Sexual desire is natural …

From Facebook here.

“I’ve heard Kant’s philosophy compared to an elaborate mansion wherein every detail is anticipated and addressed. But nobody lives there. Even Kant himself dwells in a modest gatehouse [nearby], because the mansion is uninhabitable.”

The 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant believed that human beings tend to…
AEON.CO|BY AEON

My own comment was as follows:

“Sexual desire is natural and when it is well-ordered it leads to loving passionate marriages and the birth of children.

I find there to be an unhealthy mixture of puritanism and feminism among contemporary Catholics. At base it is Gnostic.”

Advertisements

4 responses to this post.

  1. C S Lewis has a very funny summary of medieval Catholic views on sexuality at the beginning of ‘The Allegory of Love’: ‘He (Hugo of St. Victor) differs from Gregory by considering not only the desire but the pleasure. The latter he thinks evil but not morally evil: it is, he says, not a sin but the punishment of a sin, and thus arrives at the baffling conception of a punishment which consists in a morally innocent pleasure.’ !!!

    Reply

    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 13, 2016 at 11:01 am

      The Catholic Church never seems to quite get this right. The latest silliness is a kind of Gnostic attitude which I am sorry to say John Paul II suffered from at times (along with a tinge of Pelagianism.)

      One of the relatively few times I simply ignored papal comments was when John Paul II pronounced that husbands shouldn’t lust after their wives. One really wonders how he imagined the process worked.

      Reply

      • Posted by James Hamilton on December 13, 2016 at 7:53 pm

        Part of the problem is the definition of terms. Traditionally, lust was desire without love. JPII was right when he said the opposite of love was not hate, but use. Lust should be understood as the consuming, inordinate (the key concept, the lack of proper order) desire, at the expense of the one desired.

        Apart from that, that article was written by one sick fuck.He honestly can’t see the difference between desire for a person and desire for an experience, regardless of that person’s integrity. Perhaps it’s the logical result of a life of too many easy sexual conquests. He lost me when he compared a married couple to prostitution. That’s BS on stilts!

  2. It strikes me that the big kerfuffle, from Dennis Prager to this, is simply confusion over what constitutes objectification. To objectify a person, that person must be seen (among other things) as interchangeable, lacking autonomy, inert, violable, owned, and a few other things that simply don’t exist in Biblical marriage. Or, at least, shouldn’t.

    Interesting that a homosexual like Harwani is more or less assuming that prostitution, where a lot of these factors exist, is pure of objectification, but marriage, where they should not, is not. He is getting things exactly backwards, which, hey, seems appropriate given the source. No?

    And perhaps Popes have gotten confused on this, too–I’ll withhold judgement since I’m a Baptist who doesn’t pay that much attention. I know for sure that some of the medieval and dark ages literature I’ve read (in translation) seems to indicate that there was (perhaps remains) an ethic of asceticism that is totally at odds with passages like the Song of Solomon and John 2:1-11. Or, for that matter, passages about the wedding feast of the Lamb, not to mention Deuteronomy 14: 26-28. There are simply some times when we ought to be exuberant with food, wine, and, yes, sex.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: