Contra Mozilla

Thursday, July 18, 2013

Study Confirms: Catholics are Sexier (and Others Observations)

A recent study found that devout (meaning, among other things, regularly practicing) Catholics have better and more frequent sex than well, than anybody, really:
The notion that Catholics have better sex isn't a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published "Sex: The Catholic Experience," which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.
These aren't all good things, like for example that sex can be had for pleasure alone (that's called using the other person, and it's still a sin), but I wonder how much the people in this study though through their responses.

In unrelated news, Anthony Esolen has a column on Crisis Magazine's site about the insanity of separating gender from sex:
A man may or may not be Napoleon, according to circumstance.  If our neighbor thinks he is Napoleon, we rightly regard him as mad, because his thoughts and words and actions are not in accordance with reality.  If he thinks he is a prince and demands that we bow before him and kiss his signet ring, we call the men in white coats.  Sanity is the adequate response of the mind to the real thing: adaequatio mentis ad rem.  But at least the would-be Prince of Wales might have been the Prince of Wales; and who knows but by some bizarre concatenation of political upheavals, he might yet enjoy that exalted station.  But under no circumstances could he ever be the Princess of Wales.  To believe the first is to believe something that is not true, but is at least conceivable.  To believe the second is to believe what is not even conceivable.  It is not like believing that the moon is made of green cheese.  It is like believing that two and two are seven.
Last but not least, Taylor Marshall has a post for Strange Notions asking how atheists define love:
When mommy says to her one year old, “I love you,” the atheist says she is not expressing anything metaphysical or spiritual. In fact, says the atheist, the mother is verbalizing the instinct to preserve her species, just as a mommy zebra protects and fosters the growth of the baby zebra. That’s it. Nothing more. It is instinct combined with verbal tags. When a parent “loves” her child, she is just adding a verbal cue to an advanced evolutionary instinct to carry on the species. 
The same empirical reality is true between two lovers. For the atheist, nothing sacramental, metaphysical, or spiritual is happening in a loving relationship. The two don’t “become one flesh” as we say in Biblical and matrimonial language any more than a rooster and a hen “become one flesh.”

I guess that it is still possible for an atheist to say, "I love you" and mean "I want what is best for you or what will make you happy," but when this is divorced from God it rings a bit more hollow.


No comments:

Post a Comment