Comments for The Real Taboos at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 19 out of 19 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Wed, 19 Jun 2013 20:51:29 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11891 I permit myself to wonder how much experience Sister Farley has with teenagers, if only students at her college. Certainly she seems not to realize that discussions about masturbation quickly lead to impure thoughts and erections. Will she next being doing in-class discussions of PLAYBOY magazine? - Gabriel Austin Wed, 13 Jun 2012 08:43:25 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11859 Remember when Liberal Catholics considered it laughably nonsensical to accept sexual and marital advice from a priest, who, because he had no experience in either, was in no position to offer any such advice? But there's no problem praising and promoting the sexual advice of a nun, so long as she's aligned with their social and political agenda. Proof that for Liberal Catholics sexual license blinds them to sexual truth, and, as always, proof that their politics trumps their faith. - Mark Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:43:31 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11854 @ Doughlas Remy: As I mentioned in a personal email this morning, none of your comments has been removed, except an earlier one in which you complained about the alleged removal. If you look above you'll see a line between the comboxes that indicates a low-rated comment (that's yours), which may be opened. This is an aspect of the program we use and is user generated. In other words, other commenters think your comment unworthy, but the designation has nothing to do with we who manage The Catholic Thing. - Brad Miner Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:36:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11853 @Elizabeth Nolan and Sam Schmitt: I would love to respond, but my comments are being removed. If this one makes it onto the site, it will not last more than an hour or so, I'm sure. - Doughlas Remy Tue, 12 Jun 2012 06:24:08 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11850 Looking past your cliches, I'm curious to know exactly how "the Vatican" keeps this incredible power over people's bodies. Is it through a secret police force, prisons, informants, and torture? If you read the article you'll see that it is the Church that is being shouted down. Insisting that Sr. Farley not misrepresent Catholic teaching is nothing more than truth in advertising: she can't use the name "Catholic" to push her own agenda. And she knows that if she can't, she'll be a nobody (ever heard of Fr. Charles Curran?) - no longer a brave dissident speaking "truth to power" but just another academic parroting the same old stuff. Seems like it's Sr. Farley's the one worried about losing her "power." - Sam Schmitt Tue, 12 Jun 2012 03:00:50 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11848 @Doughlas Remy I'll see your reference to Mary E. Hunt with a visit to the work of Helen Avare. As far as the Church wanting influence over the most intimate aspects of my life, I dare say I am grateful for the guidance, especially if one defines 'intimate aspects' in a broader context than sexual behaviors. Am I not more than my sexual behavior? Secular social scientists back up the Church's teachings about what to do about AIDS in Africa (even a Harvard prof gave props to the Church's recommendations). The dismissal of the Church's teachings about sexual morality on account of the tragedy of the sex abuse scandal is illogical. The view of the human being at the foundation of those teachings is not negated on account of the sins attached to the crisis. Rather, the scandal could be considered as a gong sounding an alarm about the muddled sexual ethics of a larger rotting cultural ethos extending well beyond the boundaries of the Roman Catholic community. - Elizabeth Nolan Tue, 12 Jun 2012 01:32:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11843 Seconded, martha. Not only should Grump not let the heretics get him down, but further to the point of the Church being the one true Church, it's because we have the actual Body and Blood of Christ. Those Sacraments are conformed to Christ crucified and resurrected and they build up the Church throughout all ages. Indeed, we're talking the Body of Christ here, and not some mere human organization. So a cleansing will happen sooner or later. Christ promised us that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. So the smoke of Satan and other nasties might get in for a time, but expect it to get flushed out, eventually. One thing all of this is bringing to the fore, however, is the question of what being Catholic even means. Particularly when some people toss about the term "devout Catholic" rather flippantly and imprudently. Most of us would fail St. Francis de Sales's litmus test, so those who call themselves "devout Catholics" should be a bit more circumspect. Those who willfully misrepresent Church teaching in public are Catholic merely in name, which is to say barely Catholic at all. Excommunication must be used prudently, because given that we live in a country whose historical narrative and understanding of its national identity tends to romanticize dissent, it might well backfire. One definitely wants them all to repent and come back, knowing full well that God isn't done with them or any of us yet. But failing that, quite a few commentators have pointed out that heretics tend to contracept themselves out of existence. Either way, the Church wins. - WSquared Mon, 11 Jun 2012 19:56:24 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11841 I'm willing to chip in to send Ms. Farley a Catacheism. Seems like she is sorely in need of one. - I_M_Foreman Mon, 11 Jun 2012 18:35:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11838 Chrysologus: I didn't say every society knows how to do that (do even Christians know that?) I said they knew it was important to do and takes great wisdom. If this were not the case, we'd have to say that natural law truths don't run to sexual matters and that's simply not the case. - Robert Royal Mon, 11 Jun 2012 12:32:21 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11833 Are you sure that every society prior to modern Western society has known how to "properly tame sexual impulses"? I am not sure that that was true of ancient Roman society, for instance. Such a habit (chastity) seems particularly (thought not exclusively) Christian to me. - Chrysologus Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:32:35 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11832 Mary E. Hunt (a Catholic), a regular contributor to Religion Dispatches, hits the nail on the head when she writes apropos of Sister Farley's comments about masturbation: "Sexual power is power, and more and more women have it. Apparently the struggle to wrest it back is high on the agenda of those who live on the 110 acres called the Vatican." Indeed, the Vatican's teachings about sexuality seem intended for one purpose only: to uphold a patriarchal system of power over people's very bodies and the most intimate aspects of their lives. And those teachings are more often than not out of step with current medical knowledge about sexual and reproductive health. The Church's sorry record in dealing with clergy sex abuse and with AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa is only matched by its obstinacy in challenging the entire medical community over homosexuality and reproductive health. It's one thing to deplore "new approaches." It's quite another to demonstrate their inefficacy. - Doughlas Remy Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:14:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11830 Yes Manfred, neither. You set up a false dichotomy, again. THere is both positive and negative we can learn from SSPX, but very little positive from the LCWR. How about Orthodox Catholocism? THe hermeneutic of continuity bravely exhorted by our wonderful HOly Father? - Achilles Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:37:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11828 @Grump Don't let the heretics keep you from the Church. Yes, what you write is true, and I feel the same way you do about the lack of action by Bishops and the Pope, but please realize that the Catholic Church is the one church founded by the disciples of Jesus. We who truly believe must remain to pray for and support our good priests and bishops and especially the Holy Father. Search out a good parish with good priests who follow the official teachings of the church. Please don't let the dissenters keep you away. Remember, even Jesus allowed Judas to remain as one of the apostles. - martha Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:30:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11825 @Manfred Neither actually. - Arnobius of Sicca Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:15:45 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11824 It is "Catholics" such as Farley, Geraldine Ferraro, Pelosi, Biden, Ted Kennedy and scores of others who support the heresies of "A Catholic Statement on Pluralism and Abortion" published in the New York Times in 1984 which have kept me away from the Church. I can't understand why Rome puts up with this. Here's the second paragraph from that ad: "Statements of recent Popes and of the Catholic hierarchy have condemned the direct termination of pre-natal life as morally wrong in all instances. There is the mistaken belief in American society that this is the only legitimate Catholic position. In fact, a diversity of opinions regarding abortion exists among committed Catholics." If I was the Pope I would have ex-communicated the lot of them. Instead, we get milquetoast from the bishops and largely silence or toleration from Rome, which only encourages further rebellion. The Church has the tools to deal with these so-called Catholics but chooses not to use them. - Grump Mon, 11 Jun 2012 04:11:49 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11822 Farley should decide what her religion is: Catholicism or Sexuality. A personal retreat might help her decide. - Deacon Ed Peitler Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:09:01 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11821 We poor Ivy Leaguers sure take a bashing, but let me assure you there are many of us who share the perspective of The Catholic Thing. Unfortunately the Ivy League as a whole has bought lock, stock, and barrel into the "necessity" of population control, and so has accepted libertine, contracepted sexuality in any form as the way to go. Against this current many have Ivy Leaguers bravely stood and continue to stand. On a more Catholic note, and a point I regularly make in my comments, is that had the practice of the interior life not collapsed with the advent of the Council, we would be in very different shape, and so would the Sisters of Mercy. So even as we take stock of all that is wrong -- and there is much, very much -- we ought to take stock of all that is good, of all the young people flocking to faithful, rigorous religious orders, of young priests who don't buy in to the shibboleths of priests in their sixties and seventies, of masses in the traditional rites that are full of young people, and Novus Ordo masses, too, when the clergy are faithful to the Magisterium and the person of the Holy Father. The glass may indeed be half-empty, but "greater is He that is in you than he that is in the world." - Dave Mon, 11 Jun 2012 01:04:29 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11819 Sr Margaret Farley’s tactics are older than one might imagine Among the propositions condemned by Pope Innocent XI on 4 March 1679 were the following “48. Thus it seems clear that fornication by its nature involves no malice, and that it is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the contrary seems entirely in disagreement with reason. 49. Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin.” They were tersely “condemned and prohibited, as they are here expressed, at least as scandalous and in practice pernicious.” I do prefer the former succinct style of the Holy Office to the more discursive productions of the CDF, but that is a minor point. - Michael Paterson-Seymour Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:19:27 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/the-real-taboos.html#comment-11818 Thank you for a very timely and pointed article, Dr. Royal. I believe it dovetails nicely with David Bonagura's piece of June 10th on the SSPX. If the salvation of your child or grandchild (I don't know your age) depended on sound Catholic (in every sense of the word) teaching, would you rely on Sr. Farley, the LCWR and the CTSA, or would you prefer to entrust them to the SSPX? The question answers itself, does it not? - Manfred Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:55:21 +0100