This seems consistent with what I learned in CCD and Catholic school in the 90s-00s. We were always told that sexual pleasure was increased in a marriage and a sign of god blessing the marriage, whereas sexual pleasure outside of a marriage was cheap and damaging.
Edit: side note, I didn’t think this fucked me up until I got married and realized I’d felt ashamed every other time I’d had sex. I never believed in god, and this is pretty obviously trying to steer behavior, so I thought I was unaffected, but it’s still a brain virus
Being ashamed of and being shamed for sex has permeated into society, no one is completely immune to it.
It’s pretty common, but I’ve always been very sex positive, with zero shame about nudity or bodily functions. I don’t notice any shame since I got married ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Of course, I didn’t think there was any beforehand, so who knows
I don’t think this true, orientation certainly but I can’t imagine being shamed for or ashamed of sex
Yeah, nothing special here
I’m old, and I’m still discovering ways a fundamentalist upbringing fucked me up.
Do Catholics wank?
Does the Pope shit in the woods?
I… I don’t know? I don’t think so?
I don’t know why the headline made me Imagine the Pope getting really excited and calling all his homies in cause he found out what sex is
“Brothers, look, we had it wrong this whole time. It says ‘Celebrate’!”
Me learning about masturbation for the first time: 😳
The priest showing me: 🤫
“So are little boys!” — the clergy
That would be doctrinal breaktrough, but the long strings of popes saying whatever they find convenient at the moment tuned the formal requirements for pope to be infallible pretty high. And i won’t even mention that whatever cool thing Francis ever said as a pope have exactly zero influence on church reality.
That would be doctrinal breaktrough
No it wouldn’t. This is a standard way of talking about marriage in oppressive religions, including Catholicism
So by “relationships” he just meant “marriage” as church always did? It’s clear from the context he is not, since lower there is mentions of “same-sex relationships”, not to mention even the word itself suggest any something wider.
I think he’s intentionally vague when using the word relationships. The word does not explicitly mean any one thing. But yeah sex within marriage has always been praised in Christianity. It’s been a big selling point of marriage in general. I don’t see anything in the article to suggest he’s explicitly blessed homosexual sex or truly changed any doctrine.
Yeah, if that was taken on a face value then the acceptance of all kinds of extramarital relationships would be a big doctrinal change, but nothing is happening, as i noted in my first post.
Or is it the result of years of evolution to increase reproduction?
I guess we’re all God’s
petschildren and He wants us to keep reproducing. Evolution is compatible with believing in God. Now why He put my g spot inaide my ass can only be proof of His immense sense of humour.Theistic evolution believers: why not both
So is the pope speaking for/to God or not? Fucking Religions can’t even be consistent within their own made up framework.
If he’s standing it’s his own words.
If he’s sitting on his “throne” then it’s the word of God and the Pope is infallible.
Doesn’t make any sense rationally, but that’s how they differentiate.
He can say this progressive stuff while standing and it just pisses conservative Catholics off.
If he does it “from the throne” we’ll likely see a formal split and conservative Catholics may even nominate their own Pope and officially split.
So, as with any other person, when “on the throne” more shit comes out?
Is this actually true?
Do you mean is it Catholic doctorine?
Yep.
If you meant “does God literally speak thru the Pope but only when he’s on his special golden throne?”
Then no, it’s not true
The reason it’s only the word of God while he’s sitting on the throne is because the holy Spirit enters through his butt and talks through him like a puppet.
Most of the time the pope is no different from any other Catholic. He has a lot of respect by virtue of his post, but what he says is not the word of God.
This changes if he speaks “ex cathedra” (Latin for “from the chair”, the throne the previous poster is alluding to). Ex cathedra means the pope is defining dogma for all the faithful as the supreme pontiff of the Catholic Church. Think of it as the difference of the US president saying something in a private conversation vs. him issuing an executive order. When the pope speaks ex cathedra, he is considered infallible in the Catholic faith.
Popes rarely speak ex cathedra. Most of Catholic theology is settled, so there is rarely need to clarify anything. The last time it happened was in 1950 about the Assumption of Mary.
Papal (and church council) infallibility does mean that the Catholic Church can never change its mind about things like homosexual marriage and abortion. The Catholic Church says it is Christ’s church on earth, and is protected by the Holy Spirit from error that could lead Christians astray. Saying that they got something as vital as “what is and is not sin” wrong would undermine the church’s entire foundation.
deleted by creator
Fucking Religions can’t even be consistent within their own made up framework.
Speak for Christianity, don’t drag us with it.
No, they’re all full of shit
From your wording and the upvote ratio, I conclude this conversation is going nowhere, I hope you find the right path.
Make sure to protect your head when you get off that high horse, it’s quite the fall.
There is no right path, make the best of life you can and if the gods have a problem with that then they didn’t deserve worship to begin with.
Would you go to hell instead of me if I do that? (to rephrase it, would you take responsibility?) (you can’t)
I wonder if the choir boys feel the same way
IIRC Song of songs is all about s3x or the pleasure of it. I struggled when i first read it back when i was still one of them.
s3x
So juvenile…
@zephyreks Yeah, right. Claim it for God when I work so hard for it!
Pretty sure sexual pleasure is the result of friction, nerve endings, a bunch of neuro-chemicals, and a whole lot of fetishes. If anyone is letting us enjoy sexual pleasure, it’s the other department.
Friction. 🤮 No. NO.
Lubricated friction is still friction, but hey, whatever floats your boat I guess.
Sounds like they are into whatever soaks their boat.
deleted by creator
Hate to break it to you, but friction is literally what causes most of the sensation to be felt. Too much friction seems to be what you’re thinking of
Under half of women orgasm from penetration alone, and for about one in ten it’s outright painful. For me it does pretty much nothing. I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind. Nor whether kisses and general intimate closeness count as “sexual pleasure”.
I guess we could move to whether air and vibrations on clit count as friction, but I’m pretty sure that’s not what anyone had in mind.
At the risk of mansplaining, I suspect that actually was what they had in mind, though not exclusively. Friction doesn’t inherently mean PIV. Clitoral stimulation is still down to (the proper amount and application of) friction and (fuckloads of) nerve endings to sense it.
But more importantly, I also think that’s an overly simplistic way of seeing sexual gratification. Sex with a partner is sometimes less directly pleasurable, since the owner of the equipment often (though not always, thanks repression) knows best how to make it feel good, but sex with a partner is still usually better because of the intimacy that comes into play. And sex with a long-term partner can be exceptionally good, because you learn better and better what the other person needs.
(Obviously everyone is different though, and there are always going to be individuals with different experiences and preferences. The world is full of spectrums, not well-defined lines.)
Haven’t you heard the phrase “there were sparks between them”?
I mean, you want low friction, not no friction
Psh, my fetish is thrusting into an empty vacuum.
When there’s nothing there, you can pretend it’s absolutely anything.
Maybe that’s why I got so many boners during physics
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Cardinal Victor Manuel Fernández, who was appointed last July, came under fire for a book he wrote and published in the late 1990s entitled Mystical Passion: Spirituality and Sensuality.
The Pope had already tackled the vice of gluttony last week and there was no suggestion that his sermon on lust during Wednesday’s general audience was related to criticism of the cardinal.
In December, Cardinal Fernández introduced a text, later approved by Pope Francis, detailing guidelines allowing priests to bless same-sex couples relationships that were still considered sinful.
In a lengthy response posted online, Cardinal Müller said that a priest blessing a homosexual union would be committing a “sacrilegious and blasphemous act”.
Prelates around the world also released statements condemning the decision, including American conservatives, who have long been vocal in opposing the Pope’s plans for reforming the Catholic Church.
Tensions reached a nadir when the Pope evicted outspoken critic US Cardinal Raymond Burke from his Vatican apartment and revoked his salary.
The original article contains 437 words, the summary contains 161 words. Saved 63%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
UNLESS…
Catholic Church: Molesting Children via Godly Decree™
