A dangerous article?

We have all been aware of the fuss made about Pope Benedict’s recently published article on morality and the Church. Here I reproduce a comment written by Thomas Reece in the National Catholic Reporter.

“Most of the media attention since a German Catholic magazine published Benedict’s 6,000-word statement has been focused on Benedict blaming the sex abuse crisis on the collapse of sexual standards in the 1960s….But Benedict also wants to blame sex abuse on contemporary moral theologians who challenged the church’s traditional, natural law ethics, especially as it applied to sexual ethics. Contemporary moral theology is less rule-based and, rather, takes a more personalistic and relational approach. Challenging the Church’s opposition to birth control, as did most theologians, opened the floodgates to all sorts of sexual sins, including child abuse, in his view.”
Reece’s text is at: https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/signs-times/benedicts-unfortunate-letter-ignores-facts-catholic-sex-abuse-crisis.
Benedict’s complete text is at: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/full-text-pope-emeritus-benedict-xvi-lays-out-thoughts-on-abuse-crisis

There are some interesting points here for us to consider. The first thing that strikes me is that whether natural law is true or bunkum it is not difficult to see that sexual abuse of the young is simply wickedness. And that wickedness is mightily increased when a cleric uses his standing and authority not only to achieve his ends but also to protect himself from the consequences.

We might usefully probe the concept of the Natural Law. Of course it existed, under other names, as a key to morality long before the Church was founded. The assumption was quite simple: if we act in a way which conforms with human nature, we flourish. If we do the opposite we damage ourselves and the others involved. A simple example would be our realisation that human beings are by nature social beings. Thus stealing or lying, being inconsistent with the needs of society, are against the Natural Law.

When the Church developed the details of Natural Law much attention was paid to sexual questions. Since nothing was originally known about evolution, biology became the immediate evidence. Given God’s direct creation, biology told us precisely how we should, and shouldn’t, behave. Thus, to take the most obvious example, the creation of the reproductive organs clearly told us that homosexual relations defied God’s creative will – and thus was directly wicked. Today we might still accept that homosexual behaviour involves a biological mismatch, but we might now take into account the question of homosexual orientation, and committed homosexual relationships..

In fact Natural Law is not a fixed code. It cannot be because it is based on nature, and since we continuously develop our understanding of nature we must always be open to modifying our verdict. For example the controversy over artificial birth control was between those who held that the structure of sexual intercourse was the overriding principle and those who held that the relational needs of marriage should prevail. Josef Fuchs, the great Natural Law theologian, eventually concluded that married women had a clearer view of Natural Law in marriage than the official Church. We may agree or disagree.

Finally, we may consider whether or what aspects of the Church’s teaching and its hierarchical nature may have contributed both to the occurrence of abuse and the failure to control it

(Earlier this week an editorial article in NCR relevant to this theme was published at https://www.ncronline.org/news/accountability/editorial-one-pope-quite-enough?clickSource=email )

About Quentin

Science Editor, Catholic Herald. Portrait © Jacqueline Alma
This entry was posted in Church and Society, Moral judgment, Quentin queries, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to A dangerous article?

  1. Nektarios says:

    Quentin

    We seem, yet again to be returning to a subject normal, sex and related issues.

    From the preamble to the topic, you quote “Benedict blaming the sex abuse crisis on the collapse of sexual standards in the 1960s….But Benedict also wants to blame sex abuse on contemporary moral theologians who challenged the church’s traditional, natural law ethics, especially as it applied to sexual ethics. Contemporary moral theology is less rule-based and, rather, takes a more personalistic and relational approach. Challenging the Church’s opposition to birth control, as did most theologians, opened the floodgates to all sorts of sexual sins, including child abuse, in his view.”

    I sometimes wonder what world these hierarchs and moral theologians live in. This seems to be blaming others as damage limitation for the Catholic Church. But the Church is comprised of people having their own sins to repent of and yet at the same time, horrified by such vile sex sins and crimes. How many people sitting in the pews. how many priests, are listening to moral theologians old and modern these days, not many I suspect?

    Obviously, the source of all this lies in our fallen nature, and all these problems did not arise in the 1960s, but since man fell from his first state these sins have been around.
    It is our old nature that is the source of the problem.

    Again obviously, natural law ethics, sexual ethics and moral theological approaches have not worked. It does not matter if it is contemporary moral theology taking a personalistic and rational approach, it simply does not work for the obvious reason, all these approaches are incapable of dealing with our old nature.

    So what is the solution to all these sexual problems and crimes?

  2. Nektarios says:

    Quentin

    We seem, yet again to be returning to a subject normal, sex and related issues.

    From the preamble to the topic, you quote “Benedict blaming the sex abuse crisis on the collapse of sexual standards in the 1960s….But Benedict also wants to blame sex abuse on contemporary moral theologians who challenged the church’s traditional, natural law ethics, especially as it applied to sexual ethics. Contemporary moral theology is less rule-based and, rather, takes a more personalistic and relational approach. Challenging the Church’s opposition to birth control, as did most theologians, opened the floodgates to all sorts of sexual sins, including child abuse, in his view.”

    I sometimes wonder what world these hierarchs and moral theologians live in. This seems to be blaming others as damage limitation for the Catholic Church. But the Church is comprised of people having their own sins to repent of and yet at the same time, horrified by such vile sex sins and crimes. How many people sitting in the pews. how many priests, are listening to moral theologians old and modern these days, not many I suspect?

    Obviously, the source of all this lies in our fallen nature, and all these problems did not arise in the 1960s, but since man fell from his first state these sins have been around.
    It is our old nature that is the source of the problem.

    Again obviously, natural law ethics, sexual ethics and moral theological approaches have not worked. It does not matter if it is contemporary moral theology taking a personalistic and relational approach, it simply does not work for the obvious reason, all these approaches are incapable of dealing with our old nature.

    So what is the solution to all these sexual problems and crimes?

  3. Nektarios says:

    I read through the excerpts of Benedict’s answer to all this before it was taken down early this morning, it was quite long, blaming this one and that one, trying to give answers, but the truth of the matter is, these issues of sexual matters are a part of a nature that is fallen.
    It is sheer arrogance to think the ingenuity of man can solve it, short of destroying the sex life or the person altogether. They have tried everything medication, clinical psychiatry, psycho-analysis, prison &c., but they have maybe observed a little, learned a little, but what to do to cure it eludes them.
    Some think it is therefore incurable like psychopaths so nothing is effectively done.
    Oh, we have tried fear tactics, shaming such sexual predators and the like. It also goes to show ramming morality down one’s throat by religious has never worked.

    So what does?
    The expulsive power of a new nature in Christ.
    Our Lord was asked about marriage in heaven, to which He replied, ‘In heaven one is not given in marriage. There is neither male or female in heaven but are as the angels.’

    In heaven, neither sin of the old nature, or the memory of it exists, neither the desire for sex.
    Lest that depresses anyone, our Lord adds that ‘ the least in heaven is greater than the greatest on earth.

    Only living this new life in Christ, in the Spirit, has the power to overcome the old nature.
    It will never be easy. Till we pass away, we carry our old nature and will have to do battle with it till our last breath. But overcome it does.

  4. David Smith says:

    Nektarios writes:

    // It is sheer arrogance to think the ingenuity of man can solve it, short of destroying the sex life or the person altogether. They have tried everything medication, clinical psychiatry, psycho-analysis, prison &c., but they have maybe observed a little, learned a little, but what to do to cure it eludes them.

    Some think it is therefore incurable like psychopaths so nothing is effectively done.
    Oh, we have tried fear tactics, shaming such sexual predators and the like. It also goes to show ramming morality down one’s throat by religious has never worked.

    So what does?

    The expulsive power of a new nature in Christ.

    Our Lord was asked about marriage in heaven, to which He replied, ‘In heaven one is not given in marriage. There is neither male or female in heaven but are as the angels.’ //

    I’m inclined to agree with you, Nektarios, at least in the sense that mankind’s primitive urges will out in the end, in one way or another, no matter what restrictions societies put on them. But I think that with no sexual standards for individual behavior beyond saying that absolutely everything’s acceptable so long as it does not directly seriously harm another human being, we’re going to have a pretty dreadful public square. In fact, we already do. I’m disinclined to just smile and accept that. Humans have in the past shown that we can do far, far better. Accepting the Decalogue was a good start. Church thinkers have built on that, carefully and clearly explicating how the human creature can best tame his inner beast in the service of his fellows and his God. But now, in just the past half century, a large and influential contingent in the church hierarchy have simply thrown all that out, apparently believing that a right to unfettered individual freedom of behavior trumps any obligation of individuals to treat their fellows with respect, restraint, and reverence.

    Benedict’s little essay – it runs to only about twenty pages – is a breath of fresh air in a conversation that, unfortunately, thanks largely to the aggressive bias of the secular and secularized media, has been nearly monopolized by the relativists.

  5. Nektarios says:

    David Smith

    Yes, the Decalogue was not a start. David, It was the eternal word of God to fallen man, that
    would help him live in balance with God and man.
    But take a second look at the Decalogue, only to find, none of humanity, apart from the Son of God,
    kept it.
    Take a third look at the Decalogue, now we see religious people inventing rules and regulations and subsidiary laws appearing to keep the Law. So neither they or the Church thinkers or religious understood aright what the Law or the Decalogue was really all about. They did not realise the depths to which sin has run and how it has affected all the faculties one way or another.
    Take a fourth look at the Decalogue to see what God’s standard and judgement were on breaking the Decalogue, it was death.

    Take a fifth look at breaking God’s decalogue, was what ensued, guilt, fear, all manner of sorrows,
    sexual depravity in thought as well as deed. the breaking out of all manner of sin adding to his lostness, and Man now hopeless, hapless in the power of sin in him/her.

    Take a sixth look at the Decalogue, Man had become a rebel against God, and despite outward appearances had no intentions of serving Him.

    Hopeless, hapless and lost, in rebellion and without God, what was God to do?
    You see, when God created man it was good, but not totally stable there was the possibility of failure and falling into sin.

  6. Nektarios says:

    Let this now be a lesson or two for us all.

    If Man was capable of extricating himself religiously, theologically, philosophically, from the power of sin in his nature by whatever means, God the Father would never have sent the Son nor the Holy Spirit.
    But Man had fallen into sin and was spiritually dead. He could not rise to heaven to be reunited to God, and despite all the sorrows and death physically at the end, He did not want to.
    Many seemingly want to and are religious, attempts are made to love God, but of ourselves, the situation was and for those who continue along their own path, hopeless and ends in failure.

    But God takes responsibility for His creation and knew what was going to happen to Man before the world was made.
    God so loved the world, he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever would believe in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3:16.

    What does this believing in Him mean? It certainly doesn’t mean hold a mere opinion about Him.
    The latter part of John 3:16 is telling us, ‘should not perish but have everlasting life.
    God is giving something now, that Adam never had, stability, immovable stability, for that is the nature of God and His life.
    In other words, we are receiving His life which is everlasting. Wow!

  7. John Nolan says:

    Having made the (regrettable) decision to abdicate, Benedict should have followed the precedent set by Gregory XII, the last pope to do so in 1415. He could have assumed a titular bishopric and remained a cardinal; due to his age he would not have had voting rights.

    He would then be as free as any other retired bishop to make his views known, even to the extent of advising his successor, without the suggestion that he represented an alternative magisterium.

    In the academic world the term ’emeritus’ is an honorific, but does not necessarily mean that the person so described has relinquished all the duties of his former position. Moreover, Benedict assumed the title himself – it would have been better had his successor conferred it upon him.

    A more serious challenge to what many see as the Francis agenda is coming from Cardinal Gerhard Müller. Aged only 71, he will be a major voice in the next Conclave. He is no reactionary; on issues such as ecumenism and ‘liberation theology’ he has taken a liberal line. However, he is a heavyweight theologian and not afraid to defend Church teaching with forthrightness and clarity.

  8. David Smith says:

    Benedict prepared this essay to be made available as background material to the recent bishops’ conference on the sex scandals in the church. It details a few simple truths about the sexual and theological revolutions that the present pope seems to want not spoken aloud in public, and Francis blocked it. But it needed to be heard, and, thank heaven, Benedict saw to that.

    John, your reason for criticizing Benedict for speaking out seems to be procedural. I think procedural niceties are far too small stuff to be allowed to be used as a club to close down a debate that is of such vital importance. Clearly, Benedict chose the sort of retirement he did so that he would retain the influence he now has. I’m glad he did.

  9. milliganp says:

    I think a few points need considering:-
    1) Pope Benedict resigned of his own free will and in possession of the same acute intellect he continues to exhibit.
    2) It would appear that part of his reasoning was that he could not personally deal with the sex abuse scandal as he made a specific point of passing on the details known to him to his successor in person.
    3) We are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit guides the conclave in discerning the choice of the successor to Peter and continues to inspire that successor in the execution of the office of Pope.

    Given the above, it might be reasonable to believe that God is working in some way towards a future where the church is more largely free of the scandal of clerical abuse and other clerical abuses of power but with an authority based on the exercise of love rather than power.

  10. milliganp says:

    It is beyond my limited formation to disagree with Pope Emeritus Benedict’s theology but I can disagree with his analysis of history, that thing we call “the sexual revolution” and the causes and origin of sexual abuse by priests.
    The student revolutions of the 60’s were largely influenced by Marxism and anarchist thinking. Germany, France and Italy had all experience fascist government and thus Marxism offered an attractive alternative to those opposed to it. Britain had a much milder version of this epidemic perhaps because we hadn’t experience Fascism except by fighting it during WWII.
    The 60’s were also a time of sexual revolution, independent but interwoven with the political movements (Marxism, in particular, saw undermining the family as an essential adjunct to class warfare). However it would be wrong to conflate these two revolutions, which is what I think Benedict has done. The sexual revolution has had many benefits, particularly for women but also for heterosexual men who are no longer tied to previous patriarchal male stereotypes.
    The homosexual revolution occurred a good decade later and so conflating it with the other changes of the 60’s can only lead to an erroneous analysis of the roots of the sexual abuse scandals in the church.
    Many of the priests (an at least one cardinal) involved in child sexual abuse were formed and ordained prior to the 60’s (Maciel was ordained in 1944 and McCarrick in 1957), thus to make the sexual revolution of the 60’s the primal cause of clerical sexual abuse has to be erroneous.
    As part of the work of the Catholic Church in England and Wales carried out to try and prevent future sexual abuse the root causes were identified as immature sexual formation and sexual repression. This analysis fits the behaviour and experience of abuse we have seen most commonly in the news. The old practice of admitting children into junior seminaries and these children having to go through puberty in an enclosed, all male environment with a strong emphasis on repressing sexual urges and development is now considered unhealthy and a primary factor in the abuse of the past.
    I spent a considerable part of my life as an engineer fixing complex computer systems and networks and it was essential, in fixing problems, to clearly identify the cause. With all possible respect to the Pope Emeritus, I believe his diagnosis is wrong and thus his solution incapable of fixing the problem.

    • Martha says:

      The old practice of admitting children into junior seminaries and these children having to go through puberty in an enclosed, all male environment with a strong emphasis on repressing sexual urges and development is now considered unhealthy and a primary factor in the abuse of the past.

      It was customary in the early years of the church in this country for boys to start even earlier in religious life. In the seventh century for instance, the Venerable Bede was sent to a monastery for education at the age of seven, and transferred two years later to one newly opened at Jarrow where he became a monk, and stayed for the rest of his life. I wonder if this is considered to have caused a similar problem then?

      • John Nolan says:

        Also it was not unusual for boys to be sent to boarding school at the age of eight and remain in a cloistered male environment (at least in term-time) for the next ten years. Co-education in the independent sector is a fairly recent development and is a result of financial rather than pedagogical or social considerations.

      • Quentin says:

        That describes my time of 10 years at a Jesuit boarding school. I knew of no abuse incidents, except one possible occasion. Sexual relations between pairs of boys certainly occurred, but were not frequent. Nobody tried it on me, but then I was a revolting child.

      • milliganp says:

        To try and deduce the practices, strengths and weaknesses of entire monastic communities over 1000 years ago based on the life of one saint is likely to be unfruitful.
        What we do know was that Scholasticism had, as one of it’s foundations, Greek philosophy and the Greeks seemed to be tolerant of relationships between adult males and pubescent boys.

  11. Nektarios says:

    Milliganp
    Your analysis is correct, especially your conclusions. “As part of the work of the Catholic Church in England and Wales carried out to try and prevent future sexual abuse the root causes were identified as the immature sexual formation and sexual repression. This analysis fits the behaviour and experience of abuse we have seen most commonly in the news. The old practice of admitting children into junior seminaries and these children having to go through puberty in an enclosed, all-male environment with a strong emphasis on repressing sexual urges and development is now considered unhealthy and a primary factor in the abuse of the past.
    I spent a considerable part of my life as an engineer fixing complex computer systems and networks and it was essential, in fixing problems, to clearly identify the cause. With all possible respect to the Pope Emeritus, I believe his diagnosis is wrong and thus his solution incapable of fixing the problem.”
    This comes back to what I posted at the beginning of this topic, “So what is the solution to all these sexual problems and crimes?”
    It is obvious that a fallen nature which is the source of this sexual thinking and much of other behaviour today is nothing new. The problem is the old nature is infected by sin, affecting the mind, the will and the heart.
    Modifying the old nature religiously, as millions have done and incorrectly assuming they are Christians will not change anything, is powerless and doomed to failure.
    So an old sinful nature trying to fix the problem is not able to do that, something else is needed.
    As our Lord Jesus Christ pointed out,” Without Me, you can do nothing.”
    All the erudite thinking and mechanical outworking practice are doomed to failure, yet so many persist in thinking it can help.
    Only when we come to see all our faculties are infected by sin, our habits and practice religiously and otherwise is there any hope of seeking the real and effective solution.

  12. FZM says:

    As part of the work of the Catholic Church in England and Wales carried out to try and prevent future sexual abuse the root causes were identified as immature sexual formation and sexual repression. This analysis fits the behaviour and experience of abuse we have seen most commonly in the news. The old practice of admitting children into junior seminaries and these children having to go through puberty in an enclosed, all male environment with a strong emphasis on repressing sexual urges and development is now considered unhealthy and a primary factor in the abuse of the past.

    I can see how a mature level of sexual and spiritual formation would be necessary to take on a lifelong vow of celibacy. But is it true that a person is much more likely to become a paedophile (or abuser of adolescents) if they are brought up in a single sex environment with a strong emphasis on repressing sexual urges?

    I thought the abuse scandals in the church have been so bad because of things like the privileged access to young people the perpetrators enjoyed, the social/spiritual status of priests and religious making them more immune from challenge and the way bishops and others didn’t remove abusers from contact with children/adolescents when concerns were raised. Not that priests and religious were more likely to be made into paedophiles by their education than the rest of the population.

    The sexual revolution has had many benefits, particularly for women but also for heterosexual men who are no longer tied to previous patriarchal male stereotypes.

    This seems far from the truth in some respects. Men who successfully conform to patriarchal male stereotypes tend to be the ones desired sexually by most young women.

    • Quentin says:

      You may be interested in the BBC1 Panorama 29 April. Scandal in the Church of England. 30 minutes. It helps us to distinguish what differences, if any, there are between Anglican and RC clergy and hierarchy.

      • Nektarios says:

        Quentin
        I did watch the Panorama last night. I don’t get it, after all that programme showed all you can think about it is to help ‘distinguish what differences, if any, there are between Anglican and RC clergy and hierarchy.’
        It is showing a powerlessness to do anything about it. And, if you could do something about it, what would that consist of?

    • milliganp says:

      EZM, perhaps I should have said significant rather than principle. Another major factor in abusers is that they themselves were abused as children. Of course, privileged access and status then makes abuse easier and less likely to be detected.
      I would question your source on the ‘desirability’ of patriarchal males. Amongst my daughters and their friends partners and husbands seem to be chosen for their ability to help with child care. housekeeping and cooking.

  13. milliganp says:

    I think we need to consider separately the orientation towards being abusive and the environments where abuse is possible. There is no doubt that the deference afforded to priests and others who exercise authority increases the opportunity that privileged abusers have, both to abuse and to go undetected.
    The Catholic Priesthood is not alone in this; we have had scandals amongst care workers, political leaders, police, judges and others. I would not be surprised if the British public-school system were not a root cause of some of this abuse.
    It is also worth remembering that having been abused is itself a source of abuse. The Catholic paedophile situation is only one of many but the main point I was trying to make is that its origins are not in the sexual revolution of the 60’s.

  14. Martha says:

    With respect, Milliganp, I think historical context is important and well worth thinking about, and it seems to be contributing a little to the discussion. Bede is just one very well known example of a long established practice.

  15. milliganp says:

    The Second Vatican Council happened while I was a child and the Catholic church has shown little predisposition to caring about the voice of the laity. At the age of 46 I was introduced to the major documents of the council and I was deeply affected by the opening words of Gaudium et Spes –

    “The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the men of this age, especially those who are poor or in any way afflicted, these are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human fails to raise an echo in their hearts. For theirs is a community composed of men. United in Christ, they are led by the Holy Spirit in their journey to the Kingdom of their Father and they have welcomed the news of salvation which is meant for every man. That is why this community realizes that it is truly linked with mankind and its history by the deepest of bonds.”

    This informed -for me, more than any other document, my formation in the permanent Diaconate; I wonder – at what point did Pope Emeritus Benedict cease to believe this?

    • John Nolan says:

      I understand that Ratzinger distanced himself from the facile optimism of Gaudium et Spes decades ago. So much of Vatican II now looks decidedly dated – G&S partcularly so.

  16. ignatius says:

    I’ve spent the last 4 years or so working as Catholic chaplain in a sex offenders prison and I think I can fairly safely say that the ‘sexual revolution’ of the sixties is barely relevant to the men I know there.

    Interestingly, our prison has only been a specialised unit for 5 years, before that time it was a mainstream institution. When I pick the brains of long term staff on the subject they tell me that sex offenders ‘do religion in a big way’ in contrast to the general prison population who it seems ‘didn’t do religion’ in such a big way.. This applies to all denominations and across the full religious spectrum. I tend to agree, in our prison a much higher proportion of inmates attend religious services than would in the outside world..of course there are many reasons for this but it is nonetheless a striking feature of prison life where I work

    It does seem to me perfectly obvious that religious institutions, probably of all types, will attract, as part of life, those with psychosexual issues since these often involve repressive/ secretive backgrounds within families. I would guess almost any institutional regime might be attractive from that perspective.

    To be honest I have come to regard simplistic answers, particularly religiously based ones, as shockingly naive and hopelessly narrow in their thinking. In many ways one could simply point to technological change as being a motor for today’s explosion of conviction rates among sex offenders many of whom leave traceable online footprints leading to their own downfall. This does not, of course apply to historical concerns.

    Finally it is simply NOT TRUE that sex offenders per sec are ‘incurable’ A high proportion do not relapse and their offences are often from within their own families and are thus specific to personal histories.

  17. Nektarios says:

    It saddens me somewhat to think as many contributors have when touching on this topic of sex and sexual abuse can possibly think that those running the institution of the Church are the right people and to accept what they say at all on this issue in the light of historic and recent disclosures of the many misdemeanours.

    Who or what is the institution serving? It is self-serving if anything and the institutions are only there to exercise an earthy power and rule over others who cannot or are not allowed to question it.

    But, and listen up, the Lord in Zion has seen everything, knows everything and is about to act.
    Our opinions won’t matter so limited as we are, for He is about to move by the Holy Spirit, to revive the nations of the West.

    In the days to come, watch, and see what He is going to do in the Middle East and in Israel.
    Leaders of the Islamic religion are going to start talking out against Islam.
    The Lord is going to bring them too, and they will become Christians, Children of the Most High God as well.
    There is going to be a revival the likes of which has never been seen before around the world by the Holy Spirit.

    The days are almost upon us when the power of the Churches which are already dwindling will be reduced to almost nothing.

    Where will all the people go and those who have yet to come, go?
    The Lord from His holy Hill in Zion will bring into being what will come to be to pass, where on practically every street there will be a house Church, around the world, filled with the faithful people of God.

    This is all a precursor to His imminent return which we all look and wait for.

  18. Nektarios says:

    The problem we have with these sexual problems and abuses has to do with the individual, right?
    So let us look at this. We are all composed of three main parts. The body, soul and the spirit.
    The soul is comprised of the mind the will and emotions.
    The spirit in a man is force or life force.

    Now the natural man is dead spiritually, but alive physically. Such do not have the force of the life spirit, so such act out of the soul with its functions of mind, will and emotions or heart.

    Those who in particular here who are under the power of the mind, think about sex, are frustrated all day long off and on they think of little else all day long until gratified in some way or perverted way.

    The soul seeks expression through the sensation of the body. For such, are not able to overcome because they are not open to the life force and are therefore subject to the senses. These are souls that are called sensual and so do not or cannot access their force, or life force.

    Man is meant to operate in a tripartite way body, soul and spirit.
    How are we to access the spirit in us? for with that, we can become overcomers in every situation.
    I suppose you want to know about the spirit in man? How to activate that in a soul?

  19. ignatius says:

    Actually I’d much rather you left it right here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s