“IN THE beginning”, God instilled into us two basic appetites, for food, and for sex – for the preservation of the race. God made them pleasurable, so that it would be easy for us to cooperate. Why does the Catholic Church treat the two appetites so differently?

The first is celebrated, with the Church’s blessing. When we prepare a special meal, we choose the menu with care, provide sauces to add piquancy, select wines of fine vintage, aperitif to whet the appetite – and we thank God for his gifts before we begin to enjoy them. And this is right: God made it all and saw that it was good. Gluttony is one of the deadly sins least castigated by the Church. Christ was called a drunkard; the merry friar is part of history; and those two celebrated catholics, Chesterton and Belloc, were bon viveurs. “Whenever a catholic sun does shine, There’s always laughter and good red wine.” (Belloc). That is part of our catholic heritage.

So what about God’s gift of sex? Here we labour under a much darker past. A 4th century Church Father refers to ‘the corruption and wickedness of sexual desires’; another to ‘filthy copulation’. For many catholics, sex (until recently, perhaps) was a furtive affair, indulged in from a sense of duty, with no preparation or foreplay or fun. No aperitif, no saying of grace. The contrast with eating could hardly be more stark. Belloc might have written, “Wherever a catholic sun shines out, There’s guilty sex and fear and doubt.”

The Church’s view of sex as dirty was expressed in the ‘churching of women’ – the cleansing after childbirth. Antonia White summed it all up succinctly when she wrote, “The modern world has cheapened sex, but so has the Church by throwing so much mud at it.” When I was a little boy, I would put off going to the lavatory for as long as possible. I can still hear my mother’s voice, calling, “Don’t be dirty, John.” Early acquaintance with the Church’s puritanism had dire consequences for me later on.

And the nonsense about impure thoughts. St Paul writes, “To the pure, all thing are pure.” Why is it all right to anticipate a gourmet meal, but not a night in bed with a gorgeous girl? The perceived difference between meals and sex is amply illustrated by Frank McCourt, author of “Angela’s Ashes”. Brought up in the slums of Limerick, in abject poverty because of his father’s drink problem, he says, “You couldn’t throw a brick in Limerick without hitting a priest. They were always preaching the evils of sex, but never said anything against drink.” Why? Because many priests shared the drink problem with the laity, but were envious of the laity’s sexual freedom. The historian E. E. Y. Hales writes that sexual sins, later considered always so grave, were at the time of the Borgias thought of as comparatively minor. The reason is obvious: in those days, everyone from the Pope downwards was taking mistresses and having a great time.

There is no valid reason for the enormous difference in attitude to food and to sex. Rome knows it is missing out, and vents its pique on the laity – if we are to enjoy sex, we must pay a price. The people, thank God, have begun to rebel, and to ignore the unjustified ban on contraception – but the clergy’s attitude will change only when we have married priests, and women priests – and this cannot happen too soon.

-- Peter Woodleigh (peterwoodleigh@imesh.net), December 22, 2002

Answers

Jmj

Dear Moderator,
I hereby request the deletion of this thread.

The evildoer who posted it, Peter Woodleigh [Joan Storey?], has violated at least the spirit of the rules of the forum.
He/she has plagiarized an entire essay, without giving credit to the author. This is a error-filled piece of rubbish by one John Davis.
It is found at the site of a pathetic British "progressivist" (dissenting, if not heretical) group called Catholics for a Changing Church.

Thank you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 22, 2002.

While I agree that John's request for deletion of this inane diatribe is warranted, I will still take a moment to offer a couple of fairly obvious responses. If the moderator does decide to delete it, just delete my responses with it. Of course, some of my responses may be taken from scripture, and are thereby likely of little importance to either the poster or the writer of this piece. The Bible is pretty old-fashioned, and I'm sure he considers the Word of God, like the Church of God, largely irrelevant to modern society, unless "updated" by pseudo-intellectual modernists ...

Q: Why does the Catholic Church treat the two appetites so differently?

A: Could it possibly be because of such divine revelations as these?: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals" (1 Corinthians 6:9) "Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge". (Hebrews 13:4) Note that God does not seem overly concerned about people eating their way into Hell, but fornication is invariably listed as a deadly deviation from God's plan (at least in Bibles that have not been "updated").

Q: And the nonsense about impure thoughts. St Paul writes, �To the pure, all things are pure.� Why is it all right to anticipate a gourmet meal, but not a night in bed with a gorgeous girl?

A: In addition to the above reasons, try this on for size: "I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28)

Q: There is no valid reason for the enormous difference in attitude to food and to sex.

A: Yeah right! While it is true that some pitiable examples of humanity don't see a lot of difference between "let's do lunch" and "let's do sex", normal adults with a modicum of moral capacity, self-worth, and human dignity recognize the difference without a lot of searching. If you have fallen so low that neither human dignity nor moral conscience matters, and it's a purely rational difference you are looking for - having lunch doesn't produce offspring.

Q: the clergy�s attitude will change only when we have married priests, and women priests.

A: Well now, here is something I can fully agree with! You are right! The Church's "attitude" on matters of faith and morality will indeed change only when we have women priests - which is tantamount to saying that the church will stop preaching the fullness of truth only when Hell freezes over - and to that I give a resounding AMEN!

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 22, 2002.

well I for one thought this post was kinda interesting. Screwed up, but interesting, and maybe onto SOMETHING altho I'm not sure what.

So far only the obvious response occurs to me, which is that the Church treats sex and food differently because if you EAT too much you only get FAT (and THAT only gradually) , but if you have SEX the wrong way (ie outside of marriage), even just once- well- you might just get PREGNANT (and FAT!)!!

LOL! Well, there IS something to this......

But personally I think food AND sex are great. And as far s I know the Church does too.......

????

J.

-- Jane (jane@don't like spam.either), December 22, 2002.

Hey Peter... I would have read your post, but I suddenly got a headache.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), December 22, 2002.

Yes! Food and sex are both WONDERFUL things - when used PROPERLY.

Anyone who suffered indigestion after overindulging on Thanksgiving will probably agree that it might not be a bad idea to put some limits on how much you eat, what you eat, when you eat, with whom you eat, etc., etc., so as to avoid this horrible bloated feeling in the future.

Same with sex - it's WONDERFUL when you are (a) with the right person (b) under the right circumstances and (c) at the right time.

By the way, Peter, re your final sentence, we *already* have married priests - ever hear of the Eastern Rite churches? And yet we are STILL opposed to contraception. Go figure. :-)

-- Christine L. :-) (christine_lehman@hotmail.com), December 23, 2002.

Why is it all right to anticipate a gourmet meal, but not a night in bed with a gorgeous girl?

As long as that "gorgeous girl" is your wife, nothing is wrong.

There is no valid reason for the enormous difference in attitude to food and to sex. Rome knows it is missing out, and vents its pique on the laity – if we are to enjoy sex, we must pay a price

Yes there is, as was pointed out above, the results of each are vastly different. Why not make a similar comparison and say since the Church doesn't mind one praying daily it should be o.k. to shoot someone in the head when you feel like it? Doesn't make sense either, does it? Different rules apply to differnt things, why is that hard to understand? And to say that Rome is venting on the laity? Why slander the church? What does it gain you to falsely accuse good people of doing wrong?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), December 23, 2002.

To more or less imply that food and sex are on the same level, interms of human enjoyment is absurd beyond belief! The responsibility that comes with sex is INFINITY greater than eating food! For I could eat all day, and it only affects me, but irresponsible sexual behaviour involves the possible creation of another human being, and there has to be a proper context for that, which is called marriage.

Nothing is more idiotic today, then the so called educated masses, who are screwing around, and then getting abortions, and also getting sexual diseases of every kind simply because they treat sex on the same level as the enjoyment of food.

-- Gordon (gvink@yahoo.com), December 23, 2002.

" A: Could it possibly be because of such divine revelations as these?: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals" (1 Corinthians 6:9)"

I just have a comment. My Bible says "sexual perverts", not "homosexuals". The footnote states: "A wanring against laxity. Corinth was known in antiquity as a particularly licentious city. The libertines argued that satisfying sexual desire was like taking food to satisfy one's hinger. Paul rejects this analogy."

-- Chris (ChristopherMG2@aol.com), January 20, 2003.