CathInfo.com

The subject matter in this forum is actually pretty tame, compared to what you will find on other Catholic online forums, and possibly even past threads on CathInfo.


I've heard the objection before that "Catholics talk too much about sex".  We talk about what we have to talk about, where the salvation of souls is at stake.  Alone perhaps among Christians and even other religionists, we realize that any deliberate, completed sɛҳuąƖ act outside of marriage, and even within marriage where it is not ordered to procreation (whether procreation can actually take place or not), is a mortal sin that makes one worthy of eternal damnation.  It is a minefield if one wanders outside of the Church's gentle guidance --- human nature inclines towards sɛҳuąƖ gratification --- and yes, it's something we have to talk about.  Sometimes the talk has to get a little nitty-gritty.  Where the danger exists, you have to face it head-on, and know it for what it is.  That's not always pleasant.


In the example I cited, an arrogant, self-prepossessed young career woman, having had her "bag limit" of two children, spaced a couple of years apart, at just the right time, "had herself fixed" (i.e., tubes tied) and was therefore available to her husband on demand without consequences.  She further boasted that when she was on her period, she had other ways to gratify her husband.  In other words, he has a 24/7/365 concubine, and she has a 24/7/365 stud.  The secular world thinks that this is exactly the way to go, and no other Christian church (aside from possibly Orthodoxy) condemns this in the least.  Unless someone makes it public knowledge, as she did, it is hush-hushed under the rubric of "what people do in the bedroom is private".  That "privacy mantle", in this case, extends to marital heterosɛҳuąƖ sodomy.


Now we, as Catholics, know that this is living in mortal sin.  We must proclaim this, and yes, to some extent, we have to describe the sin.  Sometimes "talking pretty" is not an option.  We have to, for instance, look at pictures of war atrocities --- the various events of WWII, Andersonville, Vietnam, and so on.  We have to look at pictures of what takes place during an abortion.  We have to look at pictures of lynchings in the post-bellum South, men hanging from trees.  Not nice stuff.  Not at all.  We would not, of course, look at pictures of sinful sex acts --- that would be pornography --- but we do, sometimes, have to paint "verbal pictures".  Those aren't nice either.

We are not obliged to look at or use horrific pictures. They are clearly not appropriate for children. I am not sure about men, but I would expect many women also to have a problem with such things.  I know that I do.   I avoiding looking at pictures of war atrocities and abortions.  I have not even watched Mel Gibson's the Passion.  I can barely manage to get through the Stations of the Cross.

I also avoid discussions of sɛҳuąƖ morality that involve descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ activities.  Traditionally, this subject was written about in Latin in order to prevent people who wanted to read about it out of prurience.  sɛҳuąƖ details were not preached about in public.  People with questions asked about it in private.

The Passion of the Christ is possibly the ultimate example of "forcing ourselves to look at that which is not pleasant to see".  Parents most certainly do need to be controlling what their children see, as well as those who are acting in loco parentis --- teachers, caregivers, etc.  Children need to be kept in innocence as long as that is reasonably possible.  I saw pictures of WWII atrocities when I was in grade school (small-town public school library in a time and place where traditional moral values were "just understood").  It didn't harm me --- far from that, it helped me to see things for what they actually were.  I didn't know that facing reality was a bad thing.


If you choose not to look at such unpleasantness, that is up to you.  I am accustomed to looking at unpleasantness, because I need to force myself to see evil for what it actually is, and not merely rely upon oblique or demure allusions to it.  Emmett Till's mother certainly thought the world needed to see what racist murderers did to her son.  People who say they have traditional morals need to have some idea of what will go on in the White House if they vote for and elect a certain candidate, openly gαy with a "husband" (not to say that such shenanigans have never gone on there).  I would certainly hope that (for instance) African Americans, who are said to have an issue with this, would say to themselves "that's too far, I can't go there" when considering whether to vote for that candidate or not.  They could either refuse to cast a vote, vote third party, or bite the bullet and vote for Trump (who is actually very much an advocate of African Americans, you'd think they'd see that).


As far as descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ sin, obviously we cannot use pictures --- not even drawings --- but we do need to have some idea of what the sin actually is.  We cannot condemn what we do not understand.  Of course the discussions need to be muted, but the person being taught needs to have some idea.  How many times has someone said "I didn't know 'that' was a sin"?

If you choose not to look at such unpleasantness, that is up to you.  I am accustomed to looking at unpleasantness, because I need to force myself to see evil for what it actually is, and not merely rely upon oblique or demure allusions to it.  Emmett Till's mother certainly thought the world needed to see what racist murderers did to her son.  People who say they have traditional morals need to have some idea of what will go on in the White House if they vote for and elect a certain candidate, openly gαy with a "husband" (not to say that such shenanigans have never gone on there).  I would certainly hope that (for instance) African Americans, who are said to have an issue with this, would say to themselves "that's too far, I can't go there" when considering whether to vote for that candidate or not.  They could either refuse to cast a vote, vote third party, or bite the bullet and vote for Trump (who is actually very much an advocate of African Americans, you'd think they'd see that).


As far as descriptions of sɛҳuąƖ sin, obviously we cannot use pictures --- not even drawings --- but we do need to have some idea of what the sin actually is.  We cannot condemn what we do not understand.  Of course the discussions need to be muted, but the person being taught needs to have some idea.  How many times has someone said "I didn't know 'that' was a sin"?

Good points! I have to chime in since there was so much good content in your post.

Good point about the TRUTH of what sodomites do to each other. If you are 100% against sodomy and would never elect a sodomite to office? Then fine, JayneK and others can abstain from reading about what sodomites do to each other. But for the rest! Time to go into detail about JUST HOW DEGENERATE they are. If you're even THINKING about voting for one, you need to know the TRUTH about them, their subculture, their habits, etc.

Long story short, we're not children. Children's innocence should be protected as long as possible. But adults? Should adults "innocence" about the evils of the world be protected AT ALL? That's a crazy notion. I'm not talking about anything which would cause sin by looking at it. But violence, torture, war, genocide, abortion, other evils? We need to know the TRUTH about what goes on in the world -- as soon as we're grown up and mature, that is.

And if any of us over 18 don't consider ourselves "mature" enough -- we have a big problem.

Matthew