So a saint 'recently' wrote this about women...

[ForeverFaithless]

It fills me with rage reading this article, I was raised as a Catholic but atheist for a long time now:

Former president Mary McAleese recalled a description of sex in marriage by St John Paul II in his book "Love and Responsibility".

As a young bishop, he wrote: "It is the very nature of the act that the man plays the active role and takes the initiative, while the woman is a comparatively passive partner whose function it is to accept and experience."

Her quote from the Polish Pope continued: "For the purpose of the sexual act it is enough for her to be passive and unresisting, so much so that it can even take place without her volition while she is in a state where she has no awareness at all of what is happening, for instance when she is asleep or unconscious."

Mrs McAleese then commented: "That is how we (women) are treated in the church."

She added that the late moral theologian Fr Seán Fagan had "called Pope John Paul out" on the passage concerned stating what she described as "the obvious".

The Irish priest had asked: "Can this really be Catholic Church teaching? It sounds like rape."

Mrs McAleese went on to observe that Pope John Paul had become a saint, while Fr Fagan had been silenced by the Vatican.

RTE news article

Wow, church enforcing marital rape.
Women, lie there and be a receptacle.

What is the context of the (original) piece as a whole?

As a stand-alone statement on what acceptable sex within a marriage could or should include, it would be reprehensible, but on the face of it, it reads simply as though stating that for sexual intercourse to take place, no deliberate action on the part of the woman is necessary. Surely the latter is simply biology?

As a stand-alone statement on what acceptable sex within a marriage could or should include, it would be reprehensible, but on the face of it, it reads simply as though stating that for sexual intercourse to take place, no deliberate action on the part of the woman is necessary. Surely the latter is simply biology?

So sex can’t take place if the woman is dominant and the man passive?! What rubbish

for instance when she is asleep or unconscious.

Stand alone statement or not, whatever context, thats rape. Out and out rape.

There's no mention of consent, rape.

A male who has sex under those conditions is no man in my eyes, rather a rapist.

ForeverFaithless

Did you read the article on the linked website?
Your headline doesn't reflect the facts just from reading the RTE piece, never mind digging any deeper.

In fact, the article quotes:
"Baroness Nuala O'Loan as underlining that everybody has a "duty not to quote anybody out of context so as to give an interpretation which is not justified"......
which I am afraid, is something of which you may be guilty.

Your article quotes Fr O'Higgins saying that...
"John Paul II was describing a pure biological fact but that "in the very next paragraph", he gave "his own view [Pope John Paul's view], the Catholic view, the view of any sane person that sexual relations demand consent from both parties".

The Catholic Church warrants much criticism for it's notions of women and sexuality- lets not undermine any argument, by misquoting a former Pope.

Well, that's what happened to Mary. God was the original rapist.

So this is the quote directly from his book, how would like to interpret?

"For the purpose of the sexual act it is enough for her to be passive and unresisting, so much so that it can even take place without her volition while she is in a state where she has no awareness at all of what is happening, for instance when she is asleep or unconscious."

I haven't read the book nor do I have it to hand.
Have you got the following paragraph which was quoted by O'Higgins?

I've had a quick Google and can't find the book online....but I did find this:
"in the same chapter he {John Paul} says: “From the point of view of another person, from the altruistic standpoint, it is necessary to insist that intercourse must not serve merely as a means of allowing sexual excitement to reach its climax in one of the partners, i.e., the man alone, but that climax must be reached in harmony, not at the expense of one partner, but with both partners fully involved. This is implicit in the principle which we have already so thoroughly analysed, and which excludes exploitation of the person, and insists on love. In the present case love demands that the reactions of the other person, the sexual ‘partner’ be fully taken into account”.

Sounds like consent to me.

Theres no explicit consent there.

Only that both should climax.

Sayingnit doesn't.atter whether you're conscious cannot be riddled away, its rape no matter the context.

Its contradictory, saying 'excludes exploitation and insists on love' yet, if you're asleep thats doesn't constitute rape

And yes, no consent when mary 'begat' jesus

So this is the quote directly from his book, how would like to interpret?

The article you linked says: in the very next paragraph", he gave "his own view, the Catholic view, the view of any sane person that sexual relations demand consent from both parties as PP has pointed out.

It that's true the point being made by JP2 is that sex can occur when a woman is passive or passed out, but should not. In other words quoting only half has turned a paragraph saying rape is bad into one which sounds rapey.

Later in the article McAlese herself says she's been misunderstood. She wasn't quoting JP2's description of 'passive' rape to suggest he was in favour (she acknowledges he doesn't) she was saying that the Church's treatment of women is like the rape that JP2 was criticising.

"You will see I made it clear I was using the extract as an analogy and was not using it as a comment on Pope John Paul's view on sexual intercourse.," she tells the prelates.

I think you have misunderstood. I don't think you can reasonably say that the former pope was supportive of rape. I would be tempted to ask MN to retitle the thread because I think her actual point is very valid:

"When my declaimers argue the Pope argued for full equality in sex I am inclined to make the obvious point then why not follow that logic and provide for their full equality in the Church in general.

Haven't we done this before? Or was I somewhere else?

The upshots, as I remember it, is that the Pope and McAlese were misquoted. The Pope's words were a squashing togeter of 2 paragraphs and ended up with him apparently saying the exact opposite of his words as written

As McAlese says in the RTE piece Limerick-based Catholic theologian Dr Thoms Finegan screwed up and has effectively slandered both her and the ex Pope!

I'd say he's talking about the nature of human sexual physiology.

And yes, no consent when mary 'begat' jesus

Well, except that she does, it's right there in the text. And it's always been considered important theologically that it was willed.

Mary consented. In fact there is an entire school of art showing the moment of her consent. It is of course depicted as submission to being a vessel rather than consent to sex, but whatever the process was supposed to be, it was specifically written down and portrayed visually and very beautifully for hundreds of years.

I'm an atheist. But religion is a major part of human culture and can be a really positive one. One of the reasons that there are prominent Catholic voices talking about transgender ideology in an intelligent way is that there is a profound and genuine respect for both kinds of human body in Catholic theology. It is the reason why the child abuse scandals have convulsed the church in a way I am not at all sure would be the case in other sects.

"I'm still a virgin. I was impregnated by God"

Yeah, right

a description of sex in marriage by St John Paul II

As Joe Dolce might say:

He no playa da game. He no make-a da rules.

Ah shaddupa yaface