgiving people.  Now go to it!".  I think he was a little embarassed that he had to lay it out for us. Some people think the divine authority aspect is just too heavy.  I don't dwell on the authoritarian part.  I don't think of the divine as being some kind of wrathful judge.  I think of the divine as someone encouraging me to be the best human being I can be.

      as for God's plan?  I don't dwell on that.  I've got worries enough.  God can take care of him/herself.

      by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:09:03 AM PDT

•  So much misunderstanding

  First of all, masturbation is not condemned by the Church.  It may be frowned upon as gratuitous self-gratification, but it is now recognized that the biblical passage on which past views were based actually is about something else.

  A sexual dysfunction clinic in Chicago is based out of a Catholic Hospital and encourages masturbation.  Would be hard to do that if it was considered a sin any more.

  Secondly, John Paul II was probably the most understanding Pope ever in regards to sexual matters.  Yes, he still felt it should be within the boundaries of marriage, and yes, he was still against same-sex  sex, but he encouraged sexual relationships as the epitome of loving one's spouse.  He recognized that sex was more than just a means of procreation.

  The problem with a lot of diaries about Catholicism, the Pope or many other issues is the tendency to generalize.  I admit I also do it.

  But, in many ways John Paul, whom I disagreed with in many areas, including ordination of females, allowing married priests (which they do under special circumstances) and homosexuality, was the most intellectual Pope in the past few centuries.

  He had a very special respect for science and said it was not the purpose of religion to talk about how the world was created but to talk about how to get into heaven.  (Wish some right-wing fundies would take that approach.)

  He was also the most prolific writer among Popes, and some of his works are astounding.  Unfortunately, the media would frequently pick specific phrases, frequently out of context, and publicize those.

  Yes, he could be obstinate and was doctrinely, IMHO, behind the times.  But I do believe he had a genuine caring for his flock and did what he thought was the right thing for them.  I just disagreed on some of the things he did.

  by JAPA21 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:17:18 AM PDT

  •  BTW

    I agree with this:

    "But I do believe he had a genuine caring for his flock and did what he thought was the right thing for them."

    However, I also think it would have been far more apparent that that was true if he'd have shut up about sexual matters.

    by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:20:14 AM PDT

  •  Do you mean...

    Onanism is no longer considered to be about masturbation? Because I wasn't aware they'd changed their tune on that one.

    Unless, of course, they changed it to REALLY being about homosexuality...

    by Maryscott OConnor on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:25:53 AM PDT

    •  Of course they changed

      their minds about Onanism.  Because that one was about limiting MEN's masturbation.  The Church is still very big in the business of limiting the rights of women, but men masturbating is okay despite Biblical prohibitions.

      by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:40:42 AM PDT

    •  Pretty much

      Onan's crime (sin) was not so muich masturbating but for failing to give his seed to his brother's widow, which is what was required under the law at that time.

      by JAPA21 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:42:52 AM PDT

      •  Because sperm is life

        Therefore, a "pro-life" person should be as militantly against male masturbation as they are against birth control.  Women masturbating doesn't impact "life", of course, so it should be exempt.

        by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:50:45 AM PDT

        •  A sperm is not life

          any more than a piece of skin is.

          Masturbation is a sin against your own body because its just not decent and dignified behavior.  It's not a sin against life, a much graver deal.

          by eastsidedemocrat on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:10:40 AM PDT

          •  The Bible chides Onan

            for "spilling his seed upon the ground".  Wasting life that would have been better used to produce a child with his brother's widow.  Not for "being indecent and undignified".

            Nowhere in the Bible is anyone chided (as far as I know) for clipping their nails wantonly or exfoliating too vigorously.  Wasting regular old body cells is okay, as far as I can tell.  

            I never saw anything in the Bible or in catechism about lack of dignity being a sin.

            by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:19:51 AM PDT

            •  Yup, mentioned exactly once.

              Not exactly a major theme in the Bible.  Although if I remember correctly Onan got smacked by the wrath of God for disobeying him.  Lots of God's wrath in the Old Testament - and they say Hollywood is violent!

              Besides, what does it say about women and masturbation? Do women sin by pleasuring themselves?

              by Fabian on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:38:23 AM PDT

              •  Masturbation is considered selfish,

                     not just undignified, from Catholic stuff I have read. You are not pleasing a partner, just yourself. Not to mention that you are not creating children to worship God.
                     As for "dignity", I think it's a good argument. Let's put it this way: you drop dead while masturbating, from a surprise heart attack. Would you be really proud if your children, or a local news reporter, found you like that?
                     Of course, you might not be proud if you died while picking your nose or ears, or going to the bathroom, either. But at least those functions might be necessary (especially the bathroom), so that people would understand; while the Big M is, shall we say, on the optional and unneccessary side.....

                by David Boyle on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:43:15 AM PDT

                •  How does that make it a sin?

                  I wouldn't want to be found dead in a wide variety of situations that are undignified or embarrassing.  The logic of making that a sin just escapes me.  

                  by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:24:16 AM PDT

                  •  Well, any unnecessary thing that could disgust

                         or give scandal could be a sin, because it could repulse or corrupt people, or even give them a heart attack.
                         The "disgusting" aspect is admittedly not the primary reason masturbation would be a sin, but maybe it adds to the sinfulness...or at least, it shows how repulsive it is, sinful or not. (Just as with legalizing prostitution: I always like to ask pro-legalizers, "So if your mom, wife, or daughter became a prostitute, that would be fine with you.")

                    by David Boyle on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 10:58:59 AM PDT

                    •  So, a post that disgusts

                      or repulses me is a sin?  The poster's sin?

                      by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 02:49:31 PM PDT

                      •  Well, that goes

                             a little far, I suppose.
                             

                        by David Boyle on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:13:40 PM PDT

  •  Thanks JAPA21

    Sigh.  I don't know why I bother sometimes since too often it seems to be the equivalent of shouting at a brick wall.

    While I don't question the sincerity of the poster of this diary, I  must say that its asserions are almost as outdated as the claims it makes about church positions.

    For something to be a "mortal sin" three conditions must be present.  In essence it has to be something grave, the person committing it has to KNOW that it is something grave, and that person has to, with that knowledge and of their own free will, commit that act anyway.  

    As far as masturbation goes, while the official catechism of the church (which was updated under John Paul II) does caution against it, it also states that "one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen of even extenuate moral culpability."

    Translation: it isn't that big of a deal.

    While it is true that this same catechism takes a strong stance against homosexual genital activity, it also states that sexual orientation is NOT a choice and that the number of gay and lesbians are not negligible and that they are to be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."  The simple fact of the matter is that, there are many Catholic parishes across the globe where gay and lesbians, yes even those in committed relationships, are welcome with open arms and a full participants in that parish's life.  A gay friend of mine once told me that he felt more acceptance and welcome for being gay from his fellow Catholics than he ever has among his fellow gays for being Catholic.

    Many of the criticisms that have been leveled against Pope John Paul II are certainly valid, and many of them come from full practicing Catholics.  His sometimes egotistical tendcey to save all the bold gestures for himself resultd in his appoiinting the kind of safe, scared of their own shadows, bishops that led to the breathtakingly inept handling of the abuse crisis.  

    But it never ceases to amaze me, that when it comes to this pope, the left and right seem to be of the same mind.  Both obsess over his conservative views on things like abortion and birth control, while ignoring his stances on peace and social justice which,  in many many instances, are further to the left than anything the Democratic part would have the guts to run on today.  

    He was unquestionably a man of contradictions (then again contradictions are simply a part of being human) and as a practicing Catholic myself he could infuriate me with one statement or action and then inspire me with awe with the next.  But you know what?  Don't we all have members of out family who do that?

    by Leo McGarry on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:59:13 AM PDT

•  I Disagree

  I'm not talking about the pope's actually position on any given issue.  I'm talking about whether or not the pope required a superhuman effort to be celibate.

  First off, the sex drive is not some overwhelming impulse that makes all other concerns tiny by comparison.  It's certainly difficult, but it's no more impossible than giving up television or cell phones for the rest of your life.  And the Catholic position is not necessarily giving it up for your entire life, just until you are married.  People on average used to have pre-marital sex and they weren't necessarily less happy in their lives.

  During World War II, the Amish, being pacifists, refused to take part in anything supporting the military.  However, they were patriotic and volunteered to be guinea pigs in experiments simulating concentration camp life.  Voluntarily being deprived of the comforts of normal American life, the Amish found that thoughts of sex became non-existent.  Instead, they thought about food.  They talked about it, dreamed about it, obsessed about pictures of it.  So, scientifically, it's been shown that the sex drive does not dominate human behavior unless we permit it.

  Now, aside from that, your line of reasoning is questionable.  If it were valid, it would be appropriate as well to say that no one who has never served in the military can ever speak on the conduct of war because they have no experience.
  

  by Anthony de Jesus on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:22:37 AM PDT

  •  Incorrect interpretation

    What the Amish studies show is that, under conditions of physical deprivation approaching starvation, sex is a relatively infrequent thought when compared to thoughts of food. When starving, people think more about food.  

    When involuntarily deprived of oxygen, people don't think much about sex OR food.  Threats to survival do influence one's cognition.

    The Amish studies show nothing about voluntary control of sexual thoughts under normal life conditions.  If anything, they may imply the opposite of what you're saying, because deprivation in that case led to obsessive thoughts about what was being withheld.  It's quite possible the same can be true for sex--total deprivation leads to preoccupation.

    At this point that's just a hypothesis; the fact is that we don't know that much about sexual drive and behavior because conservative governments prevent much research from being done.  

    by rocketito on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:48:10 AM PDT

  •  Well they are quite different from me

    I think about sex all the time.. hungry or not.

    by sommervr on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 07:52:32 AM PDT

  •  Giving up sex

    isn't harder than giving up TV? Are you nuts? TV's not a basic human drive.

    And, yes, food (and, you know, breathing) are stronger drives than sex, so that experiment means nothing. If you were drowning, you wouldn't think of food or sex. If you're starving, you're not going to think of sex. There is a heirarchy here. Sex is less of a drive than food--but, jeez, it's a hell of a lot more basic than freakin' TV!

    And your military analogy isn't apt. I don't think you need experience in the military to know what war's all about. Lack of experience isn't the same as lack of a 'common' (best word I can come up with, not meant to be perjorative) aspect of humanity, like hearing or a sex drive.

    by ChurchofBruce on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 08:54:58 AM PDT