The Case for Not Calling It Sex
Sex vs Intimacy
In our culture young women talk about “sex” and “birth control” proudly in the context of responsible choices and personal preferences. Girlfriends chat about which method of birth control they chose as freely as they chat about shampoo and conditioner. “Did you get NuvaRing, MIRENA, or Essure?” Barriers, IUD’s, pills, patches, inserts, surgery…
Sex is expected, and has become divorced from love, divorced from the obligation to be a parent. Children are either wanted or not wanted, accepted or rejected if (you know) they appear out of nowhere. This is the pro-choice mentality, the family planning mindset. It focuses on the external and physical, the indulgence of the adults. Mindless, sex.
I’m embarrassed for women who talk this way now. When I began to understand Sacramental Marriage, I also began to understand privacy. I hadn’t really thought about what “privacy” means, even in a culture that claimed I had a right to it. It seems a lot of men and women are confused about this word, more than ever in this digital age.
Privacy refers to something that is restricted for the use of a particular person or persons, something that exclusively belongs. Way before I even got to the phrase “Natural Family Planning” on my journey of faith, I discovered that primal beautiful word that reflects true privacy between a man and a woman — Intimacy. Intimacy is the private dignity that affirms something sacred between a husband, wife, and God. This is the “open to life” mentality, the Natural Family Planning (NFP) mindset. It focuses on the body and soul, the whole self and the family. Giving and receiving of the mind, heart, body and soul.
“Sex” comes from the Latin word secus which refers to the state of being male or female, specific qualities associated with being male or female, males or females collectively, sexual organs. It is that thing that, only in part, defines a man as a man and a woman as a woman. Sex really has very little to do with intimacy, except to identify gender and to describe bodily functions associated with that gender.
“Intimacy” comes from the Latin word intimus which refers to the inmost, deep-seated, inner nature or fundamental character of a thing; essential; intrinsic. It is that thing between a husband and wife that is the deepest union, and it is not isolated to a physical act. It encompasses – is the very wellspring – of the entire union and relationship. Intimacy is uniquely human. Animals mindlessly have sex to procreate; humans, however, can experience intimacy in the marital bond to bring forth new life in love. See the difference?
So I wonder, is it really appropriate to talk about “sex” when we talk about NFP?
Wouldn’t using a better word keep the debates more focused? Lately there has been a lot of discussion about whether or not a couple has to use NFP and whether or not it is anyone else’s business what a couple does with the knowledge gained by using NFP. The discussions seem to have gone awry.
Perhaps if we could try to see the consummate [consummātus lacking nothing, complete, perfect] marital [marītālis belonging privately to husband and wife] act as something private, something intimate, instead of merely “sex” (a word that implies something non-specific to humanity, something only materialistic and bodily), then maybe some people would not feel compelled to reveal details that might be judged, and neither would others feel obligated to insert themselves into someone else’s intimate relationship.
Consider that realignment.
Personally, not only do I feel zero compunction for refusing to disclose private details about the choices I make with my husband, I wouldn’t even know how to explain the depth and nuance of our intimate decision-making process. We are open to life, and that affects everything we do. I may ask a trusted counselor or a priest or a friend for specific advice, but on my terms. It’s not something anyone else in the world could possibly understand in totality because it’s that private. We’re faithful and obedient Catholics, and that’s all the explanation we owe anyone outside our intimate lives. It’s supposed to be that way, by definition.
So what I’m trying to say is this: To call the act “sex” seems to betray real “intimacy” and if we are going to talk about NFP as opposed to immoral family planning, then perhaps we would fundamentally communicate better if we used the more appropriate word — intimacy.
Sex is to family planning as intimacy is to NFP.
“Sanctify yourself and you will sanctify society. – St. Francis of Assisi
Category: Featured, Marriage, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (93)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- Are Eyes Beautiful on Plates? | Accepting Abundance | May 26, 2012
- “Breastfeeding” Without Controversy | Accepting Abundance | June 1, 2012
- Expert Advice on “Breastfeeding” Without Controversy | The American Catholic | June 1, 2012
- Logical Fail: Sex Should Be a Practical Issue? | Accepting Abundance | June 7, 2012
- Sex should NOT BE a MORAL ISSUE, it should be a PRACTICAL ISSUE | The American Catholic | June 13, 2012
great post! I remember in high school so many guys wanted to talk about sex and I always told them how disgusting they were for acting like animals. Somehow my best friends (who weren’t even Catholic) had enough decency to keep such personal things personal. These days no one is ashamed of anything they do, no matter how horrible and inhumane. We are called to a MUCH higher standard.
Can you explain this to me?
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/catholic-church-excommunicates-mother-and-doctors-of-a-nineyearold-rape-victim-that-had-abortion-ndash-but-not-accused-rapist-16163052.html
Will the church require the rapist to pay the parents 50 shekels, then marry the nine year old?
What would a church, controlled by celibate men know anything about intimacy? What would you know about intimacy, without living a previous life in absence of intimacy?
I’ll be glad to answer – Christians are do not follow old Jewish laws. You refer to something more than 2,500 years old, but you ever heard that Christians are allowed to eat pork? Christ changed anything, like he and his followers now say. These questions about ‘what would celebate men know’ are scraping the bottom of the barrel of intellectual arguments. As if millions of people having sex with each are such better judges. The Catholic Church at least assumes that people should have dignity, not doing all of these horrible things to their bodies. Really, you should try being a Christian – it’s a lot better than not being one. And at least then you might start to understand the Bible a little.
Grant,
If Christianity works for you, then i perfectly respect that. But I don’t understand why that makes everyone else automatically wrong.
People-seeds! I missed that one. I remember the “birds and the bees” though.
“What would a church, controlled by celibate men know anything about intimacy?”
Mjeck, this is an old argument that I fell for also before I was married. In listening to unmarried Priests and reading about marriage from unmarried Bishops and Popes, it became clear that they talked about marriage in a more sophisticated and knowledgeable way that I would not understand until after years of a successful marriage, even then fully understand. This understanding comes from the Church, not the men as men. It goes against common belief, but so do other things that we believe when we are young and foolish and do not learn. That is another story though. My advise to you is to learn first then critize.
Howard,
I am suggesting in my link and my first comment, that bishops and the church can also make bad decisions and give bad advice. I agree that a older person, or institution may know the best way to go about something that is tried and true. But you can’t apply every hard and fast rule to everything.
Mjeck, give an example.
You don’t like the ones i gave? Or are you asking for an analogy? Why would you excommunicate a doctor for performing a life saving abortion on a nine-year old rape victim? How is it possible that a priest could understand the nuances of intimacy, that he could give advice?
Mjeck, the problem here is that you point me to a story and expect an answer to an unknown argument. I read the explaination in the story. What do you disagree with in your words as if you were trying to convince me?
I’m not a Catholic. I’m just asking for your honesty.
I will be perfectly honest with you to the limits of my understanding. Is it that you do not understand excommunication or do not understand the teachings on the importance of life you do not understand to authority of the Church. What is your main concern?
My concern is that rules trump critical thought. As an outsider, I couldn’t conceive of, let’s say, getting my car repaired by a “mechanic” who’s never seen the inside of an “engine,” except in a “textbook”. My concern is that people generally don’t question their “rules”, until it negatively impacts their own life. My concern is that following Catholic rules to the letter, leave little room for actual compassion or empathy.
These are my observations from reading this website.
Mjeck, to use your ananlogy, if our sex lives is a car, our priests are not mechanics who “repair us” (that would be more like a doctor). In this scenario, they’re pretty much any old person with common sense that knows you’ll be better off if you drive on the road, and not off a cliff.
Thomas,
If you’ve been to Florida, then you know that old people don’t know how to drive
“My concern is that rules trump critical thought”
Yes, that sounds good. You are saying that a person must judge a situation and not just apply rules blindly.
Yes I would say that you should use a correct set of rules. Take excommunication for example. It is never applied automatically and is rare. It is a judgment call based on the needs of the person.
Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence. It is also a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness. It necessarily, therefore, contemplates the future, either to prevent the recurrence of certain culpable acts that have grievous external consequences, or, more especially, to induce the delinquent to satisfy the obligations incurred by his offence.
Howard,
You’re parroting assumptions you’ve been told. That is not critical thought. Critical thought is the use of your own words and logic.
I must correct myself. In cannonical excommunication it is automatic. But the decision has been a judgement.
Mjeck, I have used my own logic and thought to make a decision that Jesus was the Son of God. How exactly is that not mine.
Life-saving abortion? Think about it. Murder is worse than rape.
On the contrary Mjeck, they leave a ton of room for actual compassion and empathy. It’s called the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I admit have not read the article, but gleaning from your responses here, the doctor was excommunicated because he performed an abortion. An act which is always intrinsically evil, regardless of circumstances. As to why it is “claimed” that the procedure was lifesaving – like I said I haven’t read the article so I am unsure, but ending an innocent life is not lifesaving. Yes, I’m sure the doctor “thought” he was doing the right thing. But there is RIGHT and there is WRONG, and doing the RIGHT thing even if suffering results is the ONLY option.
The Free Dictionary
“Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions.
“Critical” as used in the expression “critical thinking” connotes the importance or centrality of the thinking to an issue, question or problem of concern. “Critical” in this context does not mean “disapproval” or “negative.” There are many positive and useful uses of critical thinking, for example formulating a workable solution to a complex personal problem, deliberating as a group about what course of action to take, or analyzing the assumptions and the quality of the methods used in scientifically arriving at a reasonable level of confidence about a given hypothesis. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.”
To get even closer to your assumption of “parroting”, I went through this process in my journey towards the Church. A journey that gradually wore me down so far that I had to admit defeat.
“As an outsider, I couldn’t conceive of, let’s say, getting my car repaired by a “mechanic” who’s never seen the inside of an “engine,” except in a “textbook”.”
If your analogy were potent, which it isn’t, it would be a good argument against corporate taxation policy being engineered by individuals who have never run a business. Can we see your point on an emotional level? Of course. But we’re human beings. We reason on both an emotional and an intellectual level. We can multitask, thank you very much.
So let’s be clear here. Lack of first-hand, real-world experience with an issue does not disqualify one from holding an opinion on it, or proposing a standard of conduct.
I think we can all agree that red-herring has been pickled once and for all.
Howard,
If you logically and thoughtfully took on Christianity, that is perfectly fine. The rules work perfectly fine for you, but why does that make everyone else automatically wrong? Does that make your decision more justified or have crushing truth, if everyone else be damned?
Kerry and Sullible, what if the nine-year old died from the pregnancy?
Jeff, your decisions are based on your genetics and environment. Making policy outside of that is your choice. But why hold people to your rules that have no bearing on your personal life?
Right and wrong. Do you not take a side?
“I think we can all agree that red-herring has been pickled once and for all.”
Yep.
Haha!
Why — I even hear that men can deliver babies.
friend ship
Yes Howard, I understand right and wrong and hold myself to a high standard of morality. However, morality his complicated and mostly a social construct. For example, marijuana is wrong to use for 90% of the population. But for someone who is disabled, and finds relief by it; this is not only right, it is justified. Marijuana is wrong for you, but right for someone outside of your social construct. And I’m suggesting that if you knew someone, who you had extreme empathy for, who needed marijuana to relieve their pain; that you’d reconsider your rules
Mjeck, I see what you are saying. But, you seem to be applying a rule that you have made to my understanding – that I cannot come to a correct opinion using the wisdom of the Catholic Church. I believe that the Church would agree on medical use of drugs. Another issue might reveal a more complex argument.
Howard, thank-you for seeing, at least partially, what I am saying. I do believe the wisdom of the Church is limited.
Mjeck, I see that your argument and your life is based on relativism:
Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.[1][2] The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context.
In what way is the Church’s wisdom limited?
Howard,
Your life is ruled by relativism as well, but you’re not able to see it. Catholicism is not universally similar in all countries and continents, or throughout time or between each papacy. Your life decisions have been chosen by your experiences, the human need to avoid pain and fit in with your American culture.
The churches wisdom is limited for the mother, who had to make the decision to give her raped nine-year old an abortion to save her life. It will be limited for you, if ever the churches rules conflict with your experience, need to avoid pain or fit in with your culture.
Mject, read more carefully the definition. “Absolute truth” is the concept – to not know it imperfectly does not mean we deny truth exists. You have argued:
“If you logically and thoughtfully took on Christianity, that is perfectly fine. The rules work perfectly fine for you…”
That is relativistic and not an argument against the universality of any truth in Christianity
Fumble fingers. “to know it imperfectly…..”
The absolute truth is that we are on a rock, floating through space; we are made of the same top 5 basic elements as the whole universe, making us indistinguishable. Relatively speaking, we are a dust speck on a dust speck; and I have no idea why God would care which sounds i make with my mouth.
Everything is a matter of perspective, Howard.
If your perspective works for you, fine. Why does it matter to you what other people do? If everyone else is going to hell, why do you care which hand-basket they’re using?
I’m sorry but I have some pressing work due now. I’ll check in later. This conversaston is too juicy to leave, but I must.
“Why does it matter to you what other people do?”
Mjeck, I did tell you to “learn first then critize” and “read more carefully the definition”. Where in this conversation did I declare what someone else should do in the world at large?
It seems that you are the one who started this conversation by implying that the Church in Brazil should not have taken the actions it did. Why does it matter to you?
You have said, ““But you can’t apply every hard and fast rule to everything.” It seems that here you are making a hard and fast rule! And is this only for me or is it an absolute truth that you are proclaiming. Why does it matter to you?
“The absolute truth is that we are on a rock”, “Everything is a matter of perspective”. “If your perspective works for you, fine”. You seem to be declaring absolute rules then telling me that it is o.k. to ignore them.
Where does truth exist amid your proclamations? Did your science teacher tell you that it is o.k. to believe that we are not on a rock, or, did he just look at you funny and flunk you?
Mjeck, you are contradictory and illogical and not following the method of critical thinking.
Yes Howard, from your perspective, everything I say and do is illogical. But if you were in my shoes, living my life, it would become perfectly rational.
On this website, it seems that to make an argument for Catholicism, you need to make an equal and passionate plea against everything else.
I don’t care what you do, Howard. I am just curious if Catholics are capable of compassion or just interested in the rules.
My last post did not mention Catholicism at all. I have compassion for you and do not wish you ill. I hope one day the fog will be cleared for you.
Which fog? I’ve memorize 31 chapters of the bible, I own and appreciate catholic writings and art, I am able to compare Catholicism to other religions and contemporary society and relate it back to Jesus’ original intent.
Compassion is the ability to understand that being gay, being raped at nine-years old and intimacy between two humans maybe something you don’t understand and that the wisdom of the church cannot answer; and should remain silent, only to act when needed to lend a helping hand.
I thought you were the memorize guy from another thread. You don’t seem to have learned what the words are saying while you were memorizing. Whiteness your lack of understanding of the old testament that Grant corrected. The fog is still there.
Howard, what i wrote to Grant was sarcasm. It was subtle, I apologize. To say I completely failed to ponder or understand what i memorized is dishonest. It would be like me saying you do not understand the Liturgy.
Fine. Now,in order to argue effectivly in oppositon, it is mandatory that you understand the Church’s position on an issue. In your case you have not indicated that you understand the many aspects of the Brazil incident. Generalizations are not enough. Atheism is not enough.
I’m not an atheist. I understand the Churches position. I am not trying to argue, I am trying to understand if you are capable of compassion or just interested in everyone following the rules?
Then tell me how you understand the issue of “the sacredness of life” in this incident.
The nine year old seems sacred to her Mother.
Sorry, I was asking how you understand the Church’s position.
Mjeck, it was a question to get background on you not to avoid your question. Have patience. Who am I talking to? Are you just a blow-hard who claims to know things, are you looking up answers now instead of using your memory.
Wow, Mjeck and Howard have shown INCREDIBLE staying power. Is this an argument or just a contest of wills? Sorry to step on toes, but I will attempt to close out this discussion. I think Mjeck is basically frustrated with Catholics in general and chose an (unrelated, improbable) example of Church extremes. To return to the point of the post, though, sex does lose it’s intimacy when you’re talking about all of the time, as well as having sex with several others. That’s exactly what would make “sex” (like an animal act) different from the “intimacy” (actual love) Howard writes about. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Mjeck has no personal connection to the girl in the article he references. Let’s bring the topic to real people, here and now. You, me, people we know. Should everyone be having sex with each other? Basically, the answer is no. People can understand that even without Jesus telling them. It’s just that the Catholic Church is hated because we’re one of the few groups that has the nerve to say it. That is what the article seemed to be about, anyway.
And by the way, some rules are a really good idea to follow. I promised my wife that I would be faithful. It’s not an issue that I should reconsider every hour. Some things, like adultery or killing innocent people, do not need to be held up to debate for the sake intellectual curiosity. They are just right, and every creature in the universe knows.
Maybe I didn’t stop the discourse with this, but I think I’m done now.
I remember this story, and clearly.
The little girl and her sisters were raped for years by the step father. No one did anything. The mother stayed. When the girl became pregnant one hospital had the opinion that she would not survive the pregnancy, and immediately talked of abortion. The mother wanted that.
The girl’s real father got involved and took her to another doctor. This doctor did not believe she needed the abortion. The mother took her to have it done anyway, returning her to the abusive home.
All the bishop said was that the mother incurred excommunication for her actions. This is objectively true. Killing innocent people is grave.
It is logically flawed to say, “Well kill the children and now the only real abuse is the rape.” No, you just add to the abuse, add to the violence.
During all the press coverage of that sad situation, I thought it was extremely disturbing how people used that poor little girl to promote their anti-Catholic bigotry, and hardly anyone had harsh words for the adults who put the child in that situation in the first place.
Now…Mjeck you’ve derailed my post. Could you at least show me the courtesy of dealing with the point I made about calling it sex vs. calling it intimacy. Don’t you think the latter word implies something more human?
Thank you Grant. We posted at the same time, similar ideas!
Mjeck, the point kind of is, the idea that it’s just “sex” leads to ideas that people can be abused by one another rather than loved. The Church is right about marriage, right about children deserving to be loved by their parents, right about intimacy of man and woman and God. If people followed those beliefs, there would be no pregnant 9 year old girls.
Do you understand the fundamental reasoning here?
Stacy,
The difference between us, is I am able to appreciate the Catholic Religion when it should be, and I am able to criticize it when it needs to be criticized.
I do not agree with your view of intimacy and how it is achieved. Sex is a basic function of our biology. Sometimes it is perfectly reasonable to be objectified while other times it can reaffirm security; and there is nothing wrong with either.
It is an interesting discussion. Unfortunately, you leave little to debate, other than that if I don’t agree with you, then I must be an apostate.
It’s not that Mjeck, it’s that I don’t ever get the impression you actually know what you are arguing against. To appreciate something, you need to know it first. That’s also the whole point to intimacy. Otherwise you’re just using something for yourself, instead of giving and receiving.
I disagree, it’s never OK to reduce another human to something non-human (i.e. an object).
Could you please explain the conditions which you think makes that OK?
People feel sexy to be objectified. If they choose and consent to be objectified, there is nothing wrong with the experience. Perhaps this is more a male perspective. Even in a loving relationship, I think it is important to objectify your partner. Women want to feel sexy, even in a committed relationship.
Mjeck, from a man’s point of view. The objectification of a female is just masturbation with a partner – an object.
Howard,
If two committed, married, loving; whatever you want to call it; capable of intimacy, also enjoy mutually “masterbating” as you say, why is that wrong or the concern of you or the church?
OK (read that, OOOOOOOKAAAAAAAYYYY).
“People feel sexy to be objectified.”
Break that down, word for word (you know, critical thinking!) and define it.
I’m serious. Do it. It’s a logical exercise. This is how logic works (think of math), break that sentence down into its component parts – its words – and then define them all. Then put them back together and if the definitions don’t still hold to give the same conclusion, your sentence is messed up. So’s your logic.
Come on, take the challenge. I learned this systematic analysis not from scientific studies, but from Catholic theology, BTW.
A wife who works hard on her body at the gym wants her husband to worship her achievement? Some people love to feel promiscuous and slutty inside a safe relationship?
I might need help with this one
I know, I’ve heard that, trust me. But…
Break it down. No worries, just play along.
Define:
People –
Feel –
Sexy –
To Be –
Objectified –
I learned this from 1) symbolic logic, and 2) St. Thomas.
People – Humans
Feel – have an emotional response
Sexy – of an erotic nature
To Be – copula
Objectified – object of affection
Now this is how math, symbolic logic and St. Thomas work. Do your definitions apply in all cases? In other words, are those words sufficiently defined, enough to be…symbolic?
People – Humans – Mammals
Feel – have an emotional response – chemical reaction
Sexy – of an erotic nature – pornographic
To Be – copula -linguistic term
Objectified – object of affection – inanimate persona
I don’t know what this means. I am thinking of a naked pagan statue of the goddess Venus.
I’m honestly lost. Maybe you could give me an example with another set of words, because i understand language, symbolism and math; but I’m not catching your drift
OK.
One single logical syllogism, for instance, with your first word, the noun and object of the whole sentence.
You say “people” means human.
People is the plural of person.
Therefore, an embryonic human is a person.
Still agree?
(This was exactly my path at one point.)
I still don’t understand. Is this somewhat like semantics? You don’t like me saying people? Instead i should say, “specific individuals?”
I also said that Howard should empathize with marijuana users this morning, when really I should have said sympathize.
Yes, it’s semantics the same way math is semantics – “the meaning” of a symbol.
So, in your sentence, we need to define the first word.
I don’t mind you saying “people” as long as you can tell me what that means.
People are Human?
OK.
A specific individual is a person.
Fine.
Logically, no problem, no ambiguity.
Agree?
Now define “person.”
A person is an entity that I am not exactly able to define. To me, a person is a biological robot without free will.
“My concern is that rules trump critical thought.” -Mjeck the biological robot
This is why words matter. For the same reason math would be impossible if we didn’t hold to consistent meanings. Same for logic.
To Howard, the biological robot, rules are important. To Mjeck, the biological robot, fee thought is important. Stacy, if you look deep enough into a microscope, you find nothing; far enough into a telescope you find infinity. Sorry, I don’t think you made a point.
I would love to discuss free will, or lack there of, but making leaps like: people are persons, zygotes are people, is nonsense.
You led me down a pitch-black semantics trail, then sucker-punched me at the end. Sorry, that’s not proving Catholicism.
No, Mjeck, I just asked that you tell me what you mean when you use words. If you can’t do that, you are just speaking gibberish.
I can define all those things, and no matter what sentence I use them in, they mean the same thing. This – this Mjeck – is the essence of communication.
It’s also why I would never say that any person wants to be treated as something other than a person.
I have only challenged you to explain what you mean by this statement:
“People feel sexy to be objectified.”
You can’t even get started. You can’t make an assertion if you can’t even define the first word. This isn’t me being dull, this is *symbolic logic* 101.
Ok, people are: Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, Nitrogen and Calcium.
Now, do your semantics again to prove your point.
Here’s one for you:
People are persons
persons are zygotes
Acting is a sin
Mjeck,
Do you realize that rather than punch in the dark trying to define something, philosophers and scholars and theologians for 3,000+ years have been searching for truth. A wise person would study it and try to build on it, instead of tossing all flippantly aside and trying to start over.
Even just the word PERSON. There is a tremendous history to that concept, to that word and what it means. Are you at all interested? Or do you just want to live in Mjeck-land where you can say things like “People feel sexy to be objectified” knowing you haven’t got a clue what you really mean?
I’m serious. I’m challenging you to think harder. Dig deeper.
Yes, there are many different languages to define truth; the language of the philosopher, the theologian, the scientist. We are all governed by the language of mathematics. That is the unavoidable truth. We are also governed by the language of our culture. We both live in a culture that defines success and happiness through verbs (actions). How unwittingly are we controlled by verbs and mathematics without our knowledge?
Philosophy, which left us with the “truth” that life is absurdity. Theology is a language that asserts an imaginary disease (sin) with an imaginary cure (the bible).
You learned the language of Catholic University. You speak the language of your peers. You surround yourself with objects, actions and people that hold this language to be true.
Your language doesn’t apply in all cases around the world or outside of your circle of influence. Which should be perfectly fine; however, you cannot just discard every other form of language and life that doesn’t fit into your Catholic equation. I would suggest that you take this into account.
And now, for something completely different…
Stacy,
I have been trying for several years now to live my life as a believing Catholic, to identify the areas where I have, mostly unthinkingly and sometimes unwittingly, adopted the assumptions of “the world” and clean them out. The easiest ones to see are those that make casual conversations with all and sundry about what should the most private and intimate area of human life. They are also proving to be the most difficult to uproot because the wider culture in which I live is just over-saturated and permeated with the notion that everything is about sex (and, concomitantly, nothing is about love). In so many scenarios I just seem to come off as a prude, rather than someone struggling to protect the dignity of all involved. Thanks for some new material to work with!
Mjeck, “we are all governed by the language of mathematics.”
That’s an odd statement. The general idea that language imprisons us.
I’m not nitpicking, this goes deep. You honestly believe the language is the decisive factor in our experience of the world? Sure language is persuasive and influences people. But you think it literally defines reality?
Catholics believe that we are bound to reality, not to language.
I do understand that modern philosophy has tried to dodge the realist requirement by the linguistic turn. Too much is at stake if one accepts that reality itself binds us.
Birds don’t know the “language” of mathematics, yet a hawk still obeys the pythagorean principle when he descends along the fastest route, the hypotenuse, to snatch the mouse on the ground. He doesn’t think, he just does. Reality is his lodestar. Birds know better than to invent imaginary degrees of freedom
Wittgenstein said that the world is a world of facts, not things. That’s the atheist view, that all we know is determined and constrained by language, private thought; and that language is a construction that imprisons us in incommensurate worlds.
Catholics believe the precise opposite, that the world is a world of things, not mere ‘facts’.
Catholics are reality based.
Jeff,
I hate those leaps of logic.
Atheist says this
Catholic says this
Catholic is true
Why must you denigrate an atheist to make Catholicism true? Can it not hold it’s own? I read Atheist literature as how it was intended by the Atheist. I read Catholic literature the same way. Why can you not do the same?
You are controlled by the chemicals coursing through your body. I can inject you with any substance and get a desired result. If that makes you uncomfortable, or makes the statement odd; I’m sorry. it doesn’t make it any less true. I already told Stacy you cannot live by looking deep. Eventually it becomes meaningless.
Mjeck, several have tried and all have failed. I am sorry I could not be more of a help to you.
Howard,
I would just like to understand the behavior and intent of Catholics, so I can characterize them with honesty.
One last comment then I am through. I have been down your road. You do not need religion or learned thoughts right now, you need other people who are not self serving.
Mjeck,
If all your mental processes are just chemicals in the brain, then why should anyone take anything you say or think seriously? If you are just the result of chemicals obeying the laws of physics, you no more think for yourself than a water molecule makes the choice to go be in a cloud.
You are literally arguing that you cannot think.
Lauri,
Thank you. I understand what you mean about trying to protect dignity.
Howard,
You nailed it, thank-you.
Stacy,
Chemical biology is observable and explainable, therefore I cannot think and shouldn’t be taken seriously. Nice logic leap. Are you capable of enjoying a Coke without first telling everyone that Pepsi is disgusting?
Stacy, may I admire your Latin insights? The etymologies are spot on. It would be easy to go down false roads with marital and sex. But you found the true etymologies. Keep it coming, your readers love to be educated!
I especially love the derivation of the word consummate as an adjective. The arrival, the perfection. But when joined with the word act, it’s pretty powerful.
Consummate is a completion, a perfection, a conclusion to what is meant to be. But the word act comes from ago, agere which is such a rich and complex word it takes up 10 columns of fine print in the Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary. I believe it’s the most meaningful Latin word there is. It means to bring something from potential to actuality.
The top line translation of ago, agere is “to put in motion”. So by the consummate marital act we mean something that is at once a conclusion to longing, a completion of something, and at the same time the beginning of something else, something is set in motion.
One could even say to separate consummate from act is to sever the meaning of marital love. It would mean to draw attention exclusively to either the fulfillment of desire on one hand, and the act of creation on the other.
Anyway, your wonderful Latin wasn’t lost on me. I admired it!
Jeff, YES! Ever since you suggested reading St. Aquinas in Latin, I’ve taken note. I said it before, but again — the Summa Theologica, and any of St. Thomas’ work I’m certain, is one gigantic exercise in symbolic logic. In addition to all the theology one can learn from reading his works, anyone can read it and learn the science and art of using words. It’s almost overwhelming, except it’s SO EXCITING. I understand why you say that you study segments.
The etymologies are from the unabridged OED. It requires a subscription each month, about a dollar a day, but I justify it by foregoing manicured nails. (Haha! Makes it hard to type anyway.) The full etymologies are available on the online version and it is a breeze to search through what in printed form would be cumbersome. It’s a month to month commitment, but I find I use it all the time, especially in this digital age where so many words, words, words fly through cyberspace and their meanings get distorted.
Thanks for the explanation of “consummate marital act,” wisely chosen words of the Church. Maybe that needs a post of its own…it’s such a great message to counter what young people hear too often.
Thanks Jeff!
Mjeck,
“Chemical biology is observable and explainable, therefore I cannot think and shouldn’t be taken seriously.”
That’s not all you are. If you say it is, then you have to explain how you think freely…
Stacy,
The symbolic logic of Aquinas should be familiar to those using the symbolic language of the computer in this digital age. Instead of embracing it though, I believe, it is not going to be widely considered or used because of it’s similarity to the stark results of the computer. Although the truth that emerges is magnificent, we love emotion when we read. We still want emotion in human interaction and things that relate to that interaction, which could be considered a plus. The proper place of emotion is the key.
I believe we generally reject truth anyway if it gets in the way of desire, ambition, expedience, etc. A study of why and how a person accepts truth in any form would be interesting. My guess is that the p loves truth itself and is willing to accept it however it is presented.
From my pragmatic brain.
Howard,
I get that, I really, really do. It reminds me of something my friend Leila quoted in her latest post, a comment she said needed repeating about how a newcomer might approach Catholicism, see #6:
http://littlecatholicbubble.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-quick-takes-are-getting-quicker.html
I think you’ll like that.
Yes, #6 is a wonderful way to present it. The “Catholicism” series is one of the greatest examples of proper use of our favorite pastime, which is no longer baseball. Even at the introduction, I well up strong feelings that a beautiful thing is going to be presented. This is also a strong argument for enlarging the use of the Extraordinary form. A priest once told me that the fascination for the Church in old Hollywood was in some ways the pictorial beauty of the liturgy.
As a person gets deeper into Catholicism (or even from the beginning for a more aware person) it becomes apparent that it is a thinking person’s religion. Which is of course the understanding of the phrase “faith and reason”. Something offered that would appeal to the dominant approach to truth of every person, I guess.
Voila, for the thinking we get your essay. For the rest we get the scandal of Notre Dame.
Wow, I had no idea my meager paraphrasing of Fr. Barron would get so much traction! I’m glad that you and Leila found it worthy of repeating. I only hope it encourages the lurkers to find and explore the faith.
What I remember from my reading of historical books, is that a marriage is consummated by the act of sex. If the married couple never has sexual relations, the marriage is invalid and can be annulled. But, then there was the matter of child-brides and marriages…in which two children were wedded, or a young girl was wed to someone older. In those cases the marriages were excepted to be consummated upon sexual maturity.
The terms are all inter-related; sex, intimacy, consummation. You can’t have consumation without sex. You can have sex without intimacy. And, sex is best when in concert with intimacy and consumation.