The Strange Rhetoric of Traditional Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Case Study
The whole issue of what the Pope said on HIV and condoms has put a spotlight on the traditional Catholic framework for analyzing sexual ethics and sexual acts. The technical moral requirements of that framework can seem deeply foreign and sometimes even offensive to many people, especially if they’re not familiar with the basic framework. But sometimes the way sex is rhetorically approached within the traditional framework can give pause to people who are familiar with its requirements.
Consider, for example, this essay by Christian Brugger, who is a professor at the St. John Vianney Seminary in Denver-overseen by Archbishop Charles Chaput. It is not a scholarly essay, but is published in LifeSite News, which is a widely read pro-life portal.
I found it rhetorically odd–disconcerting, to say the least- that Brugger seems to be addressing men alone, although the portal is read by both men and women. And it seems to me that his analysis is largely treating women–wives–as if they are objects, not subjects in the most intimate aspects of their marriage. It seems as if he’s arguing that men have an obligation –a duty — to DO something to their wives — to create a certain physical reaction in them–for their wives’ own moral and physical good. This seems to me to be too close to treating women as if they are enfleshed pinball machines.
This genre of sexual ethics tends to be written almost exclusively by men –and for men –and about women. I suppose a wife could hand this to her husband. But how many men would listen to Christian Brugger — or any ethicist — rather than his own wife? I could be wrong, but my own suspicion is that many women, married and unmarried, would find this approach to the matter very off-putting. Am I wrong? Or does this essay – in tone and content — give some illustration to why many women don’t find the old-style approach to Catholic sexual ethics a place that includes them as subjects, not merely objects, of ethical reflection? It’s not content–it’s rhetorical style and intended audience. What do you all think?
Maybe I am wrong. But Professor Brugger is training future priests. Is anyone giving these future priests a married woman’s perspective on all this? Do seminarians ever talk to married women about these matters? It seems to me that it might be a good idea if they did.
Hi Cathy,
Talking about “duties” in bed is weird (it seems to reduce sex to a contract), but I read this slightly differently than you: I got the impression that he was rejecting the whole “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” attitude many men may have toward their partners’ pleasure. I see your point, but read through a distinct lens (then again I’m a man). Or, put differently, I didn’t find this article as objectionable as your analysis suggested. I don’t know–what would you think if a woman wrote about having similar responsibilities toward the man? That would sound offensive to me, I suppose, but only because I think that would make the woman sound like a tool. Is it the language in general that’s being used offensive to you or simply the roles offered by Brugger? Because let’s face it, in the sack, each partner does play a role in servicing the other if sex is going to be mutual at all. Just some thoughts.
Hello Cathy (and All),
This is not an answer to the question you raise, but to be honest I find pieces in this genre of sexual ethics like this one quite annoying. I don’t think I am either so dumb or so insensitive that I need to be told by a male theologian that I should try to please my bride physically when we make love.
Before our wedding nearly two years ago, I was quite anxious about the prospect of failing to please my spouse sexually. A good and sensitive female friend reassured me before my marriage that this was an issue that would resolve itself over time after the wedding with practice and open conversation. My friend was right. And partly as a joke, this friend presented me with a sex manual, knowing that this gesture would give my bride and I some good laughs as we began our sexual relationship. I certainly found this thoughtfulness from our friend a great deal more valuable than any articles, scholarly or not, of the sort posted in this portal.
Kathy – interesting information. If possible, would like to comment on some of your bigger concerns:
- as one who guest lectured at the “old” St. Thomas College/Theologate run by the Vincentian Fathers and grew up near there, one issue is that the seminary, its mission, its basic theology orientation, etc. have significantly changed with Chaput’s arrival. The bigger global issue is that this type of seminary change happens when a new bishop takes over…….hires new rector; new staff; brands it with his distinct theological approach, etc. If it is a large diocese with a long standing seminary, this may evovle slowly. But at times you get quick and wholesale change – if a religious order runs the seminary, they may be replaced by diocesan staff.
- understand that the USCCB (in closed session) talked about a directive/desire to move toward regional seminaries that are more stable and not impacted by changing bishops. They also could avail themselves of more highly qualified staff, administrators, formation directors, professors – this is an issue when you have 75+ seminaries.
- you specifically raised a point about the “female” perspective and if priestly candidates are given a chance to experience female input. Would suggest that you would find that this falls from one extreme to another. Unfortunately, seminaries have hired qualified women to teach dating back to the 1970′s. But, this may mean exposure to one or two female professors who focus on their subjects. Theologates often “assume” that the candidate will pick up female perspectives via internships, service projects, time spent in parish assignments. Some formation teams/dioceses now assign a “formation team” to a candidate that is made up of all kinds – married women, professionals, etc. who meet with the candidate and provide feedback. Some seminaries have their college years at a house of study/formation on a college/university campus…..this usually results in the candidate(s) getting experience interacting with males/females their own ages.
Personally, the theology of the body approach is too narrow & has too many difficulties for me to say that it is a positive, comprehensive approach to sexual morality, ethics, etc. IMO
“Is anyone giving these future priests a married woman’s perspective on all this?”
Why not enlist married women who are theologians, law professors, ethicists, physicians, psychiatrists, etc. and produce instructional materials for seminarians?
Seminarians and their bishops might prefer professionally made CDs to occasional classroom lectures. Young men whose first language is not English and whose cultural backgrounds are different might be more comfortable viewing or reading such material in private.
Wow. That could almost be a parody. It reminded me of a passage I once saw from a 1950s Irish moral theology manual where a priest reasoned at length about whether the use of tampons was licit or not (if I recall, he found them to be technically permitted but to be avoided as a near occasion of sin). I can only hope that author’s classes at his Denver seminar don’t take the form of John Cleese’s profane but hilarious sex education class in Monty Python’s The Meaning of Life.
Until now, I never understood what was really meant by the ‘manualist’ tradition!
“I don’t know–what would you think if a woman wrote about having similar responsibilities toward the man? ”
Half-seriously – my time spent in supermarket checkout lines suggests that women write about this in virtually every issue of Cosmo.
Go figure, my Norton Security Parental Block blocked the essay by Christian Brugger but did not block access to a number of other sites including Cosmo. At the end of the Day, it is about Love and Respect. Time to get a new parental block as it appears the creators of Norton Security think Love and Respect are relative, just not to each other.
Ha! Nancy, that’s really funny!
Could you give an example of a sentence that illustrates your point?
The Norton Security Block is probably programmed to remove anything that has the string “content may not be appropriate for children.”
My mind wandered to Brazil in the early 60s, where I as an American Seminarian
studied for the priesthood. An all pervading Machismo ruled throughout that very
large country. To play sports, we wore a full length cassock. Contact with females was prohibited. I was leaving the building one morning and a young mother came to me with her frightened son. She threatened to leave him there if his bad behavior continued. Later working in parishes in cities and in the countryside, I saw that machismo was inbred from the cradle on. This meant that the women and children attended Mass and the aged. I never resolved how to deal with it. I insert this comment here because I felt a need to add this dimension to your conversation.
Imagine, for a moment, that a non-Catholic “outsider” would open and read Brugger’s article.
Would anyone blame them for coming away with the idea: what is WRONG with these people?
As an insider, all I can say is : what is WRONG with these people?
And this is supposed to represent the “sanctity of marriage” that is not available to me and my partner? Thank God for small favors these days.
Oh, Cathleen. Where does one begin with this hilarious essay, albeit unintentional, I am sure. The “goods” of marital lovemaking- how weird is that to describe a profound, loving and really fun activity? So much to worry about during lovemaking. Is it open to life, am I being an “egoist”, is my partner satisfied, do the bishops approve. I am a grammy and have 6 grown children and I am supremely grateful to God that I got a good, loving guy who has both feet on the ground. I am in the Jimmy Mac camp. God save us from these academics and hierarchs. To take a quite earthy activity and reduce it to abstractions is to invite mockery.
Next essay topic: if the wife is not in the mood, does she have a duty to have sexual intercourse with her husband anyway?
Pope, bishops and priests should stop talking about sex for a year. Then every other year. Then every five years. Finally forever.
Well in a way the essay really is funny. Reads like an old Punch humor piece. I can imagine H. F. Ellis or, say, Stephen Potter writing something along the line of: “The Nervous Curate Instructs the Bride and Groom.” I loved the opener about how perhaps this is not appropriate to be read by children.
Of course what isn’t a bit funny is that this fellow actually teaches in a seminary. I would be relieved if I could think that all of his students are in stitches over his lectures. Heaven help the ones who aren’t, and those who might ask for their counsel some day.
And now for something completely different…
Though I agree with David that the presentation was not always terribly penetrating (except for the quotes of JPII, which are profound), the thrust of the piece was certainly other-directed and well-intentioned. So what I find odd and disconcerting is that anyone could find it odd and disconcerting. Could men benefit from a woman’s perspective? Well, of course, but who ever said otherwise? Certainly not Brugger. Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if Brugger’s perspective, in some basic sense, is one many women might be glad that men would hear from another man. I wonder if sometimes when women say that a woman’s perspective is needed, what they really mean is they want *their* particular perspective to be given pride of place, or mistakenly assume they speak for all women.
For some reason I can’t quite figure out, this essay strikes me as about ten times filthier than any actual pornography I have ever seen.
There is a well-known scene from “Babylon 5″ which addresses this issue much more effectively (IMHO). Unfortunately, I couldn’t find an extracted clip of the scene, but it’s from minute 24 to minute 27 here.
For those with weak stomachs for science fiction silliness, the well-known quote is Commander Ivanova: “Enthusiasm, sincerity, genuine compassion and humor can get you through any lack of previous experience of high numerical value.” FWIW, Ivanova is a (fictional) woman, but the script was written by a man.
There are several things Brugger doesn’t understand. One of the things he DOES get is that female orgasms are good and women should have as many as possible throughout their lifetimes. So yay him. Better late than never.
That said, individuals vary in the intensity of their sexual drive, and this drive kicks into high or low gear at various points in their lives. Brugger seems to assume, at least for the purposes of this short article, that everybody’s motor is running at the same rate when, in fact, they often–perhaps usually–aren’t.
Most married couples go through “dry spells” because one or the other’s motor is in “idle.” When men are uninterested, they simply don’t perform (at least, not if they’re good Catholics; Protestants take an entirely different line on this).
When women are uninterested, they may be happy to oblige, but would prefer to forego any extended ministrations a husband might feel duty-bound to provide. This is why many women find “faking it” occasionally useful; it brings everything to a satisfactory close and everybody can get some sleep.
Brugger’s cautions about orgasm-less women a la “Ruby, don’t take your love to town” are overstated. Different women are satisfied with different levels of sexual pleasure. Certainly the notion that masturbation and adultery are much more likely from too few orgasms strike me as absurd. In the first place, most women don’t have a problem providing instruction to their husband in all areas of life, and sex is no exception. Second, I know way too women whose husbands have become impotent from illness or injury who love them too much to even contemplate wandering.
Finally, I hope Brugger’s article does not reflect the sum total of his understanding of “frigidity.” Certainly women can be turned off by loutish bedtime behavior. But “frigidity” may be caused by many other factors.
I apologize in advance if there is anything coarse or offensive here. Please keep this post away from your children. They REALLY don’t want to know about their parents having sex.
The idea that seminarians would be experts on female sexuality or on male sexuality is daft. No matter how many counselors or married couples were to talk to them, they could never be equipped for empathetic understanding. After ordination they begin to explore their own sexuality, with the confused consequences now so well known. The ones who become bishops and cardinals are probably those who have frozen that process and clung to their seminary manuals, hence the horrendously off-key quality of their remarks on sexuality.
The author of that article is a married man (with 4 children).
Thank you Cathleen for the article and the insights. When I searched for Brugger in wikipedia I was surprised to see an article in Communio, but not surprised to find a string of articles in lifesitenews and connections with the Legionaries of Christ through the Westchester Institute.
But I echo what David said about it almost seeming like a parody of Catholic ethical reasoning. I am reminded of the uproar over the Ayatollah Khomeini’s writings on sex.
Also, concerning tampons, here is a parody site similar to The Onion but with a warning that the humour can be significantly more crude: http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0999/cotton.html
Another point is that even if priests had the experience to talk about sexuality within marriage, which they cannot have, they would not be able to voice their thoughts as frankly as the author of the article. The standard claim is that celibates can see marriage more objectively, from the outside, and can thus be good counselors. Does anyone here think that this is really a convincing claim? Why did Catholics confide their marriage guidance to unmarried priests? How did it come about that the most precise rules were made about marital behavior by unmarried clergy and imposed on married people with the most terrifying sanctions? Have we even begun to measure how terribly wrong and distorting this has been?
Claire, married with four children is real nice, but claiming that a good wife is going to run off or order one of those “personal pleasure” products from the Independent Living catalog if the husband doesn’t insist on manfully persevering until she by God gets her fireworks is just insulting and absurd.
Joseph, in our local parish, priests do not do marital counseling, deacons do. Our former deacon counseled a friend whose husband had an extramarital affair and blabbered the details to Father’s inner circle, until everybody in the parish knew the details and was taking sides. I have long regretted I did not report this to the diocese. I did do a happy dance when the deacon was widowed and was released from his vows so he could remarry.
I think Dr. Brugger should consult with Jean! And I suppose, as usual, she crystalizes some of my worries.
There are a lot of mothers of young children who are very tired, whether they stay at home or work. They’re not getting enough sleep. Little people are touching and pulling on them all day. And, especially if they haven’t gotten enough sleep, or a break from the household, sex may not appear quite as a desirable activity as it was on their honeymoon. No offense to their husband. No offense to sex. But sleep can seem more important at times.
I think Professor Brugger makes their situation worse, by putting even more pressure on them–by making their satisfaction their husbands’ DUTY. Who wants their husband to fail in his duty? And moreover, he hangs yet another worry over their head: if they don’t reach full satisfaction, they are likely to become, says Brugger, frigid or onanistic. Great. Just what every tired, stressed out woman wants to hear.
Where is Brugger getting this from? There’s a whole body of literature out there that he seems entirely unaware of, that points to the difference between men and women regarding sexual satisfaction- I’m not aware of such bald claims in it. Is it really going to be much of an aphrodisiac if the wife knows this is all out of, well, duty, on his part? “I don’t really want to–but it’s my DUTY?” Ugh.
Why not say that husbands and wives have a duty to talk to each other about sex? And encourage them to go out with them for coffee or a glass of wine or dinner a couple of times a month, without the kids, to maintain the adult marital bond that supports the sexual relationship in the first place?
Of course Jean, I agree. You are encapsulating what is wrong with this article in a single sentence, in your inimitable sharp style. I was only pointing out what I thought was a surprising fact.
“Why not say that men had a duty to talk to their wives about sex?”
Because people like Brugger can’t control what any individual wife might advise.
The Church is the good and grace-filled Body of Jesus Christ, but the extent to which some elements in it set up detailed obligations, duties and instructios for others holds it up to ridicule.
Frankly, the Church was better off condemning all sexual pleasure as an essentially sinful but inevitable part of making new humans. It put everybody on an equal footing, and there was none of this “you can put this here but only for so long, and then it has to go here, then check this, and put that there, review your checklist and repeat until you hear the click.”
Brugger is welcome to consult with me on Facebook, but I’m not holding my breath.
The other thing so creepy about this article is that all the references (except from Gaudium et spes and Ephesians) are from John Paul II, as though the Catholic intellectual tradition had nothing to offer before him, and (more importantly) as though evidence from the entire rest of God’s creation (e.g., what we fondly refer to as reality) is somehow irrelevant to the discussion.
Now ain’t that a handy disconnect!
Claire, I’m not sure why Brugger’s being married and having four children would be surprising, though I’d like to meet his wife and find out if she’s as exhausted as I suspect she is.
All kidding aside, Jeanne makes a very good point above.
Perhaps as we move through Advent it would behoove us to remember that Mary and Joseph apparently lived together in perfect harmony without any electrics Brugger describes.
Moreover, the sex lives of most married saints is unknown (except those who openly emulated Mary and Joseph). And if the Church deemed these married saints fit for the Table of Heaven because they simply loved God, were faithful to each other, and loved their neighbors as themselves, why do people like Brugger feel the need to start laying down guidelines and standards in this area?
If I were cynical I would say that the Theology of the Body gives people who want to talk about sex at length and in a lot of detail a chance to do so under cover of piety.
This article provides a mechanical view of marriage that seems to miss what is likely to be the most obvious issues — one being, maybe someone doesn’t know what he’s doing, and the other, maybe he doesn’t really care about his wife’s happiness or sees her as the proverbial receptacle. But if someone came to me with an apparently sincere question of why he should make the additional effort to help his wife achieve orgasm after the marital act had been completed, I simply can’t imagine responding with a complex theological argument — it would be more like, what don’t you understand about the truism that “if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”?
Last night, after the kids were tucked in and the dishwasher set to start in two hours, after I had made the rounds to make sure the lights were turned off and the doors locked, my wife and I repaired to the bedroom. I took the initiative: I dimmed the lights, lit a scented candle, turned on some Barry White, and gave my wife Professor Brugger’s essay to read. Unfortunately, the results were not what I had hoped: she was already asleep.
It’s not difficult to find similar criticisms of “ecclesiastical economics” as out of touch with reality and not merely on the rhetorical level. Here’s Peter Bauer on recent papal documents: “People who pronounce on matters about which they are ignorant are apt simply to absorb ideas propagated or taken up by other elite or establishment groups….[they] reflect unthinking surrender to intellectual fashion and political nostrums.”
Jim P., hilarious. This blog is getting funnier than Sid Caesar’s Hour.
Hello All,
For reasons I stated yesterday, I found this essay by Brugger more than a little annoying. And after a full day to think it over, I’m no less annoyed. But I think I should have added yesterday that I, too, find it insulting that Brugger claims that a husband’s “sexual egoism” might tempt a wife to seek sexual satisfaction with a partner other than her husband or by herself. And what I find particularly strange is Brugger’s use of the quote from Love and Responsibility in support of this claim several of us have found insulting. With apologies to Mark, I did not find this quote at all profound. The quoted passage from Love and Responsibility simply states an empirical claim that I think would be news to no one with minimal first- or second-hand knowledge of sex. But that aside, I find my ability to read charitably strained here. I get the impression that Brugger is trying to convey the idea that in Love and Responsibility John Paul II is arguing for to the claim Brugger made about a wife being tempted to masturbate or commit adultery because of her husband’s “sexual egoism”. I very much doubt John Paul II ever intended to defend this claim in his work. And while he is no longer with us, I rather doubt that John Paul II would have appreciated his work being used in this manner.
I had better add that I am not suggesting that Love and Responsibility is not a profound work, only that I don’t think the passage Brugger quoted here is profound.
Hello Jim P. (and All),
I second Felapton’s comment. Your latest post gave me a good chuckle. Maybe the best response to this stuff is to find humor in it, as you and several others have already done in this thread.
Ditto.
(Was there ever a sexier scene than Sid Caesar and Imogene Coca on the beach in From Here to Eternity?)
I am not quite sure why the Catholic position isn’t that once the husband ejaculates, sex is over for both him and his wife, unless he has the stamina to go on to Round 2. Can somebody explain to me why this is not so? I would certainly disagree with such a position, but if sex is for procreation, anything that happens past the point of ejaculation is just seeking sexual pleasure for its own sake. If you don’t make the moment of ejaculation the end of intercourse, then where do you draw the line? Is there a time limit? Or would there be some kind of rule equivalent to basketball players having to dribble or else they are penalized for traveling?
You guys are too funny.
David N., Brugger seems to want to extend the “marital act” to include the woman’s orgasm. I’m not sure that’s a bad tack to take; it’s the attendant cautions about what women might be driven to do unless they are fulfilled that makes them sound like stray cats.
On the other hand, I take your point about time. Brugger is again assuming that husband and wife are always in sync, and, in my view, that assumption makes him manifestly unfit to talk about these issues. Let’s say the Main Event was over 20 minutes ago, the husband gets up to make a sandwich, and the wife’s motor starts to rev. The husband comes back happy and sleepy. Would assisting her pleasure without coitus be part of that original marital act? Or would what happens next constitute a separate and sinful act?
I almost feel bad that we’re hammering on Brugger on the basis of what is a very short article. But it seems to me that anything MORE he would say on this topic would simply lead him into a deeper bucket of tar. This is what happens when people start trying to engineer everybody else’s sex lives.
Moreover, I think there is so much unloving, irresponsible, hedonistic, even sadistic sex that occurs OUTSIDE of marriage that the Church might want to focus its lens where it could do some good.
Well, David, everyone can stop fretting and sleep easy over the issue: a woman who has an orgasm after a man has climaxed is more likely to conceive. It has something to do with helping the sperm get through the cervix faster.
Barbara,
Excellent. I have done a little research into what you say, and my ruling would be that the “marital act” may be construed to be ongoing for a short time past the point of male orgasm “as long as the female partner remains on her back or on all fours”. I would also say the male partner may not be permitted a total lapse of attention (say, flipping channels with the remote) and definitely may not not leave the room. These would clearly constitute completion of the “marital act” by the male partner and would necessitate beginning from scratch. Consequently, if the male partner wants a sandwich, he should have it, or at least have the fixin’s, in the bedroom — either that or perform the “marital act” in the kitchen.
This ruling does not define “short time” nor does it approve or prohibit any particular means or methods employed in continuing the “marital act,” but only that continuation is licit if licit means or methods are employed. Nor is the prohibition on leaving the room to be interpreted — as some authorities have mistakenly implied — to prohibit the “marital act” from being performed out of doors (provided sufficient privacy is assured), although exactly what degree of separation in an outdoors situation would be the equivalent of leaving the room in an indoors situation is still the topic of much debate.
It should be noted that some have argued that should an emergency arise — such as a house fire or an animal attack — that causes the male partner to leave the room or, if outdoors, separate himself to a degree that is equivalent to leaving the room — as long as the female partner remains on her back or her hands and knees, the “marital” act may continue once the emergency situation is taken care of. This is most definitely not the case. Any interruption, whether willed or imposed, constitutes an end to the “marital act.” For not everything is permitted and one may not do everything one wishes.
OMG, stop it please! I haven’t laughed at anything this much since I saw the Monty Python Mrs. Premise and Mrs. Conclusion sketch where they go visit John Paul Satre who’s “in one of ‘is bleedin’ moods.”
FWIW, I read it to Raber who became more and more annoyed until I got to the animal attack, and then he realized it was a joke.
Kudos to you, David N.
This exchange of ideas should be for those over the age of 18, with or without parental consent.
Peter–
Appreciate your apology, but it is certainly uncalled for. I also reread the quote from Love and Responsibility cited by Brugger,
“if a woman does not obtain natural gratification from the sexual act there is a danger that her experience of it will be qualitatively inferior, will not involve her fully as a person.”
I still find it profound, but maybe I’m just a sucker for a fellow Pole.
I can understand why people might find the Brugger piece unhelpful, certainly easy to mock, perhaps even misdirected. What surprises me is the level of contempt it has engendered. Does anyone doubt he’s just trying to help? I wonder what proportion of those supremely offended by it have been happily married (to the same spouse) for an extended period of time. Just wondering.
The textbook on the Spiritual Life by the french author Tanquerey that was used in the seminaries of the US in the 50′s to the 70′s used an aphorism that instructed future priests to avoid contact with women because they might be “an occasion of sin”. “Fugite Muliers tamquam leones.” (Flee woman just as you would lions.) Maybe some of that lingering attitude may account for why married women have not been consulted by priests.
Jim Casey
Vintage Proska! Raise doubts about the morals of the naysayers by “just wondering” how many people have been married for an extended period of time.
But I’ll bite. I’m 56. Married once. To the same man. For nearly 30 years. Faithful all that time.
I make no assumptions about Brugger’s motives. I can’t see into his soul. I merely find his notions about women incredibly misinformed and offensive.
I changed my mind. The clergy should never talk about sex in marriage except to quote Paul when he said the husband should cater to the wife and vice versa. Nice and simple. So who will teach the clergy about the beatitudes.
Jean—
I have refrained from responding to your ad homines towards me—I’m at a loss to understand where they come from as it is atypical of you and I don’t believe I’ve ever addressed you in that way (if I have, I apologize)—but this time think it best to clarify so that you can better understand my point. Far from doubting the “morals” of others who have not been married for an extended period of time (I think we all know people we respect and admire—even talk show hosts—who have had troubles in their marriage(s)), I was actually pushing back on the view that only certain people have standing on such matters. One of the themes I gather from some of the comments on this thread, and elsewhere, is that the Church and the clergy should “stay out of the bedroom” because what the hell can they possibly know about that any way. Ok, so if that’s the prerequisite, why should we listen to *anyone* who has not been married for a long time? For the record, I think each (the clergy, the divorced, the never married) can provide unique and valuable insights, and we would do well to integrate them all as we formulate our views.
Bill—
I agree with you that the clergy could do worse than to use St. Paul’s passage as their sole guidance when preaching on how a husband and wife should express their love for each other. I think Professor Brugger’s piece was his attempt to show how that could play out in one aspect of their relationship. Though it may have been a bit clumsy and a bit constricted, it was focused on the importance of thinking of the other—of giving–which is the essence of Paul.
“I was actually pushing back on the view that only certain people have standing on such matters.”
Mark, I understood completely that you want to protest that a) at least Brugger is moving in the right direction and that b) not only long-married people are qualified to speak about sexuality.
History is littered with people who were going in the right direction and went badly off the rails–Margaret Sanger, who was concerned about the welfare of women made ill by too many pregnancies with too little medical care; William Randolph Hearst, whose papers exposed a lot of corruption, but who meddled in the Spanish American War; Che Guevara, who wanted to free his people from tyranny, and fomented revolution and death around the world.
I don’t really understand why you feel the need to find something redeeming in Brugger.
Charity requires me to beg your pardon for hurting your feelings, though characterizing my comments as an “attack” strikes me as something of an overstatement.
Also in Christian charity, might I suggest that you develop a tougher hide if you are going to throw snark around (most recent of many examples, your Democrat Thankgsiving turkey remark)? If you want to tweak others–all in good fun, I’m sure–you must expect to be tweaked in return.
It certainly appears as if the same cast of characters who do not believe we should practice our Faith in public, would rather we not practice our Faith in private. Perhaps the problem is there are some who do not believe that at the end of The Day, Love matters.
I wish you Peace in Christ.
[...] The Strange Langauage of Traditional Catholic Sexual Ethics: A Case Study (commonwealmagazine.org) [...]