Is asexuality sinful?

[DeltaAro]

Disclaimer: this post is more meant as entertainment. Do not to take it too seriously.

Since the Catholic Church declares that even wanking can be a MORTAL sin, is there ANYTHING that isn't sinful in Catholicism? Is asexuality sinful? At first it seems odd to believe that heavenly chaste asexuals could sexually sin (of course their gluttony is serious and most likely constitutes a mortal sin) – but wait!

 

Asexuality falls under “insensibility” (= you do not derive pleasure from carnal acts). In Summa Theologiae, Thomas Aquinas answers objections to the claim that “insensibility” is sinful:

 

Objection 3. Further, that which is a very effective means of avoiding sin would seem not to be sinful. Now the most effective remedy in avoiding sin is to shun pleasures, and this pertains to insensibility. For the Philosopher [Aristotle] says (Ethic. ii, 9) that "if we deny ourselves pleasures we are less liable to sin." Therefore there is nothing vicious in insensibility.

 

Reply to Objection 3. In order to avoid sin, pleasure must be shunned, not altogether, but so that it is not sought more than necessity requires.

 

So asexuality can be sinful? But what about all those celibate priests, monks or nuns?

 

Thomas Aquinas writes:

 

It must, however, be observed that it is sometimes praiseworthy, and even necessary for the sake of an end, to abstain from such pleasures as result from these operations. Thus, for the sake of the body's health, certain persons refrain from pleasures of meat, drink, and sex; as also for the fulfilment of certain engagements: thus athletes and soldiers have to deny themselves many pleasures, in order to fulfil their respective duties. On like manner penitents, in order to recover health of soul, have recourse to abstinence from pleasures, as a kind of diet, and those who are desirous of giving themselves up to contemplation and Divine things need much to refrain from carnal things. Nor do any of these things pertain to the vice of insensibility, because they are in accord with right reason.

 

Asexuals don't have such excuses, they don't shun sexual pleasures in accord with right reason, they simply don't desire them (or at least the sex-repulsed, non-libidonist asexuals).

 

So is asexuality sinful in Catholicism? But “asexuality” is not an act, it's a state… so is it more like a vice?

[Apathetic Echidna]

as this is a bit of fun I'll add something 

Quote

Corinthians 7:8-9  King James Version

⁸ I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

⁹ But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Translation via Urban Dictionary standards:

⁸yo, to all unmarried or widowed peeps it is good to be asexual or abstain. No sex FTW. 

⁹But if you desperately need sex in your life, go get married. Being unmarried and sexual is the path to The Dark Side . 

[NullVector]

9 hours ago, DeltaV said:

Asexuals don't have such excuses, they don't shun sexual pleasures in accord with right reason, they simply don't desire them (or at least the sex-repulsed, non-libidonist asexuals).

 

What's the position taken on divine beings? (I don't know my catholic theology very well, lol) Do any of the angels, say, feel desire towards carnal acts but are completely free of sinful intent and therefore don't act on these desires? Or, are they completely free of such carnal desire in the first place? If it's the latter, perhaps asexuals are of a partially divine nature? 

 

2 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

⁹But if you desperately need sex in your life, go get married. Being unmarried and sexual is the path to The Dark Side . 

Yeah, it's the aromantic sexuals who are the real sinners - probably @DeltaV was just projecting here 

[DeltaAro]

14 hours ago, NullVector said:

What's the position taken on divine beings? (I don't know my catholic theology very well, lol) Do any of the angels, say, feel desire towards carnal acts but are completely free of sinful intent and therefore don't act on these desires? Or, are they completely free of such carnal desire in the first place?

It seems the latter. IIRC Duns Scotus wrote that angels can experience “lust of the eyes”, which is one way for them to spiritually sin, like obviously the fallen angels did. So if we would go with this, they only experience aesthetic attraction.

 

Which is interesting, because then even stereotypical sex demons like succubi and incubi don't feel sexual attraction. They just act as if they would.

14 hours ago, NullVector said:

If it's the latter, perhaps asexuals are of a partially divine nature? 

Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi!

14 hours ago, NullVector said:

Yeah, it's the aromantic sexuals who are the real sinners - probably @DeltaV was just projecting here 

Well, modernity drives aromantic allosexuals to sin. In earlier times probably many of them would have tolerated arranged marriages pretty well (if the spouse had a somewhat decent character)…

 

Yes, yes, arranged marriages are really bad, don't take away people's freedoms in such a way!

 

Still, it seems more like the situation when Möngke Khan kidnapped the Parisian goldsmith Guillaume Boucher. Boucher was paid very well and had all freedoms in his personal life, but he couldn't leave the Mongol court and was forced to work them. So he was indeed no more than the Khan's slave. Wrong, sure, but not “recoil in horror”-wrong like an innocent person being enslaved to row in a galley.

17 hours ago, Apathetic Echidna said:

⁹But if you desperately need sex in your life, go get married. Being unmarried and sexual is the path to The Dark Side . 

The good thing about original holy scriptures (even the Quran) is that they're mostly very vague, so they can be interpreted in a different way. It's easy to say that St. Paul was just giving his personal opinion here; but trying to get away from the declared dogma that the divorced-and-remarried are so deeply sinful that they can't receive communion is a different matter (as we see with the considerable turmoil Pope Francis caused).

 

There seems to be a parallel between development of religions and information technologies:

1. At first there is some prophet or some original genius programmer.
2. Then many, many other people become inspired. There is uncontrolled growth of the religion or several different incompatible versions of the technology are developed (“Unix wars” or the good ol' proprietary HTML tags).
3. After some struggle an institution gains acceptance and canonization or standardization occurs. Everybody not following it is declared heretical or standard-violating. Big tomes of binding theological interpretation or monsters like the 800 page C++ library standard are written.
4. Soon the whole thing becomes sclerotic. Because of infallibility dogmas or legacy codebase it becomes extremely difficult to repeal past decisions.
5. The deadlock gets so serious that even what to everybody looks like mild changes on the outside will cause extreme opposition. Like catholic clergy accusing the Pope himself of heretical teachings:

   Quote

   Expressing “profound grief” and “filial devotion,” Catholic clergy and lay scholars from around the world have issued what they are calling a “Filial Correction” to Pope Francis for “propagating heresy.”

   The IT equivalent are endless “X considered harmful” articles.

6. In the final stages of such vexing impasses, the competitors are already evilly smiling. Only with great care and ingenuity one can escape the fate of becoming irrelevant.

[RavenAlyssa]

11Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." Matthew 19:11-12 (NIV)