greengrey promoted this comment
activearchivist is lovely, in a moist, fluffy sort of way was starred
activearchivist is lovely, in a moist, fluffy sort of way was unstarred
@activearchivist is a professional hippy: oh wow, that caption is deplorable. As a former photo editor at a newspaper, I have no idea how that caption was okayed by anyone anywhere.
I stopped identifying as a Catholic several years ago for similar reasons.
I realized that I can't find enough freedom in Catholicism to authentically be a feminist and LGBT ally. I disagree with the politics of the Vatican, I can't accept dogma that leaves no room for thinking and dispute.
Catholicism taken seriously is about agreeing with the Pope and living your life according to the rules put forward in the RC catechism and it also means disdain for gays, lack of family planning, and a belief in women's inferiority.
I sincerely apologize if other commentators find this opinion offensive but I believe there is less room in Catholicism for rule-bending than we tend to think.
I find the prayer very sweet. As a practicing Catholic in a marriage with a practicing Agnostic, we struggle at times with the role both the Church and God the Trinity plays in our life. Thankfully, I have a wonderful spouse who acknowledges and works with me in regards to our at times conflicting views, and no, we wouldn't pray before the sexy times. Together. But can't you see how someone who has CHOSEN to allow God/religion into their lives and their bedrooms, could take comfort in a prayer like this? After being told that sexy is bad and we should abstain, a pray like this could help a couple regonize that yes, sex feels good, but that also, in a marriage, sex can help you shed the last layers of all that hide you from each other - literally and figuratively. And for those that know sex is pleasurable, can't this pray bring them closer to each other in an intellectual and spiritual sense? Just because its "religious" doesn't infer its badness.
Also, Mary, as I relate to her, was hardly a saintly prude. She had to deal with dirty diapers and Joseph would have been within his rights to divorce or hurt her; her pregnancy would have been of great shame and embarassment, much the way society still looks down its collective nose at teenagers who find themselves knocked up. And also, didn't Mary chose her choice?
Wow. Just... wow. Did Kissling brush up on ANY of her Catholic theology? For a "former" president of Catholics for Free Choice she is grossly misinformed. Thanks a lot for once again perpetuating misconceptions about Catholic theology (No sex separate from procreation, the "avoidance of sex" altogether--WHAT? Ever heard of "Theology of the Body"?) to the masses, who then congratulate themselves on their superiority. It's funny how these types of writers go on about how Christians "avoid" sex but then in another one of their supposedly enlightened, cosmopolitan articles go on about how sexually obsessed they are and how funny it is. This article is filled with appalling stereotypes and general bashing. It would never have been published if Christianity wasn't the trendy thing to bash right now. This is the fruit of our supposedly more enlightened and tolerant society?
@extravagantaurora: wait, how does Theology of the Body separate sex from procreation? And does it not indeed rely on the avoidance of sex while unmarried and/or not wanting to get pregnant?
@J.D.Regent: Yes, but the way it is presented in this article is misleading. People who state that the SOLE purpose of sex is procreation are neglecting a whole slew of writings about what are called its "unitive" aspects--a spiritual bonding and also a sexual "serving" or giving up of self to the other (mutually). The idea, to my understanding, is that sex is the closest thing we have to heaven on earth and is symbolic of the human relationship with the Divine. There are some Christians out there who do believe that sex is only for procreation, but they are extremely conservative and not representative of the larger group nor the actual teachings of Catholicism regarding sex. It's always the extreme that becomes the stereotype. And as for "NFP" (natural family planning), the method of avoiding sex during one's most "fertile" times of the month--I won't go into the details here (you can Google it), but to my knowledge it does not exactly state that one must abstain constantly to avoid pregnancy, only during times when one is most likely to get pregnant, which can be detected. A far cry from the conspiratorial tone of this article, imho. (Note: NPF is not "the rhythm method", it's a bit more scientific and effective than that.) The wording of the article, that Catholics "do not accept sexuality apart from procreation," is ludicrous, misleading, stereotypical and *my* personal definition of repressed.
My favorite wedding ever had a cool priest who said, "A true Christian marriage is not a takeover but a merger." I felt like shouting "Amen!" None of this wifely submission-submit to each other, compromise and such. Work together.
If people want to pray before sex, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to. Once I was flipping through a romance novel in the store, and the dedication was "For God." It freaked me out so much I put it back. This was a very secular romance to boot, with some title like "A Wicked Woman's Wayward Wishes." I do not want to think of God reading a book like that. I used to pray for forgiveness for being naked outside the shower, so no.
@lalaland13: I've heard that some people wear cutoff denim shorts one hundred percent of the time to avoid EVER having to be naked. I think I heard that there are even dozens of them.
I much prefer JP2's Love & Responsibility in which he states that a man not bringing a woman to orgasm is shame to the act of sex, advises women not to "sham orgasms," and suggests foreplay.
Also:
"There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously. "
@lalie (apologetic mess): don't forget the part where he said women's genius was in "waiting" and "receiving" and that even His Sexiness was telling us only to have sex when in heterosexual marriage and "receptive" to children. I mean, thanks for telling my husband to make sure I orgasm, but I'm not nominating him for sainthood yet.
@J.D.Regent: Yeah, obviously it fits into the rigid confines of Catholic sacramental marriage. We're talking Catholic sex, here, so he's not going to suddenly do a 180 and say "free love for all, even the gays!" It is, however, a very key argument for the personhood of women in terms of Catholic sexology, which I think people tend to ignore most of the time.
Also, it does say that treating the woman only as a receptacle is tantamount to objectification of her and holy sex requires full participation of both parties, objectification defeats that and detracts from the holiness of the act, etc etc. I think the Familiaris Consortio discusses it as well, but I could be misremembering.
...there's plenty of hot biblical poetry they could have worked with, if Catholics for Truth had any interest in presenting sex in a positive light.
Here we go with the Catholic bashing...what's not positive about that prayer? Maybe you don't pray before sex, but why have something smarmy to say if two people want to take a moment to reflect on their union and thank God for the wonder of their oneness and open themselves up mentally to being honest and giving?
When you get over the myriad legitimate objections you might have to "The Church" itself, there is no reason to poke fun or roll your eyes at this.
@MizJenkins: Speaking as someone who grew up fundamentalist (not Catholic, sure, but with a LOT of the same hang-ups/issues), I completely understand why something like this is subject to criticism. It's not about bashing what people choose to do in the privacy of their own bedroom; it's about criticizing yet ANOTHER outgrowth of Catholic theology that has devised a way to make people feel bad for not being pious enough. I used to read about things like this and feel the anxiety just sweep over me, like here was yet ANOTHER thing I needed to worry about if I was going to be a Good Christian (TM).
Maybe some people will take this book and actually find it helpful/useful/whatever. Good on them. But I know for a FACT there will also be people who will see books like this one and will feel nothing but the creation of additional guilt in their psyches. That's the problem with it. Every time someone finds another requirement or rule to impose on other people and justifies it by saying "this will make God happier with you," there are people out there it will damage. And that's why it's subject to criticism.
Pointing out that things that are associated with the Catholic church can damage people is only "Catholic-bashing" if harming people is a central tenet of Catholicism. I don't believe it is, but if it is, then I'm all for bashing.
@MizJenkins: there are a lot of reasons to poke fun and roll eyes at this, actually. People are, in fact, allowed to analyze how various religions view sex. Let's not start the "I'm Catholic and so persecuted" meme again, for the love.
@BadenBaden: I just wish we could poke fun and roll our eyes at non-Christian religions equally on this site. Unfortunately that is considered blasphemy around here.
"I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying"
I don't know, religious ecstasy sounds pretty hot.
when I see people claiming that Catholicism (or any form of Christianity, not to mention many other organized religions) is not really about the corrupt, ultraconservative, punitive, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-sex stuff you always hear about, I get hung up on one question: "How do you know?
Bingo. That's how I feel. The agnosticism developed in tandem. I am unhappy enough without being judged for my own imperfections by an organization whose views on family planning I furiously resent. And it's not a democracy (not among ongregants, anyway) --why SHOULDNT' we expect bullshit like that case of the 9 year old rape victim who sought an abortion? (I can't believe the gall of the Vatican...why did they have to say ANYTHING about that case at all, and if the girl and her family was excommunicated, how about her actual rapist?)
Don't get me started on the despicable abuse of power that fed into bishops and priests concealing sexual abuse for decades, allowing pastors identified as molesters to interact with kids instead of removing them from position and duties that gave them access to the general congregation (if not turning them in and getting them off the streets!).
Not that the Catholic Church is the only institution guilty of a problem like that..I'd say abuse of power and fear in organized religion is a many-headed hydra in politics and certainly in concealing crimes or neutralizing comprehensive, here-and-now moral accountability.
To say nothing of how angry I felt the last time I went to Mass of my own accord, when the priest's homily involved a screaming, venom-filled rant about gay marriage. (That happens even more often when I'm on family vacations and am forced to go to Mass in more conservative areas.) That isn't to slander all priests, lump them all in one group, or discount the good many religious organizations do for the poor.
That said--so long as you hold yourself accountable for the consequences of your actions before dogma (i.e. I think it's bullshit that people still float around religion as a legitimate excuse for kids who don't put stock in family planning for "religious" reasons, but seem to forget that premarital sex is usually against Catholic or Christian doctrine to....if you're going to sin, try planning ahead to minimize the damage) I won't hold it against someone for practicing the religion they were raised with, even if I personally think it's kinda pointless.
Screw the Church on contraception, and for that matter, I'm sorry but I don't really care how the Church feels about military combat, immigration, the death penalty, or other causes that probably ally them with lots of agnostic liberals.
One more thing--while I DEFINITELY agree with her column here, and though have my own reservations about abortion (or at least, using it as birth control) despite my fervent desire to make it more accessible generally/keep it safe and legal, didn't Kissling write a whacked out piece for Salon about cutting off access to abortion after the patient was five months along?
@escapefromny: Unitarians and Reform Jews tend to fit this bill nicely. It really comes down to finding a CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE/TEMPLE you like because the dynamic there can often be very different from "corporate" as it were.
@escapefromny: Welcome to the Episcopal Church. Albeit some people see us as a bit too loosey-goosey, it still holds the Christian tenets while seeing the humanity of all people.
@escapefromny: Episcopalians are pretty cool; in my fairly limited experience with the religion of my baptism, both of my ministers were gay, and one was a woman.
I've been a pagan for some time, and I've never felt happier with spirituality. My family is catholic, and at a certain point you get tired of all the guilt and hypocrisy.
@DramaClub: I was raised in both! Unitarian Universalits mostly, but Espicopal for baptism and holidays. Yes, both are very liberal. Unitarian was a little too pressuring to be hippy-dippy for me, but a lot of people enjoy it.
@escapefromny: If you know what you believe and can find other people who believe the same thing, why do you need a denomination or a name? Religion is whatever you want it to be. It only has a purpose so long as it brings you meaning, peace and purpose and makes you a better human being.
@fetishizedarmadillo: Also, I know people who like organized religion because of the history, ritual, mysticism and the social experience. But you can have all of that without having to swallow all the dogma. I look at major world religions as a buffet line of choices. I love religious art and philosophy and ritual and have enormous respect for it but I don't have to subscribe to dogma to be a part of that.
James Carroll (the former priest and author - not the dearly departed punk poet) once said that 'sex with someone you love is the highest form of prayer'.
Not sure if that's the exact wording, but it's the gist.
For all you Jezebel reading Catholic theologians (come on, I know you are out there!) isn't there actually a theological concept that means "what the people do?" And isn't that partially relied upon by the Vatican in explaining why they don't ordain women?
@J.D.Regent: Yes, "sensus fidelium" or sense of the faithful. I've never heard that cited about not ordaining women--they present that as something that Jesus initiated (false) and that the church has no power to change.
@sheistolerable: i am probably just giving them too much credit. sensus fidelium is indeed what i was thinking of and is one of the reasons i periodically feel the need to keep identifying as catholic and going to the catholic instead of the episcopalian masses. i just want there to be, like, a historical record of us or something.
I was in the bookstore yesterday and spent a little time in the "Christianity" section. I didn't keep count, but my conservative estimate is that at least 50% of the books in there were about sex. (DON'T DO IT, WHORE!) Now I'm kind of a new christian, but I don't remember the big JC talking that much about sex. He was pretty specific as to loving one another and caring for "the least of these". Wonder why there aren't more books on running soup kitchens or praying for peace?
(oh, and the creepiest book? "Interviewing Your Daughter's Boyfriend".)
09/28/09
Those gosh darn "girls" obviously don't know what they're doing.
09/28/09
09/22/09
I stopped identifying as a Catholic several years ago for similar reasons.
I realized that I can't find enough freedom in Catholicism to authentically be a feminist and LGBT ally. I disagree with the politics of the Vatican, I can't accept dogma that leaves no room for thinking and dispute.
Catholicism taken seriously is about agreeing with the Pope and living your life according to the rules put forward in the RC catechism and it also means disdain for gays, lack of family planning, and a belief in women's inferiority.
I sincerely apologize if other commentators find this opinion offensive but I believe there is less room in Catholicism for rule-bending than we tend to think.
09/22/09
09/22/09
Also, Mary, as I relate to her, was hardly a saintly prude. She had to deal with dirty diapers and Joseph would have been within his rights to divorce or hurt her; her pregnancy would have been of great shame and embarassment, much the way society still looks down its collective nose at teenagers who find themselves knocked up. And also, didn't Mary chose her choice?
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
If people want to pray before sex, that's fine by me. Just don't expect me to. Once I was flipping through a romance novel in the store, and the dedication was "For God." It freaked me out so much I put it back. This was a very secular romance to boot, with some title like "A Wicked Woman's Wayward Wishes." I do not want to think of God reading a book like that. I used to pray for forgiveness for being naked outside the shower, so no.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Also:
"There exists a rhythm dictated by nature itself which both spouses must discover so that climax may be reached both by the man and by the woman, and as far as possible occur in both simultaneously. "
09/22/09
09/22/09
Also, it does say that treating the woman only as a receptacle is tantamount to objectification of her and holy sex requires full participation of both parties, objectification defeats that and detracts from the holiness of the act, etc etc. I think the Familiaris Consortio discusses it as well, but I could be misremembering.
09/22/09
Here we go with the Catholic bashing...what's not positive about that prayer? Maybe you don't pray before sex, but why have something smarmy to say if two people want to take a moment to reflect on their union and thank God for the wonder of their oneness and open themselves up mentally to being honest and giving?
When you get over the myriad legitimate objections you might have to "The Church" itself, there is no reason to poke fun or roll your eyes at this.
09/22/09
Maybe some people will take this book and actually find it helpful/useful/whatever. Good on them. But I know for a FACT there will also be people who will see books like this one and will feel nothing but the creation of additional guilt in their psyches. That's the problem with it. Every time someone finds another requirement or rule to impose on other people and justifies it by saying "this will make God happier with you," there are people out there it will damage. And that's why it's subject to criticism.
Pointing out that things that are associated with the Catholic church can damage people is only "Catholic-bashing" if harming people is a central tenet of Catholicism. I don't believe it is, but if it is, then I'm all for bashing.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
"I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God. The pain is not bodily, but spiritual; though the body has its share in it. It is a caressing of love so sweet which now takes place between the soul and God, that I pray God of His goodness to make him experience it who may think that I am lying"
I don't know, religious ecstasy sounds pretty hot.
09/22/09
09/22/09
Bingo. That's how I feel. The agnosticism developed in tandem. I am unhappy enough without being judged for my own imperfections by an organization whose views on family planning I furiously resent. And it's not a democracy (not among ongregants, anyway) --why SHOULDNT' we expect bullshit like that case of the 9 year old rape victim who sought an abortion? (I can't believe the gall of the Vatican...why did they have to say ANYTHING about that case at all, and if the girl and her family was excommunicated, how about her actual rapist?)
Don't get me started on the despicable abuse of power that fed into bishops and priests concealing sexual abuse for decades, allowing pastors identified as molesters to interact with kids instead of removing them from position and duties that gave them access to the general congregation (if not turning them in and getting them off the streets!).
Not that the Catholic Church is the only institution guilty of a problem like that..I'd say abuse of power and fear in organized religion is a many-headed hydra in politics and certainly in concealing crimes or neutralizing comprehensive, here-and-now moral accountability.
To say nothing of how angry I felt the last time I went to Mass of my own accord, when the priest's homily involved a screaming, venom-filled rant about gay marriage. (That happens even more often when I'm on family vacations and am forced to go to Mass in more conservative areas.) That isn't to slander all priests, lump them all in one group, or discount the good many religious organizations do for the poor.
That said--so long as you hold yourself accountable for the consequences of your actions before dogma (i.e. I think it's bullshit that people still float around religion as a legitimate excuse for kids who don't put stock in family planning for "religious" reasons, but seem to forget that premarital sex is usually against Catholic or Christian doctrine to....if you're going to sin, try planning ahead to minimize the damage) I won't hold it against someone for practicing the religion they were raised with, even if I personally think it's kinda pointless.
Screw the Church on contraception, and for that matter, I'm sorry but I don't really care how the Church feels about military combat, immigration, the death penalty, or other causes that probably ally them with lots of agnostic liberals.
One more thing--while I DEFINITELY agree with her column here, and though have my own reservations about abortion (or at least, using it as birth control) despite my fervent desire to make it more accessible generally/keep it safe and legal, didn't Kissling write a whacked out piece for Salon about cutting off access to abortion after the patient was five months along?
09/22/09
("God wants us all to be happy and be kind to ourselves and to others ... ism.")
If there's an actual church of this, someone let me know. I'm in the market.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Neo-Paganism is all of the above.
I've been a pagan for some time, and I've never felt happier with spirituality. My family is catholic, and at a certain point you get tired of all the guilt and hypocrisy.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
Not sure if that's the exact wording, but it's the gist.
09/22/09
09/22/09
Whoa! Bringing another lady into the bedroom! Very hot Catholics.
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
09/22/09
(oh, and the creepiest book? "Interviewing Your Daughter's Boyfriend".)