tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post636798816261876895..comments2024-01-29T06:02:39.583-08:00Comments on Suzanne's Bookshelf: Robert George and the Manhattan DeclarationSuzanne McCarthyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-88607721049336695752010-01-05T07:51:44.608-08:002010-01-05T07:51:44.608-08:00I'm not surprised to hear/read this from a Cat...I'm not surprised to hear/read this from a Catholic professor. His Church's proscription against artificial birth control is a "camel's nose in the tent." Rome won't be happy until all non-procreative sexual activity or pleasure is halted. Catholic theologians will parse to death the difference between allowable "good" pleasure and unallowable/unacceptable "bad" pleasure. Pleasure for pleasure's sake is anathema. All such enjoyment must be dominated by "reason" so that every joy is consciously done for pleasing God and God alone; otherwise, it's concupiscence of the wrong sort.<br /><br />Give...me...a...break.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-28180599741338301472010-01-04T08:05:51.210-08:002010-01-04T08:05:51.210-08:00George is also quite short sighted on the meaning ...George is also quite short sighted on the meaning of one flesh. It has been my opinion that all references to becoming one flesh are primarily about emotional attachment and unity of life, not about having sex. But as Hebrew thinking often plays on words, when one has excellent emotional attachment and unity of life, then one has a better chance of having good sex.believer333https://www.blogger.com/profile/03480546499577897857noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-58709330611701475502010-01-04T03:09:53.929-08:002010-01-04T03:09:53.929-08:00Oh why does someone try to make spirituality so mi...Oh why does someone try to make spirituality so miserable? George might be focusing on his negative opinion concerning homosexual acts, but this statement against extra-coital orgasms certainly is not thoughtful towards women. As far as the latest surveys go, about 75% of women do not experience orgasm through intercourse alone. Since the female orgasm is not essential to reproduction, it is still a big question as to why it exists. To me it sounds reasonable that it exists primarily for pleasure. Limiting the pleasure of orgasm to intercourse alone is as silly as limiting flavor for food, lest one become gluttonous because of the pleasure of its taste.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12509596389764649667noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-45718089463004634172010-01-03T23:24:54.611-08:002010-01-03T23:24:54.611-08:00Michael,
You are absolutely right. The thing is t...Michael,<br /><br />You are absolutely right. The thing is that I would guess that most people completely discount what a bunch of priests have to say about sex. But George is attempting to give the Catholic view academic legitimacy.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-36224529429679069002010-01-03T23:21:40.600-08:002010-01-03T23:21:40.600-08:00AS Don said, George is rehashing the official Roma...AS Don said, George is rehashing the official Roman Catholic line on sex and marriage. The four-fold typology of masturbation, sodomy, fornication and adultery echoes something in Aquinas (I don't have the details now) that outlines typology of natural and unnatural sexual sins, the former including fornication and adultery and the latter including masturbation, sodomy (anal sex), other sex not using the proper organ and bestiality.<br /><br />George's stuff on procreative conjugality is pretty heavy on the fantasy but it is the official Roman Catholic line.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15356422488538820280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-70114679162737737532010-01-03T12:22:28.446-08:002010-01-03T12:22:28.446-08:00I don't think I can go into the ramifications ...I don't think I can go into the ramifications of the discussion about women and pleasure. It would have to be a little too graphic.<br /><br />However, in rereading this book I have found this, <br /><br />"Also many couples today regularly perform sexual acts together, but view their relationships as having nothing inherently connected to procreation (as on the second view). Both these types of relationships have at times been called "marriage."But these societies or arrangementments are fundamentally distinct from the intrinsic good of marriage.<br /><br />In the first two types of relationship, sexual acts are extrinsic to the personal communion of the couple. Only in the third type, only in marriage as a one-flesh union of spouses, is the sexual intercourse part of, or constitutive of, the personal bodily communion itself."<br /><br />He details that it is in the potential to be mother and father that man and woman become one flesh. It is their "procreative power," which would include "conception, gestation, and bearing and raising the child."<br /><br />"Thus in their sexuality, in the procreative potential which they share with each other, there is a dynamism toward fatherhood and motherhood, and so, a dynamism which extends the present unity of the spouses indefinitely into the future. This reality is the basis for the profound significance that most people rightly sense is attached to sexual intercourse."<br /><br />The odd thing is that on one level he is right. It is an overwhelming responsibility to bear a child with someone else. It is a binding commitment.<br /><br />On the other hand, he is completely wrong. I can't think of any society where all widows over 50 have been barred from remarriage and sexual intercourse.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-4025986134795032962010-01-03T11:47:20.840-08:002010-01-03T11:47:20.840-08:00I dunno, I think that George is a bit misogynistic...I dunno, I think that George is a bit misogynistic, as his view of sex is one seemingly of pleasure only to the male, or in that the female's soul purpose is childbearing, hence the fertile fantasy. Of course, I may be biased.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-55824421525216683822010-01-03T11:14:19.127-08:002010-01-03T11:14:19.127-08:00AFAIK, George is regugitating the RCC line on sex....AFAIK, George is regugitating the RCC line on sex. So these carefully crafted words in the MD are seen to mean different things to different people becuase they have different worldviews. This happens in political treaties.Donald Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07904992652259586383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-51185417506768966952010-01-02T21:18:51.460-08:002010-01-02T21:18:51.460-08:00I am not sure that he is misogynist. This is reall...I am not sure that he is misogynist. This is really an anti-homosexual book.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-45116757432534272282010-01-02T20:59:37.809-08:002010-01-02T20:59:37.809-08:00Is there a polite way to respond to this?
To take ...Is there a polite way to respond to this?<br />To take the most printable thing I can think of saying, does this mean that, since I'm definitely over fifty, that this guy only believes that I can only have God-approved sex with my husband if we're having some sort of fertility fantasy?<br /><br />why oh why oh why do these guys think they have an obligation to invent crazy moral hoops to jump through? (or limbo under) The most appalling thing about this ridiculous misogyny is what it reveals about their view of God. Monstrous and unbiblical.Lynnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982043538182690871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-44195472668084227332010-01-02T12:27:25.573-08:002010-01-02T12:27:25.573-08:00Yes, I read all the stuff about anti -Semitism, th...Yes, I read all the stuff about anti -Semitism, the group in Poland and the virulent right. From what I could see the connection was once removed, so I didn't pursue it. Maybe you are interested.Suzanne McCarthyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07033350578895908993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-58350206004891692312010-01-02T12:24:28.606-08:002010-01-02T12:24:28.606-08:00George is a sick puppy, that's for sure. Proof...George is a sick puppy, that's for sure. Proof again that the MDEC is a trouble thing. <br /><br />Moreover, George as ties to antisemitism, but that is another post.J. L. Wattshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01000798494472742263noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-44647464893882262142010-01-02T12:04:48.946-08:002010-01-02T12:04:48.946-08:00I would advise Mr. George to read the Song of Solo...I would advise Mr. George to read the Song of Solomon more carefully and with his eyes open to nuance in language.<br /><br />Sheesh.Kristenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08252374623355509404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19505042.post-3383825640907774672010-01-02T11:17:00.076-08:002010-01-02T11:17:00.076-08:00God knows better than these writers about what is ...God knows better than these writers about what is pleasure - whether it is by the death of Messiah in the Spirit or at a well where the water is served by Anointed to Anointed.<br /><br />Is death specifically male? As Circumcision was for the male only? No - male and female are not distinguished. Is the well image specifically female, as if the death was only for the male, or the male was not to be noted at a well? No - I could argue from a missing final 'he' on na`ar in Genesis (הַנַּעֲרָ) though it is vocalized to be a lass rather than a lad, but the female in the male is an adequate statement. None of us is without male and female, even if God were to say - see what I am showing you and do this - and come with me, and stay with me, for the night is far spent and the day is at hand, and I am with you in every aspect of your being, even this one.<br /><br />Let the saints be joyful on their beds.Bob MacDonaldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11335631079939764763noreply@blogger.com